Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > When you look at something then there is an image in you mind. The > image itself is not self-aware. The picture in your mind is not > observing itself. The eye cannot see itself. It is awareness which is > aware of the picture. In the same way, thoughts are being observed by > awareness. Thoughts are not self-aware themselves. > > This duality between the pure observer and the observed must exist, > or there would be no experience at all. > > /AL I understand what you are saying. If you look at a bottle, then there's the bottle and the awareness of the bottle (B). B is not aware of itself. Something is aware of B. Therefore, there must be x (awareness) which is aware of B. Here are some questions... When B appears, is it necessary to have awareness be aware of B? What is awareness anyways? Before you answer... When you say there's awareness always there, what does that mean? It means things come and go, yet the awareness remains, untouched, right? But, you see, this brings in time. If there's awareness of x, then that's all there is -- the awareness of x. Later you say, " well, there was awareness of x... then awareness of y... then awareness of z... the objects change but awareness remains the same. " The error here is that x, y, and z do not refer to each other. Let me demonstrate -- You have a thought..., let's call it Z... Z goes: [i was aware of x and y, the awareness remains while the x and y changed] The problem here is that there is no evidence that x and y ever existed! In that moment, there was just Z. x and y were part of Z. All there was, was Z! Within Z, the appearance of a subject (me, awareness) and an object make its appearance. x and y are contents of z. Make sense? Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > When you look at something then there is an image in you mind. The > > image itself is not self-aware. The picture in your mind is not > > observing itself. The eye cannot see itself. It is awareness which > is > > aware of the picture. In the same way, thoughts are being observed > by > > awareness. Thoughts are not self-aware themselves. > > > > This duality between the pure observer and the observed must exist, > > or there would be no experience at all. > > > > /AL > > I understand what you are saying. If you look at a bottle, then > there's the bottle and the awareness of the bottle (B). B is not > aware of itself. Something is aware of B. Therefore, there must be x > (awareness) which is aware of B. > > Here are some questions... > > When B appears, is it necessary to have awareness be aware of B? What > is awareness anyways? Before you answer... > > When you say there's awareness always there, what does that mean? It > means things come and go, yet the awareness remains, untouched, right? > > But, you see, this brings in time. If there's awareness of x, then > that's all there is -- the awareness of x. Later you say, " well, > there was awareness of x... then awareness of y... then awareness of > z... the objects change but awareness remains the same. " > > The error here is that x, y, and z do not refer to each other. Let me > demonstrate -- You have a thought..., let's call it Z... Z goes: > > [i was aware of x and y, the awareness remains while the x and y > changed] > > The problem here is that there is no evidence that x and y ever > existed! In that moment, there was just Z. x and y were part of Z. > All there was, was Z! Within Z, the appearance of a subject (me, > awareness) and an object make its appearance. x and y are contents of > z. > > Make sense? > > Joe The x, y and z _do_ relate to each other. Everything is interrelated or it would not exist. There is a 'you' there saying that x, y and z are not related, but you see, this 'you' is what makes x, y and z relate to each other in your mind, they are all related to 'you'! :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2004 Report Share Posted July 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > The x, y and z _do_ relate to each other. Everything is interrelated > or it would not exist. There is a 'you' there saying that x, y and z > are not related, but you see, this 'you' is what makes x, y and z > relate to each other in your mind, they are all related to 'you'! :- ) > > /AL The topic was about evidence for a changeless background of awareness. I said only through time and concepts is this background there. You've changed the topic to interrelatedness. Anyways... I'm not so sure about this background awareness anymore. When I look for permanence, it's not there. I have to conceptually posit a something which is aware of the change... to posit something changeless. Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2004 Report Share Posted July 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > The x, y and z _do_ relate to each other. Everything is > interrelated > > or it would not exist. There is a 'you' there saying that x, y and > z > > are not related, but you see, this 'you' is what makes x, y and z > > relate to each other in your mind, they are all related to 'you'! :- > ) > > > > /AL > > The topic was about evidence for a changeless background of > awareness. I said only through time and concepts is this background > there. > > You've changed the topic to interrelatedness. > > Anyways... I'm not so sure about this background awareness anymore. > When I look for permanence, it's not there. I have to conceptually > posit a something which is aware of the change... to posit something > changeless. > > Joe Ok, I wasn't thinking about permanence when writing about awareness as a changeless background. As I see it awareness is changeless in relation to change, but that does not mean that awareness is permanent. It could be that awareness in relation to something else other that what is observed is moving. But awareness _is_ changeless in the sense that 'it' can observe objects moving. It's like standing at the side of a railway and watch a train pass by. Then one will see a train moving. But for a person sitting in the train, the train would not be moving in relation to that person (the seat in the train the person sits in would not be moving away from him or her). Similarly, awareness does not move away from your brain, but things you observe in the world move in relation to your awareness. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2004 Report Share Posted July 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Ok, I wasn't thinking about permanence when writing about awareness > as a changeless background. As I see it awareness is changeless in > relation to change, but that does not mean that awareness is > permanent. It could be that awareness in relation to something else > other that what is observed is moving. But awareness _is_ changeless > in the sense that 'it' can observe objects moving. It's like standing > at the side of a railway and watch a train pass by. Then one will see > a train moving. But for a person sitting in the train, the train > would not be moving in relation to that person (the seat in the train > the person sits in would not be moving away from him or her). > Similarly, awareness does not move away from your brain, but things > you observe in the world move in relation to your awareness. > > /AL The way I see it, awareness arises with a something to be aware of. There's no awareness without an object, even a very subtle one like " there's nothing to be aware of " . If there's awareness of that, then there's still an apparently aware subject. Krishnamurti said the observer is the observed. This is how I see it. There is no awareness without something to be aware of. Therefore there's nothing that stays still while other things change. I admit it's a very confusing and subtle topic. Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2004 Report Share Posted July 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Ok, I wasn't thinking about permanence when writing about awareness > > as a changeless background. As I see it awareness is changeless in > > relation to change, but that does not mean that awareness is > > permanent. It could be that awareness in relation to something else > > other that what is observed is moving. But awareness _is_ > changeless > > in the sense that 'it' can observe objects moving. It's like > standing > > at the side of a railway and watch a train pass by. Then one will > see > > a train moving. But for a person sitting in the train, the train > > would not be moving in relation to that person (the seat in the > train > > the person sits in would not be moving away from him or her). > > Similarly, awareness does not move away from your brain, but things > > you observe in the world move in relation to your awareness. > > > > /AL > > The way I see it, awareness arises with a something to be aware of. > There's no awareness without an object, even a very subtle one > like " there's nothing to be aware of " . If there's awareness of that, > then there's still an apparently aware subject. > > Krishnamurti said the observer is the observed. This is how I see it. > There is no awareness without something to be aware of. Therefore > there's nothing that stays still while other things change. > > I admit it's a very confusing and subtle topic. > > Joe Yes, the thinking mind creates a division between 'this' and 'that' when in reality it may be that there is only That! :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2004 Report Share Posted July 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Yes, the thinking mind creates a division between 'this' and 'that' > when in reality it may be that there is only That! :-) > > /AL Like when the 'thinking mind' creates a division btw. the 'thinking mind' and something else! :-) Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2004 Report Share Posted July 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Yes, the thinking mind creates a division between 'this' and 'that' > > when in reality it may be that there is only That! :-) > > > > /AL > > Like when the 'thinking mind' creates a division btw. the 'thinking > mind' and something else! :-) > > > Joe Yes that's right. There are thoughts but is there really a 'thinking mind'? The 'thinking mind' is itself just a thought about thinking going on. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Hi Anders, > Yes, the thinking mind creates a division between 'this' and 'that' > when in reality it may be that there is only That! :-) Or there is no 'that'? *Who* points to a 'that'? Kind Regards, Scott. > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > > > Yes, the thinking mind creates a division between 'this' and 'that' > > when in reality it may be that there is only That! :-) > > > Or there is no 'that'? > > *Who* points to a 'that'? That points to That, but there is no separate 'this' pointing to 'that'. :-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Hi again, > > Or there is no 'that'? > > > > *Who* points to a 'that'? > > That points to That, but there is no separate 'this' pointing > to 'that'. :-) If there is *only* *I* then there is no 'that'. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > Or there is no 'that'? > > > > > > *Who* points to a 'that'? > > > > That points to That, but there is no separate 'this' pointing > > to 'that'. :-) > > > If there is *only* *I* then there is no 'that'. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. We can think of the impersonal energy and spacetime which makes up this universe - all of it - as a single 'I', and we can also call that 'That'. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Hi again, > > > > If there is *only* *I* then there is no 'that'. > We can think of the impersonal energy and spacetime which makes up > this universe - all of it - as a single 'I'. No. 'We' / 'You' can't *think* about 'it' or think of it AS anything. >and we can also call > that 'That'. You can call it anything. It takes a ME to formulate a 'that', if there is *only* *I* then there is no that. Any formulation or concept is being created by a ME. We as MEs can call 'it'.... As soon as the label arises a ME is formulating a concept or idea which itself is simply another phenomenon. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > > > If there is *only* *I* then there is no 'that'. > > > > We can think of the impersonal energy and spacetime which makes up > > this universe - all of it - as a single 'I'. > > > No. > 'We' / 'You' can't *think* about 'it' or think of it AS anything. Maybe we can think of it as the absolute? > > > >and we can also call > > that 'That'. > > > You can call it anything. > > It takes a ME to formulate a 'that', if there is *only* *I* then > there is no that. > > Any formulation or concept is being created by a ME. > > We as MEs can call 'it'.... > > As soon as the label arises a ME is formulating a concept or idea > which itself is simply another phenomenon. Yes, thought can do that. :-) /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Hi again, > > No. > > 'We' / 'You' can't *think* about 'it' or think of it AS anything. > > Maybe we can think of it as the absolute? You can't think of it AS anything. The absolute is a concept in mind formulated by a ME. > > As soon as the label arises a ME is formulating a concept or idea > > which itself is simply another phenomenon. > > Yes, thought can do that. :-) Thought *is* phenomenon. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Hi again, > > If there is *only* *I* then there is no 'that'. > > > > We can think of the impersonal energy and spacetime which makes up > this universe - all of it - as a single 'I', and we can also call > that 'That'. We is not *I*. *We* can think of the universe as any concept. Only a ME can call the universe anything, whether it be a 'that' or 'I' etc, any conception is an equivalent mentation by a ME. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > If there is *only* *I* then there is no 'that'. > > > > > > > > > We can think of the impersonal energy and spacetime which makes up > > this universe - all of it - as a single 'I', and we can also call > > that 'That'. > > > We is not *I*. > > *We* can think of the universe as any concept. > > Only a ME can call the universe anything, whether it be a 'that' > or 'I' etc, any conception is an equivalent mentation by a ME. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. " Only God can say: I am. " -- Meister Eckhart " Thou art the Doer and thou art the experiencer. " -- Ramesh Balsekar about Hindu religion You may call God a ME, but I call God awareness of what already is. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Hi, > " Only God can say: I am. " -- Meister Eckhart What is God? This is a finger pointing. > " Thou art the Doer and thou art the experiencer. " -- Ramesh Balsekar > about Hindu religion Who is this referring to? > You may call God a ME, but I call God awareness of what already is. God is a concept. Any conception is an equivalent mentation by a ME. It is only the concepts and even names that change. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > " Only God can say: I am. " -- Meister Eckhart > > > What is God? > > This is a finger pointing. God is the only expericencer. > > > > " Thou art the Doer and thou art the experiencer. " -- Ramesh > Balsekar > > about Hindu religion > > > Who is this referring to? To God. > > > > You may call God a ME, but I call God awareness of what already is. > > > God is a concept. > > Any conception is an equivalent mentation by a ME. > It is only the concepts and even names that change. A ME is a concept. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Hello, > God is the only expericencer. God is a concept. > > > " Thou art the Doer and thou art the experiencer. " -- Ramesh > > Balsekar > > > about Hindu religion > > > > > > Who is this referring to? > > To God. God is a concept. > > > You may call God a ME, but I call God awareness of what already > is. > > > > > > God is a concept. > > > > Any conception is an equivalent mentation by a ME. > > It is only the concepts and even names that change. > > A ME is a concept. ME is a label of a mind / body ego, a human being. Or what you *think* of when you think of yourself and believe yourself to be so. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hello, > > > God is the only expericencer. > > > God is a concept. > > > > > > " Thou art the Doer and thou art the experiencer. " -- Ramesh > > > Balsekar > > > > about Hindu religion > > > > > > > > > Who is this referring to? > > > > To God. > > > God is a concept. > > > > > > You may call God a ME, but I call God awareness of what already > > is. > > > > > > > > > God is a concept. > > > > > > Any conception is an equivalent mentation by a ME. > > > It is only the concepts and even names that change. > > > > A ME is a concept. > > > ME is a label of a mind / body ego, a human being. > Or what you *think* of when you think of yourself and believe > yourself to be so. And I define God as the totality of everything. Both God, and a ME are concepts. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Hi again, > And I define God as the totality of everything. Both God, and a ME > are concepts. And that definition is a phenomenon *within* the totality of everything, a concept within a concept. You cannot conceptualize about that which you are seeking or trying to explain. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > And I define God as the totality of everything. Both God, and a ME > > are concepts. > > > And that definition is a phenomenon *within* the totality of > everything, a concept within a concept. > > You cannot conceptualize about that which you are seeking or trying > to explain. All explanations are concepts. All words are concepts. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Hi again, > All explanations are concepts. All words are concepts. Made of concepts, concepts of basic concepts etc Yes, and all of them appear within the whole as part of the apparent phenomenon. You cannot conceptualize about that which *you* are seeking. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > All explanations are concepts. All words are concepts. > > > Made of concepts, concepts of basic concepts etc > > Yes, and all of them appear within the whole as part of the apparent > phenomenon. > > You cannot conceptualize about that which *you* are seeking. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Hi, Yes, that's right. The intellect goes around in a thought-world, it is all concepts. When this is seen, then there can be a great confusion and suffering, because the intellect finds out that it is trapped alone in a cage of concepts and cannot find a way out. So one has to be very careful and go very slowly, because it could be very frightening for the intellect to think about these things. What the intellect thought was having a 'me' in relation to the world is in reality only a thought-world with a 'me' and a 'world' inside the same 'map' and all relations the intellect can have is only with itself inside this thought-world. That's why people feel loneliness, because the intellect *is* always all alone in its own thought-world. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.