Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Gosh ! > > The experiencer is the experienced. You don't exist as the > experiencer, you ARE the experienced. You still believe that you > exist as a separate entitiy, right ? > > You have not grasped what I tried so hard to show you: The object IS > the subject. > > Tat Tvam Asi - You Are THAT. > > Werner I am you then? > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > Forgive me sticking my nose into this. > > > > > > We are not passive observers of our thoughts, we ARE our thoughts. > > > > > > It seems you find it hard to accpet that you don't exist as a > > > observer or still better not to exist as a subject at all. > > > > > > Werner > > > > I exist as an experiencer, although the " I " could be Totality and > not > > a separate individual. > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example the > oneness > > > > with a > > > > > > > > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no > > > separate > > > > > > > > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have > the > > > > pleasure > > > > > > > > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to > see the > > > > > tree as > > > > > > > > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his > > > statement as > > > > > > > > fast as possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that a fraud is a person who fails to satisfy > the > > > > request > > > > > > > of his audience, we have no idea what his audience > requests > > > or do we > > > > > > > know it too well? happiness, health, wealth, relief from > > > fear? i > > > > don't > > > > > > > know ... Nisargadatta is a fraud too in this regard ... > unless > > > > you are > > > > > > > saying that Tolle made precise signed declarations that > he > > > was going > > > > > > > to release - say - the whole population of Scotland from > the > > > grip of > > > > > > > death and disease.(?) > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe Ramesh Balsekar is no fraud? > > > > > > > > > > yes! guilty of using a dick! > > > > > ok i'm joking ... what do you think? what are the main data > of > > > the case? > > > > > > > > Ramesh Balsekar says that the Source is the only doer. This > means > > > that > > > > there are no individual doers. Wayne Liquorman uses the term > > > > authorship instead of doership because as he says, many people > > > > misinterpret what Ramesh means by doership. Clearly we as human > > > beings > > > > do all kinds of stuff and in that sense we are doers, but are > we the > > > > authors of this doing? Where is the juice coming from? What > makes us > > > > tick as body/mind mechanisms? Is there a separate " me " being the > > > > author of my actions, or is this " me " just a part of the > functioning > > > > of Totality. > > > > > > > > I find it hard to believe that there is a " me " being the author > of > > > my > > > > thoughts. As has been shown in experiments, a thought has > already > > > been > > > > created when we become aware of it. This means that we (as being > > > > conscious beings) are passive observers of thoughts, not the > > > creators > > > > of them. But I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a > > > > separate " me " being the creator of choices e t c. The question > of > > > free > > > > will is a tricky one. > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example the oneness > > with a > > > > > > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no separate > > > > > > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have the > > pleasure > > > > > > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to see the > > > tree as > > > > > > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his > statement as > > > > > > fast as possible. > > > > > > > > > > Please note that a fraud is a person who fails to satisfy the > > request > > > > > of his audience, we have no idea what his audience requests or > do we > > > > > know it too well? happiness, health, wealth, relief from fear? i > > don't > > > > > know ... Nisargadatta is a fraud too in this regard ... unless > > you are > > > > > saying that Tolle made precise signed declarations that he was > going > > > > > to release - say - the whole population of Scotland from the > grip of > > > > > death and disease.(?) > > > > > > > > Maybe Ramesh Balsekar is no fraud? > > > > > > yes! guilty of using a dick! > > > ok i'm joking ... what do you think? what are the main data of the > case? > > > > Ramesh Balsekar says that the Source is the only doer. This means that > > there are no individual doers. Wayne Liquorman uses the term > > authorship instead of doership because as he says, many people > > misinterpret what Ramesh means by doership. Clearly we as human beings > > do all kinds of stuff and in that sense we are doers, but are we the > > authors of this doing? Where is the juice coming from? What makes us > > tick as body/mind mechanisms? Is there a separate " me " being the > > author of my actions, or is this " me " just a part of the functioning > > of Totality. > > > > I find it hard to believe that there is a " me " being the author of my > > thoughts. As has been shown in experiments, a thought has already been > > created when we become aware of it. This means that we (as being > > conscious beings) are passive observers of thoughts, not the creators > > of them. But I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a > > separate " me " being the creator of choices e t c. The question of free > > will is a tricky one. > > > > /AL > > Yeah, this is what it looks like in real time, because paradoxically > it is when we hesitate and ponder and become self-conscious that our > response to the world is the less creative and hindered by > considerations of shame or worthlessness or desire to impact the > situation. Ramesh says that a sage feels no shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >> >> Hi Anders, >> >>Forgive me sticking my nose into this. >> >>We are not passive observers of our thoughts, we ARE our thoughts. >> >>It seems you find it hard to accpet that you don't exist as a >>observer or still better not to exist as a subject at all. >> >>Werner Werner, and you seem to find it hard to accept that you are maybe NOT your thoughts... this idea causes fear for the ego, I know :-) Because it could mean that YOU are NOT. Even NOW. >I exist as an experiencer, although the " I " could be Totality and not >a separate individual. > >/AL Anders, I agree, it " could " . But you can also look at it the other way around: all there is is the Totality and it allows a mistaken identification of itself with the phenomenon of your person. When one thinks for a moment about his personality he can see that it is too fluent to be called a true being. It is like the reflection of light in a wave... what IS this happening in reality? The wave? The water? The light? In reality... no wave, no water, no light... no thoughts... just the happening of a reflection... Greetings S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Anders, > >> > >>Forgive me sticking my nose into this. > >> > >>We are not passive observers of our thoughts, we ARE our thoughts. > >> > >>It seems you find it hard to accpet that you don't exist as a > >>observer or still better not to exist as a subject at all. > >> > >>Werner > > Werner, and you seem to find it hard to accept that you are maybe NOT > your thoughts... this idea causes fear for the ego, I know :-) > > Because it could mean that YOU are NOT. Even NOW. > > >I exist as an experiencer, although the " I " could be Totality and not > >a separate individual. > > > >/AL > > Anders, I agree, it " could " . But you can also look at it the other way > around: all there is is the Totality and it allows a mistaken > identification of itself with the phenomenon of your person. That is what Ramesh and Wayne says. When the falling away of the idea of a separate " me " happens, the separarion that once felt so real is now recognized as an illusion, a chimera. /AL > > When one thinks for a moment about his personality he can see that it > is too fluent to be called a true being. > > It is like the reflection of light in a wave... what IS this happening > in reality? The wave? The water? The light? > > In reality... no wave, no water, no light... > > no thoughts... > > just the happening of a reflection... > > Greetings > S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > Forgive me sticking my nose into this. > > We are not passive observers of our thoughts, we ARE our thoughts. > who or what we are cannot be told, as it is like spelling l-i-o-n to a lion - the lion already is - all he needs is to apply his lion-ness with confidence in his life. we have to go through the ego to experience it. the ego is like an egg from which the buddha will arise. the first few sentences of the yoga sutras hint on the correct understanding of the puzzle. the sutras state that when thoughts exist in the mind the perceiver is identified with them. when there are no thoughts then the perceiver perceives itself. having thoughts in the mind without identifying with them is an important skill ( " witnessing " ). http://www.shaivam.org/ssyogasutra_meaning.htm 1.2. Union is restraining the thought-streams natural to the mind. 1.3. Then the seer dwells in his own nature. 1.4. Otherwise he is of the same form as the thought-streams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Hi Stefan, With Anders I do not discuss, I am running berserk You wrote that subject and object are interdependent, but they are not, what we see as being an object is the subject. This idea that they are interpendent is because we logically see an object existing " outside " but it exists only inside as the subject, without the object there would be no subject inside - both are just different words for one and the same thing and we even cannot differ outside and inside - they are just logical constructs. If you inquire " Who am I " then the reason why you can't find that I is that it does not exist because there is only THAT which you are. And even that is wrong, as one learned from Advaita, there is only THAT and not: I am THAT, but the latter is a bit better to grasp and to start with. Now you asked what is left ? The answer is: Both - THAT and nothingness, you are both. But what does it help ? It is like you said: I know that I don't know And because you are applauding that Anders admits not to be sure then what about this: The analyzer is the analyzed, or better understandable: The interpreter is his interpretation. Can one be sure that one's analysis is truely representing the " other " , or is the " other " the subject ? Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > >You still haven't got it. > > Hi Werner, you start to like discussions, ehh? > > >We discuss that the object is the > >subject and that there is no separate stand-alone subject (like > >Anders) who is pure, empty consciousness. Consciousness is its > >content, consciousness and the content is one and the same. There is > >no observer who is pure consciousness and who is observing the > >object. The observer IS the observed. Click, click, click ? > > Maybe you would like to follow my own reasoning for a moment and see > what is happening? > > We call any observing construct " subject " , the observed is called > " object " . They are interdependent. When all objects disappear the > subject disappears. When the subject disappears all objects disappear. > Consequently the moment the subject would be itself the object (as you > say) both would instantly disappear. > > Once this is understood, the whole question is: what is left? > > What do you think, Werner? Nothing is left? Lets see. > > Something which is not subject nor object cannot be described, not > even experienced. Otherwise there would again be subject and object. > On the other hand that " state " must be existent because there must be > a ground on which object/subject are happening (otherwise they could > not be identified, as what soever). > > What does this mean? This state exists, although it cannot be > described or experienced. It cannot even be described as " nothing " , > because this implies a speculative " something " . At the most it can be > called " being per se " etc. In fact many names have been given but they > usually lead to misunderstandings. > > But at least this is the only state that could be called " truth " > without exception, because it does not allow interpretation and > consequently no misinterpretation. > > When I ask myself " who am I " ... this state that I just have identified > is the only state that could be reached by consequently following this > question... provided it is asked without allowing the mind to go > astray in speculations. Anders says: " I am not sure " . This is the > right attitude. Bravo, Anders. > > " I know that I dont know " Plato > > Greetings > S. > > >Usually we think that we have independent consciousness. I have my > >consciousness and other people have their own consciousness. But we > >don't know if consciousness is separate. Only those who say that > >consciousness is one and really know that can be sure. I am not > >sure. > > > >/AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 It is the point: But at least this is the only state that could be called " truth " without exception, because it does not allow interpretation and consequently no misinterpretation. But... the " truth " has the SENSE that we feel " BEING, EXISTING " it is the Truth. The feelings of desire are attached by the desires and are attached to Ego " I am this, I am that " it is not the truth. The feelings of desire are attached by the desires and if is observed by the observer, the observer is the witness " I AM " is the truth that is seeing. The feelings of no desire are attached by the sense " EXISTINIG " and are attached to " SELF " it is the truth. The feelings are the feeling both clear and dirty. Clear to the Self and dirty to ego, clear is the truth, dirty is not the truth. Nirgunananda. - Stefan Nisargadatta Monday, January 24, 2005 4:01 PM Re: Ego as an object Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >You still haven't got it. Hi Werner, you start to like discussions, ehh? >We discuss that the object is the >subject and that there is no separate stand-alone subject (like >Anders) who is pure, empty consciousness. Consciousness is its >content, consciousness and the content is one and the same. There is >no observer who is pure consciousness and who is observing the >object. The observer IS the observed. Click, click, click ? Maybe you would like to follow my own reasoning for a moment and see what is happening? We call any observing construct " subject " , the observed is called " object " . They are interdependent. When all objects disappear the subject disappears. When the subject disappears all objects disappear. Consequently the moment the subject would be itself the object (as you say) both would instantly disappear. Once this is understood, the whole question is: what is left? What do you think, Werner? Nothing is left? Lets see. Something which is not subject nor object cannot be described, not even experienced. Otherwise there would again be subject and object. On the other hand that " state " must be existent because there must be a ground on which object/subject are happening (otherwise they could not be identified, as what soever). What does this mean? This state exists, although it cannot be described or experienced. It cannot even be described as " nothing " , because this implies a speculative " something " . At the most it can be called " being per se " etc. In fact many names have been given but they usually lead to misunderstandings. But at least this is the only state that could be called " truth " without exception, because it does not allow interpretation and consequently no misinterpretation. When I ask myself " who am I " ... this state that I just have identified is the only state that could be reached by consequently following this question... provided it is asked without allowing the mind to go astray in speculations. Anders says: " I am not sure " . This is the right attitude. Bravo, Anders. " I know that I dont know " Plato Greetings S. >Usually we think that we have independent consciousness. I have my >consciousness and other people have their own consciousness. But we >don't know if consciousness is separate. Only those who say that >consciousness is one and really know that can be sure. I am not >sure. > >/AL ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Anders, You are not " me " but you are what you see and think and interpret and experience about me. Your image of me is you, or more precise, because there is no personal " you " there is only the image of me which is the subject of you - oh holy shit, if it is to confusing then better have a glass of whine ) Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Gosh ! > > > > The experiencer is the experienced. You don't exist as the > > experiencer, you ARE the experienced. You still believe that you > > exist as a separate entitiy, right ? > > > > You have not grasped what I tried so hard to show you: The object IS > > the subject. > > > > Tat Tvam Asi - You Are THAT. > > > > Werner > > I am you then? > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > > > Forgive me sticking my nose into this. > > > > > > > > We are not passive observers of our thoughts, we ARE our thoughts. > > > > > > > > It seems you find it hard to accpet that you don't exist as a > > > > observer or still better not to exist as a subject at all. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > I exist as an experiencer, although the " I " could be Totality and > > not > > > a separate individual. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > > > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example the > > oneness > > > > > with a > > > > > > > > > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no > > > > separate > > > > > > > > > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have > > the > > > > > pleasure > > > > > > > > > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to > > see the > > > > > > tree as > > > > > > > > > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his > > > > statement as > > > > > > > > > fast as possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that a fraud is a person who fails to satisfy > > the > > > > > request > > > > > > > > of his audience, we have no idea what his audience > > requests > > > > or do we > > > > > > > > know it too well? happiness, health, wealth, relief from > > > > fear? i > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > know ... Nisargadatta is a fraud too in this regard ... > > unless > > > > > you are > > > > > > > > saying that Tolle made precise signed declarations that > > he > > > > was going > > > > > > > > to release - say - the whole population of Scotland from > > the > > > > grip of > > > > > > > > death and disease.(?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe Ramesh Balsekar is no fraud? > > > > > > > > > > > > yes! guilty of using a dick! > > > > > > ok i'm joking ... what do you think? what are the main data > > of > > > > the case? > > > > > > > > > > Ramesh Balsekar says that the Source is the only doer. This > > means > > > > that > > > > > there are no individual doers. Wayne Liquorman uses the term > > > > > authorship instead of doership because as he says, many people > > > > > misinterpret what Ramesh means by doership. Clearly we as human > > > > beings > > > > > do all kinds of stuff and in that sense we are doers, but are > > we the > > > > > authors of this doing? Where is the juice coming from? What > > makes us > > > > > tick as body/mind mechanisms? Is there a separate " me " being the > > > > > author of my actions, or is this " me " just a part of the > > functioning > > > > > of Totality. > > > > > > > > > > I find it hard to believe that there is a " me " being the author > > of > > > > my > > > > > thoughts. As has been shown in experiments, a thought has > > already > > > > been > > > > > created when we become aware of it. This means that we (as being > > > > > conscious beings) are passive observers of thoughts, not the > > > > creators > > > > > of them. But I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a > > > > > separate " me " being the creator of choices e t c. The question > > of > > > > free > > > > > will is a tricky one. > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Anders, > > You are not " me " but you are what you see and think and interpret and > experience about me. Your image of me is you, or more precise, > because there is no personal " you " there is only the image of me > which is the subject of you - oh holy shit, if it is to confusing > then better have a glass of whine ) > > Werner Yes, I am that which I experience, I am the image of you and the image of me and the image of the world. That's all I know. I don't know if " you " exist other than the image I have in " my " mind. The trick, I believe, is to have these images melted into one ocean of existence. /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > Gosh ! > > > > > > The experiencer is the experienced. You don't exist as the > > > experiencer, you ARE the experienced. You still believe that you > > > exist as a separate entitiy, right ? > > > > > > You have not grasped what I tried so hard to show you: The object > IS > > > the subject. > > > > > > Tat Tvam Asi - You Are THAT. > > > > > > Werner > > > > I am you then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > > > > > Forgive me sticking my nose into this. > > > > > > > > > > We are not passive observers of our thoughts, we ARE our > thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > It seems you find it hard to accpet that you don't exist as a > > > > > observer or still better not to exist as a subject at all. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > I exist as an experiencer, although the " I " could be Totality > and > > > not > > > > a separate individual. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > > > > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example > the > > > oneness > > > > > > with a > > > > > > > > > > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is > no > > > > > separate > > > > > > > > > > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I > have > > > the > > > > > > pleasure > > > > > > > > > > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able > to > > > see the > > > > > > > tree as > > > > > > > > > > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his > > > > > statement as > > > > > > > > > > fast as possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that a fraud is a person who fails to > satisfy > > > the > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > > of his audience, we have no idea what his audience > > > requests > > > > > or do we > > > > > > > > > know it too well? happiness, health, wealth, relief > from > > > > > fear? i > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > know ... Nisargadatta is a fraud too in this > regard ... > > > unless > > > > > > you are > > > > > > > > > saying that Tolle made precise signed declarations > that > > > he > > > > > was going > > > > > > > > > to release - say - the whole population of Scotland > from > > > the > > > > > grip of > > > > > > > > > death and disease.(?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe Ramesh Balsekar is no fraud? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes! guilty of using a dick! > > > > > > > ok i'm joking ... what do you think? what are the main > data > > > of > > > > > the case? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramesh Balsekar says that the Source is the only doer. This > > > means > > > > > that > > > > > > there are no individual doers. Wayne Liquorman uses the term > > > > > > authorship instead of doership because as he says, many > people > > > > > > misinterpret what Ramesh means by doership. Clearly we as > human > > > > > beings > > > > > > do all kinds of stuff and in that sense we are doers, but > are > > > we the > > > > > > authors of this doing? Where is the juice coming from? What > > > makes us > > > > > > tick as body/mind mechanisms? Is there a separate " me " > being the > > > > > > author of my actions, or is this " me " just a part of the > > > functioning > > > > > > of Totality. > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it hard to believe that there is a " me " being the > author > > > of > > > > > my > > > > > > thoughts. As has been shown in experiments, a thought has > > > already > > > > > been > > > > > > created when we become aware of it. This means that we (as > being > > > > > > conscious beings) are passive observers of thoughts, not > the > > > > > creators > > > > > > of them. But I cannot rule out the possibility that there > is a > > > > > > separate " me " being the creator of choices e t c. The > question > > > of > > > > > free > > > > > > will is a tricky one. > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > >Hi Stefan, > >With Anders I do not discuss, I am running berserk This is good for you, get so much berserk until you cannot think any thoughts anymore and then tell me who you are... a berserker?? :-)) >You wrote that subject and object are interdependent, but they are >not, what we see as being an object is the subject. I have shown you that this is logically wrong, now what do you still want? I repeat: There is no subject without object and vice versa. Consequently when the subject becomes the object both disappear. By repeating your belief that one is the other it does not become true. >This idea that >they are interpendent is because we logically see an object >existing " outside " but it exists only inside as the subject, without >the object there would be no subject inside - both are just >different >words for one and the same thing and we even cannot differ outside >and inside - they are just logical constructs. They are interdependent because they are like two sides of a coin. This is not an idea, it is a simple fact. One does not make any sense without the other. When I kiss you then there is a kisser and a kissed. If the kissed disapears then there can also not be the kisser. And vice versa. When I kiss the air then the air is the object. And if the kisser would become the kissed then both would disappear and there is no more kissing. Got it? Subject and object belong to the realm of duality. The only point in which I totally agree with you is that they are a logical construct. Of cause they are. What else did you expect? >Now you asked what is left ? The answer is: Both - THAT and >nothingness, you are both. But what does it help ? I dont think that you understood what I wrote. Maybe read it again? (Just a friendly suggestion). The question " what is left " remains once you understand that subject and object cannot really exist. But you, Werner, still believe in them, so there is no point that we discuss " what is left " if we dont even agree in the basics, in " what is left from what " . >And because you are applauding that Anders admits not to be sure >then what about this: Anders: >The analyzer is the analyzed, or better understandable: The >interpreter is his interpretation. Can one be sure that one's >analysis is truely representing the " other " , or is the " other " the >subject ? Yes, what about this? I applaud again. You overlook the fact that Anders is asking a question. Do you have an answer to it? Did you ever REALLY ask yourself if you can validate your intellectual theories by your own deep experience? This is the ONLY thing I am interested. All the best Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Wonderful Anders, I embrace you ... Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Anders, > > > > You are not " me " but you are what you see and think and interpret and > > experience about me. Your image of me is you, or more precise, > > because there is no personal " you " there is only the image of me > > which is the subject of you - oh holy shit, if it is to confusing > > then better have a glass of whine ) > > > > Werner > > Yes, I am that which I experience, I am the image of you and the image > of me and the image of the world. That's all I know. I don't know if > " you " exist other than the image I have in " my " mind. The trick, I > believe, is to have these images melted into one ocean of existence. > > /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.