Short-circuit the thought process

October 19, 2005

You cannot understand consciousness through thought. Maybe you can,

but when? How much time do you need for thought to understand

consciousness? One second? Two hours? Thirty years? And what will that

understanding be? A thought? A memory? A thought happening in

consciousness? Can you see what I am getting at?

al.

October 19, 2005

----

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

> You cannot understand consciousness through thought. Maybe you can,

> but when? How much time do you need for thought to understand

> consciousness? One second? Two hours? Thirty years? And what will

that

> understanding be? A thought? A memory? A thought happening in

> consciousness? Can you see what I am getting at?

>

> al.

>

-----------

Q: Part of the problem is that I have always considered awareness to

be an attribute of mind. In non-duality circles, the definition of

mind seems to be only " thought " . Yes, feelings, thoughts and

memories are included in the awareness. But awareness seems to come

and go, too, as the mind gets lost in a train of thought.

Stephen: Is there ever a time when you can say, " Awareness is gone

now? " Even when your focus is/was on the train of thought, was

awareness gone? It is not possible for awareness to come and go. Try

to make awareness go away. You are awareness.

What comes and goes is the thought " I am aware now. " The thought " I

am aware now " is not awareness.

Q: The ego seems to have minimal control. I can try to do things,

and sometimes it seems to work, sometimes it doesn't. Even when it

doesn't, though, and I'm not in control, that seems to be a problem,

because then I feel I have to try harder.

Stephen: You did not control your birth. You will not control your

death. And you are not in control of anything in between.

Enlightenment is seeing that there is no separate, controlling

entity there in you, no ego, and realizing that what you are in

essence is awareness.

You are not trying harder; trying harder is happening.

Q: Even when I can see that the thinking is included in the

awareness, and that what I am is awareness, the awareness I am still

seems to have problems. For instance, I have been working very hard

lately, which makes me tired and anxious. Tiredness and anxiety

therefore exist within awareness. The awareness is tiredness and

anxiety.

Stephen: Tiredness and anxiety are states of mind. The mind is the

thinking process. Awareness is neither tired nor rested; neither

anxious nor at ease. Awareness just is. When the thought " I am tired

and anxious " does not arise, is there any such thing as tiredness or

anxiety?

Q: What is odd about this kind of dialogue is that my questions seem

to be defensive and argumentative, but I have no problem at all with

what you're saying. I'm just trying to experience it, rather than

just intellectually agree with it.

Stephen: Give yourself two weeks to get to the bottom of this and

make the intellectual understanding become your experience.

Find out for yourself, in your own direct experience, what is your

essential nature; not conceptually, but experientially. Are you the

ego? Are you in control of your life and experience? Are you the

controller? Or are you pure awareness?

The idea of being a separate, controlling entity (ego) is the root

of psychological suffering. Get to the bottom of it.

Are you in control? Yes or no? Not maybe or sometimes a little bit.

YES or NO?

Are you aware? Yes or no? Again, not maybe or sometimes a little

bit. YES or NO?

Q: I assume you went through the same thing yourself, and wish you

could somehow relay to me how you got from identifying with the

separate self to seeing that you are not separate.

Stephen: Do you see that there is no such thing as oneness? Seeing

there is no such thing as oneness, you see there is no such thing as

separation. Separation and oneness are both concepts. Awareness is

not a concept. You are awareness.

Q: There are moments when I feel I am directly experiencing reality,

when there is a kind of stillness and what is seems to take on an

extra dimension. But even then it is the separate self that is

having an experience. I have only rarely glimpsed the feeling of no-

self. Oddly enough, it sometimes happens when I look in the mirror

and see the reflection as " not me. "

Stephen: You cannot experience reality; there are no extra

dimensions; there is no separate self who has an experience of

stillness; there is no feeling of no-self; there is no such thing as

reality.

The anecdotes you've cited sound good, but upon investigation

they're recognized as conceptual nonsense.

Stephen Wingate

http://livinginpeace-thenaturalstate.com/Correspondence%20Series%

202.htm

-------------------

October 19, 2005

Stepen:

Is there ever a time when you can say, " Awareness is gone now? " Even

when your focus is/was on the train of thought, was awareness gone?

It is not possible for awareness to come and go. Try to make

awareness go away. You are awareness. What comes and goes is the

thought " I am aware now. " The thought " I am aware now " is not

awareness.

Werner:

All wrong. There is no consciousness without a content. Consciousness

or awareness is its content. Therefore awareness comes and goes.

Because thought is the content of consciousness the thought " I am

aware now " IS consciousness.

I am awareness means I am the content. Because those contents

constantly are changing I am too constantly changing and so there is

no fix or stabile I am: neti neti. Because there is no stabile me the

brain uses a trick to install a preliminary me by identification with

the body and thought " I am the body " .

Practicing Maharaj's " I am " will bring back the realization that I am

not body and thought but I am all those changing contents of

consciousness which means I am everything and this everythingness

tells I am none of all those ever changing contents, result: I do not

exist.

Therefore to say " I am pure awareness or consciousness " is totally

contraproductive in respect to a practical realization of one's non-

existence. A person saying " I am pure consciousness " in no way

understood Maharaj and also never practiced the " I am " over a longer

period.

I am everything and therefore nothing.

Werner

Nisargadatta , " Stephen Wingate "

<stephenwingate11> wrote:

>

> ----

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> <anders_lindman> wrote:

> >

> > You cannot understand consciousness through thought. Maybe you

can,

> > but when? How much time do you need for thought to understand

> > consciousness? One second? Two hours? Thirty years? And what will

> that

> > understanding be? A thought? A memory? A thought happening in

> > consciousness? Can you see what I am getting at?

> >

> > al.

> >

> -----------

>

> Q: Part of the problem is that I have always considered awareness

to

> be an attribute of mind. In non-duality circles, the definition of

> mind seems to be only " thought " . Yes, feelings, thoughts and

> memories are included in the awareness. But awareness seems to come

> and go, too, as the mind gets lost in a train of thought.

>

> Stephen: Is there ever a time when you can say, " Awareness is gone

> now? " Even when your focus is/was on the train of thought, was

> awareness gone? It is not possible for awareness to come and go.

Try

> to make awareness go away. You are awareness.

>

> What comes and goes is the thought " I am aware now. " The thought " I

> am aware now " is not awareness.

>

> Q: The ego seems to have minimal control. I can try to do things,

> and sometimes it seems to work, sometimes it doesn't. Even when it

> doesn't, though, and I'm not in control, that seems to be a

problem,

> because then I feel I have to try harder.

>

> Stephen: You did not control your birth. You will not control your

> death. And you are not in control of anything in between.

> Enlightenment is seeing that there is no separate, controlling

> entity there in you, no ego, and realizing that what you are in

> essence is awareness.

>

> You are not trying harder; trying harder is happening.

>

> Q: Even when I can see that the thinking is included in the

> awareness, and that what I am is awareness, the awareness I am

still

> seems to have problems. For instance, I have been working very

hard

> lately, which makes me tired and anxious. Tiredness and anxiety

> therefore exist within awareness. The awareness is tiredness and

> anxiety.

>

> Stephen: Tiredness and anxiety are states of mind. The mind is the

> thinking process. Awareness is neither tired nor rested; neither

> anxious nor at ease. Awareness just is. When the thought " I am

tired

> and anxious " does not arise, is there any such thing as tiredness

or

> anxiety?

>

> Q: What is odd about this kind of dialogue is that my questions

seem

> to be defensive and argumentative, but I have no problem at all

with

> what you're saying. I'm just trying to experience it, rather than

> just intellectually agree with it.

>

> Stephen: Give yourself two weeks to get to the bottom of this and

> make the intellectual understanding become your experience.

>

> Find out for yourself, in your own direct experience, what is your

> essential nature; not conceptually, but experientially. Are you the

> ego? Are you in control of your life and experience? Are you the

> controller? Or are you pure awareness?

>

> The idea of being a separate, controlling entity (ego) is the root

> of psychological suffering. Get to the bottom of it.

>

> Are you in control? Yes or no? Not maybe or sometimes a little bit.

> YES or NO?

>

> Are you aware? Yes or no? Again, not maybe or sometimes a little

> bit. YES or NO?

>

> Q: I assume you went through the same thing yourself, and wish you

> could somehow relay to me how you got from identifying with the

> separate self to seeing that you are not separate.

>

> Stephen: Do you see that there is no such thing as oneness? Seeing

> there is no such thing as oneness, you see there is no such thing

as

> separation. Separation and oneness are both concepts. Awareness is

> not a concept. You are awareness.

>

> Q: There are moments when I feel I am directly experiencing

reality,

> when there is a kind of stillness and what is seems to take on an

> extra dimension. But even then it is the separate self that is

> having an experience. I have only rarely glimpsed the feeling of no-

> self. Oddly enough, it sometimes happens when I look in the mirror

> and see the reflection as " not me. "

>

> Stephen: You cannot experience reality; there are no extra

> dimensions; there is no separate self who has an experience of

> stillness; there is no feeling of no-self; there is no such thing

as

> reality.

>

> The anecdotes you've cited sound good, but upon investigation

> they're recognized as conceptual nonsense.

>

> Stephen Wingate

> http://livinginpeace-thenaturalstate.com/Correspondence%20Series%

> 202.htm

>

> -------------------

>

October 19, 2005

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote:

>

> Stepen:

> Is there ever a time when you can say, " Awareness is gone now? " Even

> when your focus is/was on the train of thought, was awareness gone?

> It is not possible for awareness to come and go. Try to make

> awareness go away. You are awareness. What comes and goes is the

> thought " I am aware now. " The thought " I am aware now " is not

> awareness.

>

> Werner:

> All wrong. There is no consciousness without a content. Consciousness

> or awareness is its content. Therefore awareness comes and goes.

> Because thought is the content of consciousness the thought " I am

> aware now " IS consciousness.

But there is also awareness OF the thought. So you cannot solve the

problem just by saying that consciousness and thoughts are the same

thing. That's why I said that thought cannot understand consciousness.

You, as the thinker (Werner) cannot understand that consciousness in

which you exist. Therefore, you can never explain what consciousness

is. Nor can I.

al.

>

> I am awareness means I am the content. Because those contents

> constantly are changing I am too constantly changing and so there is

> no fix or stabile I am: neti neti. Because there is no stabile me the

> brain uses a trick to install a preliminary me by identification with

> the body and thought " I am the body " .

>

> Practicing Maharaj's " I am " will bring back the realization that I am

> not body and thought but I am all those changing contents of

> consciousness which means I am everything and this everythingness

> tells I am none of all those ever changing contents, result: I do not

> exist.

>

> Therefore to say " I am pure awareness or consciousness " is totally

> contraproductive in respect to a practical realization of one's non-

> existence. A person saying " I am pure consciousness " in no way

> understood Maharaj and also never practiced the " I am " over a longer

> period.

>

> I am everything and therefore nothing.

>

> Werner

>

> Nisargadatta , " Stephen Wingate "

> <stephenwingate11> wrote:

> >

> > ----

> > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> > <anders_lindman> wrote:

> > >

> > > You cannot understand consciousness through thought. Maybe you

> can,

> > > but when? How much time do you need for thought to understand

> > > consciousness? One second? Two hours? Thirty years? And what will

> > that

> > > understanding be? A thought? A memory? A thought happening in

> > > consciousness? Can you see what I am getting at?

> > >

> > > al.

> > >

> > -----------

> >

> > Q: Part of the problem is that I have always considered awareness

> to

> > be an attribute of mind. In non-duality circles, the definition of

> > mind seems to be only " thought " . Yes, feelings, thoughts and

> > memories are included in the awareness. But awareness seems to come

> > and go, too, as the mind gets lost in a train of thought.

> >

> > Stephen: Is there ever a time when you can say, " Awareness is gone

> > now? " Even when your focus is/was on the train of thought, was

> > awareness gone? It is not possible for awareness to come and go.

> Try

> > to make awareness go away. You are awareness.

> >

> > What comes and goes is the thought " I am aware now. " The thought " I

> > am aware now " is not awareness.

> >

> > Q: The ego seems to have minimal control. I can try to do things,

> > and sometimes it seems to work, sometimes it doesn't. Even when it

> > doesn't, though, and I'm not in control, that seems to be a

> problem,

> > because then I feel I have to try harder.

> >

> > Stephen: You did not control your birth. You will not control your

> > death. And you are not in control of anything in between.

> > Enlightenment is seeing that there is no separate, controlling

> > entity there in you, no ego, and realizing that what you are in

> > essence is awareness.

> >

> > You are not trying harder; trying harder is happening.

> >

> > Q: Even when I can see that the thinking is included in the

> > awareness, and that what I am is awareness, the awareness I am

> still

> > seems to have problems. For instance, I have been working very

> hard

> > lately, which makes me tired and anxious. Tiredness and anxiety

> > therefore exist within awareness. The awareness is tiredness and

> > anxiety.

> >

> > Stephen: Tiredness and anxiety are states of mind. The mind is the

> > thinking process. Awareness is neither tired nor rested; neither

> > anxious nor at ease. Awareness just is. When the thought " I am

> tired

> > and anxious " does not arise, is there any such thing as tiredness

> or

> > anxiety?

> >

> > Q: What is odd about this kind of dialogue is that my questions

> seem

> > to be defensive and argumentative, but I have no problem at all

> with

> > what you're saying. I'm just trying to experience it, rather than

> > just intellectually agree with it.

> >

> > Stephen: Give yourself two weeks to get to the bottom of this and

> > make the intellectual understanding become your experience.

> >

> > Find out for yourself, in your own direct experience, what is your

> > essential nature; not conceptually, but experientially. Are you the

> > ego? Are you in control of your life and experience? Are you the

> > controller? Or are you pure awareness?

> >

> > The idea of being a separate, controlling entity (ego) is the root

> > of psychological suffering. Get to the bottom of it.

> >

> > Are you in control? Yes or no? Not maybe or sometimes a little bit.

> > YES or NO?

> >

> > Are you aware? Yes or no? Again, not maybe or sometimes a little

> > bit. YES or NO?

> >

> > Q: I assume you went through the same thing yourself, and wish you

> > could somehow relay to me how you got from identifying with the

> > separate self to seeing that you are not separate.

> >

> > Stephen: Do you see that there is no such thing as oneness? Seeing

> > there is no such thing as oneness, you see there is no such thing

> as

> > separation. Separation and oneness are both concepts. Awareness is

> > not a concept. You are awareness.

> >

> > Q: There are moments when I feel I am directly experiencing

> reality,

> > when there is a kind of stillness and what is seems to take on an

> > extra dimension. But even then it is the separate self that is

> > having an experience. I have only rarely glimpsed the feeling of no-

> > self. Oddly enough, it sometimes happens when I look in the mirror

> > and see the reflection as " not me. "

> >

> > Stephen: You cannot experience reality; there are no extra

> > dimensions; there is no separate self who has an experience of

> > stillness; there is no feeling of no-self; there is no such thing

> as

> > reality.

> >

> > The anecdotes you've cited sound good, but upon investigation

> > they're recognized as conceptual nonsense.

> >

> > Stephen Wingate

> > http://livinginpeace-thenaturalstate.com/Correspondence%20Series%

> > 202.htm

> >

> > -------------------

> >

>

October 19, 2005

-------

I am everything and therefore nothing.

Werner

----

Werner,

Very well put.

Stephen

http://www.livinginpeace-thenaturalstate.com/

-------

October 19, 2005

Anders,

We both already have discussed that already a dozend times before and

everytime you quickly forget what I told you:

There is awareness of thought same as awareness of everything else.

To say: But I am aware of thought is again a thought and as you

constantly deny to see: The word " I " uses the body as a reference and

that will create the illusion that " you " are aware of thought.

And now, quickly forget my argumentation and beware! don't think

about it, don't examine it but better quickly start reasoning about a

new idea. Suggestion: Why is your nose in your face and not in the

middle of your bum ?

Werner

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

wrote:

> >

> > Stepen:

> > Is there ever a time when you can say, " Awareness is gone now? "

Even

> > when your focus is/was on the train of thought, was awareness

gone?

> > It is not possible for awareness to come and go. Try to make

> > awareness go away. You are awareness. What comes and goes is the

> > thought " I am aware now. " The thought " I am aware now " is not

> > awareness.

> >

> > Werner:

> > All wrong. There is no consciousness without a content.

Consciousness

> > or awareness is its content. Therefore awareness comes and goes.

> > Because thought is the content of consciousness the thought " I am

> > aware now " IS consciousness.

>

> But there is also awareness OF the thought. So you cannot solve the

> problem just by saying that consciousness and thoughts are the same

> thing. That's why I said that thought cannot understand

consciousness.

> You, as the thinker (Werner) cannot understand that consciousness in

> which you exist. Therefore, you can never explain what consciousness

> is. Nor can I.

>

> al.

>

> >

> > I am awareness means I am the content. Because those contents

> > constantly are changing I am too constantly changing and so there

is

> > no fix or stabile I am: neti neti. Because there is no stabile me

the

> > brain uses a trick to install a preliminary me by identification

with

> > the body and thought " I am the body " .

> >

> > Practicing Maharaj's " I am " will bring back the realization that

I am

> > not body and thought but I am all those changing contents of

> > consciousness which means I am everything and this everythingness

> > tells I am none of all those ever changing contents, result: I do

not

> > exist.

> >

> > Therefore to say " I am pure awareness or consciousness " is

totally

> > contraproductive in respect to a practical realization of one's

non-

> > existence. A person saying " I am pure consciousness " in no way

> > understood Maharaj and also never practiced the " I am " over a

longer

> > period.

> >

> > I am everything and therefore nothing.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Stephen Wingate "

> > <stephenwingate11> wrote:

> > >

> > > ----

> > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> > > <anders_lindman> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > You cannot understand consciousness through thought. Maybe

you

> > can,

> > > > but when? How much time do you need for thought to understand

> > > > consciousness? One second? Two hours? Thirty years? And what

will

> > > that

> > > > understanding be? A thought? A memory? A thought happening in

> > > > consciousness? Can you see what I am getting at?

> > > >

> > > > al.

> > > >

> > > -----------

> > >

> > > Q: Part of the problem is that I have always considered

awareness

> > to

> > > be an attribute of mind. In non-duality circles, the definition

of

> > > mind seems to be only " thought " . Yes, feelings, thoughts and

> > > memories are included in the awareness. But awareness seems to

come

> > > and go, too, as the mind gets lost in a train of thought.

> > >

> > > Stephen: Is there ever a time when you can say, " Awareness is

gone

> > > now? " Even when your focus is/was on the train of thought, was

> > > awareness gone? It is not possible for awareness to come and

go.

> > Try

> > > to make awareness go away. You are awareness.

> > >

> > > What comes and goes is the thought " I am aware now. " The

thought " I

> > > am aware now " is not awareness.

> > >

> > > Q: The ego seems to have minimal control. I can try to do

things,

> > > and sometimes it seems to work, sometimes it doesn't. Even when

it

> > > doesn't, though, and I'm not in control, that seems to be a

> > problem,

> > > because then I feel I have to try harder.

> > >

> > > Stephen: You did not control your birth. You will not control

your

> > > death. And you are not in control of anything in between.

> > > Enlightenment is seeing that there is no separate, controlling

> > > entity there in you, no ego, and realizing that what you are in

> > > essence is awareness.

> > >

> > > You are not trying harder; trying harder is happening.

> > >

> > > Q: Even when I can see that the thinking is included in the

> > > awareness, and that what I am is awareness, the awareness I am

> > still

> > > seems to have problems. For instance, I have been working very

> > hard

> > > lately, which makes me tired and anxious. Tiredness and anxiety

> > > therefore exist within awareness. The awareness is tiredness

and

> > > anxiety.

> > >

> > > Stephen: Tiredness and anxiety are states of mind. The mind is

the

> > > thinking process. Awareness is neither tired nor rested;

neither

> > > anxious nor at ease. Awareness just is. When the thought " I am

> > tired

> > > and anxious " does not arise, is there any such thing as

tiredness

> > or

> > > anxiety?

> > >

> > > Q: What is odd about this kind of dialogue is that my questions

> > seem

> > > to be defensive and argumentative, but I have no problem at all

> > with

> > > what you're saying. I'm just trying to experience it, rather

than

> > > just intellectually agree with it.

> > >

> > > Stephen: Give yourself two weeks to get to the bottom of this

and

> > > make the intellectual understanding become your experience.

> > >

> > > Find out for yourself, in your own direct experience, what is

your

> > > essential nature; not conceptually, but experientially. Are you

the

> > > ego? Are you in control of your life and experience? Are you

the

> > > controller? Or are you pure awareness?

> > >

> > > The idea of being a separate, controlling entity (ego) is the

root

> > > of psychological suffering. Get to the bottom of it.

> > >

> > > Are you in control? Yes or no? Not maybe or sometimes a little

bit.

> > > YES or NO?

> > >

> > > Are you aware? Yes or no? Again, not maybe or sometimes a

little

> > > bit. YES or NO?

> > >

> > > Q: I assume you went through the same thing yourself, and wish

you

> > > could somehow relay to me how you got from identifying with the

> > > separate self to seeing that you are not separate.

> > >

> > > Stephen: Do you see that there is no such thing as oneness?

Seeing

> > > there is no such thing as oneness, you see there is no such

thing

> > as

> > > separation. Separation and oneness are both concepts. Awareness

is

> > > not a concept. You are awareness.

> > >

> > > Q: There are moments when I feel I am directly experiencing

> > reality,

> > > when there is a kind of stillness and what is seems to take on

an

> > > extra dimension. But even then it is the separate self that is

> > > having an experience. I have only rarely glimpsed the feeling

of no-

> > > self. Oddly enough, it sometimes happens when I look in the

mirror

> > > and see the reflection as " not me. "

> > >

> > > Stephen: You cannot experience reality; there are no extra

> > > dimensions; there is no separate self who has an experience of

> > > stillness; there is no feeling of no-self; there is no such

thing

> > as

> > > reality.

> > >

> > > The anecdotes you've cited sound good, but upon investigation

> > > they're recognized as conceptual nonsense.

> > >

> > > Stephen Wingate

> > > http://livinginpeace-thenaturalstate.com/Correspondence%

20Series%

> > > 202.htm

> > >

> > > -------------------

> > >

> >

>

October 19, 2005

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote:

>

> Anders,

>

> We both already have discussed that already a dozend times before and

> everytime you quickly forget what I told you:

>

> There is awareness of thought same as awareness of everything else.

>

> To say: But I am aware of thought is again a thought and as you

> constantly deny to see: The word " I " uses the body as a reference and

> that will create the illusion that " you " are aware of thought.

>

> And now, quickly forget my argumentation and beware! don't think

> about it, don't examine it but better quickly start reasoning about a

> new idea. Suggestion: Why is your nose in your face and not in the

> middle of your bum ?

>

> Werner

You read things into what I have written that is not there. I did not

write " I " as an object is aware of thoughts. What I am saying is that

you cannot explain consciousness with words. Maybe you can, but when?

How long will it take for you to describe consciousness? A thought

cannot see itself. See?

al.

>

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> <anders_lindman> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Stepen:

> > > Is there ever a time when you can say, " Awareness is gone now? "

> Even

> > > when your focus is/was on the train of thought, was awareness

> gone?

> > > It is not possible for awareness to come and go. Try to make

> > > awareness go away. You are awareness. What comes and goes is the

> > > thought " I am aware now. " The thought " I am aware now " is not

> > > awareness.

> > >

> > > Werner:

> > > All wrong. There is no consciousness without a content.

> Consciousness

> > > or awareness is its content. Therefore awareness comes and goes.

> > > Because thought is the content of consciousness the thought " I am

> > > aware now " IS consciousness.

> >

> > But there is also awareness OF the thought. So you cannot solve the

> > problem just by saying that consciousness and thoughts are the same

> > thing. That's why I said that thought cannot understand

> consciousness.

> > You, as the thinker (Werner) cannot understand that consciousness in

> > which you exist. Therefore, you can never explain what consciousness

> > is. Nor can I.

> >

> > al.

> >

> > >

> > > I am awareness means I am the content. Because those contents

> > > constantly are changing I am too constantly changing and so there

> is

> > > no fix or stabile I am: neti neti. Because there is no stabile me

> the

> > > brain uses a trick to install a preliminary me by identification

> with

> > > the body and thought " I am the body " .

> > >

> > > Practicing Maharaj's " I am " will bring back the realization that

> I am

> > > not body and thought but I am all those changing contents of

> > > consciousness which means I am everything and this everythingness

> > > tells I am none of all those ever changing contents, result: I do

> not

> > > exist.

> > >

> > > Therefore to say " I am pure awareness or consciousness " is

> totally

> > > contraproductive in respect to a practical realization of one's

> non-

> > > existence. A person saying " I am pure consciousness " in no way

> > > understood Maharaj and also never practiced the " I am " over a

> longer

> > > period.

> > >

> > > I am everything and therefore nothing.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Stephen Wingate "

> > > <stephenwingate11> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > ----

> > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> > > > <anders_lindman> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > You cannot understand consciousness through thought. Maybe

> you

> > > can,

> > > > > but when? How much time do you need for thought to understand

> > > > > consciousness? One second? Two hours? Thirty years? And what

> will

> > > > that

> > > > > understanding be? A thought? A memory? A thought happening in

> > > > > consciousness? Can you see what I am getting at?

> > > > >

> > > > > al.

> > > > >

> > > > -----------

> > > >

> > > > Q: Part of the problem is that I have always considered

> awareness

> > > to

> > > > be an attribute of mind. In non-duality circles, the definition

> of

> > > > mind seems to be only " thought " . Yes, feelings, thoughts and

> > > > memories are included in the awareness. But awareness seems to

> come

> > > > and go, too, as the mind gets lost in a train of thought.

> > > >

> > > > Stephen: Is there ever a time when you can say, " Awareness is

> gone

> > > > now? " Even when your focus is/was on the train of thought, was

> > > > awareness gone? It is not possible for awareness to come and

> go.

> > > Try

> > > > to make awareness go away. You are awareness.

> > > >

> > > > What comes and goes is the thought " I am aware now. " The

> thought " I

> > > > am aware now " is not awareness.

> > > >

> > > > Q: The ego seems to have minimal control. I can try to do

> things,

> > > > and sometimes it seems to work, sometimes it doesn't. Even when

> it

> > > > doesn't, though, and I'm not in control, that seems to be a

> > > problem,

> > > > because then I feel I have to try harder.

> > > >

> > > > Stephen: You did not control your birth. You will not control

> your

> > > > death. And you are not in control of anything in between.

> > > > Enlightenment is seeing that there is no separate, controlling

> > > > entity there in you, no ego, and realizing that what you are in

> > > > essence is awareness.

> > > >

> > > > You are not trying harder; trying harder is happening.

> > > >

> > > > Q: Even when I can see that the thinking is included in the

> > > > awareness, and that what I am is awareness, the awareness I am

> > > still

> > > > seems to have problems. For instance, I have been working very

> > > hard

> > > > lately, which makes me tired and anxious. Tiredness and anxiety

> > > > therefore exist within awareness. The awareness is tiredness

> and

> > > > anxiety.

> > > >

> > > > Stephen: Tiredness and anxiety are states of mind. The mind is

> the

> > > > thinking process. Awareness is neither tired nor rested;

> neither

> > > > anxious nor at ease. Awareness just is. When the thought " I am

> > > tired

> > > > and anxious " does not arise, is there any such thing as

> tiredness

> > > or

> > > > anxiety?

> > > >

> > > > Q: What is odd about this kind of dialogue is that my questions

> > > seem

> > > > to be defensive and argumentative, but I have no problem at all

> > > with

> > > > what you're saying. I'm just trying to experience it, rather

> than

> > > > just intellectually agree with it.

> > > >

> > > > Stephen: Give yourself two weeks to get to the bottom of this

> and

> > > > make the intellectual understanding become your experience.

> > > >

> > > > Find out for yourself, in your own direct experience, what is

> your

> > > > essential nature; not conceptually, but experientially. Are you

> the

> > > > ego? Are you in control of your life and experience? Are you

> the

> > > > controller? Or are you pure awareness?

> > > >

> > > > The idea of being a separate, controlling entity (ego) is the

> root

> > > > of psychological suffering. Get to the bottom of it.

> > > >

> > > > Are you in control? Yes or no? Not maybe or sometimes a little

> bit.

> > > > YES or NO?

> > > >

> > > > Are you aware? Yes or no? Again, not maybe or sometimes a

> little

> > > > bit. YES or NO?

> > > >

> > > > Q: I assume you went through the same thing yourself, and wish

> you

> > > > could somehow relay to me how you got from identifying with the

> > > > separate self to seeing that you are not separate.

> > > >

> > > > Stephen: Do you see that there is no such thing as oneness?

> Seeing

> > > > there is no such thing as oneness, you see there is no such

> thing

> > > as

> > > > separation. Separation and oneness are both concepts. Awareness

> is

> > > > not a concept. You are awareness.

> > > >

> > > > Q: There are moments when I feel I am directly experiencing

> > > reality,

> > > > when there is a kind of stillness and what is seems to take on

> an

> > > > extra dimension. But even then it is the separate self that is

> > > > having an experience. I have only rarely glimpsed the feeling

> of no-

> > > > self. Oddly enough, it sometimes happens when I look in the

> mirror

> > > > and see the reflection as " not me. "

> > > >

> > > > Stephen: You cannot experience reality; there are no extra

> > > > dimensions; there is no separate self who has an experience of

> > > > stillness; there is no feeling of no-self; there is no such

> thing

> > > as

> > > > reality.

> > > >

> > > > The anecdotes you've cited sound good, but upon investigation

> > > > they're recognized as conceptual nonsense.

> > > >

> > > > Stephen Wingate

> > > > http://livinginpeace-thenaturalstate.com/Correspondence%

> 20Series%

> > > > 202.htm

> > > >

> > > > -------------------

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

October 20, 2005

Anders,

So simple:

If consciousness is its content then when thought is the content then

thought is consciousness. There is no difference if a tree or the sky

or thought is the content - all are consciousness.

You always have this problem to accept that consciousness is its

content because you are pregnant with that wonderful dream that YOU

are consciousness and the world appears in you.

No, no, forget it, better lets have now an abortion and start anew.

There is no object appearing in " You, Anders - there are only

appearances and there is noone they appear in.

And you see: There is no need to decribe consciousness.

Werner

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

wrote:

> >

> > Anders,

> >

> > We both already have discussed that already a dozend times before

and

> > everytime you quickly forget what I told you:

> >

> > There is awareness of thought same as awareness of everything

else.

> >

> > To say: But I am aware of thought is again a thought and as you

> > constantly deny to see: The word " I " uses the body as a reference

and

> > that will create the illusion that " you " are aware of thought.

> >

> > And now, quickly forget my argumentation and beware! don't think

> > about it, don't examine it but better quickly start reasoning

about a

> > new idea. Suggestion: Why is your nose in your face and not in

the

> > middle of your bum ?

> >

> > Werner

>

> You read things into what I have written that is not there. I did

not

> write " I " as an object is aware of thoughts. What I am saying is

that

> you cannot explain consciousness with words. Maybe you can, but

when?

> How long will it take for you to describe consciousness? A thought

> cannot see itself. See?

>

> al.

October 20, 2005

Yet another pointless mentation:

Yes, thought is the content of consciousness, but awareness is not contained

within consciousness. Consciousness arises from awareness and is not aware

of all the contents of awareness from which it arises, or all that is

conscious would experience itself as fully aware.

Possibly, the point that is being made is that the subject cannot

objectively identify itself. Whatever it is that one is tempted to identify as

Self

cannot be Self. To observe body is to know body is not Self. To observe

thoughts

is to know thoughts are not Self.

That which is aware that thoughts are occurring is what you are. This is

awareness itself, and cannot be identified as something, since to do so would be

to see it as something outside the Self. The Self can only be known by virtue

of the awareness of being that Self.

Phil

In a message dated 10/19/2005 9:58:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

anders_lindman writes:

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote:

>

> Anders,

>

> So simple:

>

> If consciousness is its content then when thought is the content then

> thought is consciousness. There is no difference if a tree or the sky

> or thought is the content - all are consciousness.

>

> You always have this problem to accept that consciousness is its

> content because you are pregnant with that wonderful dream that YOU

> are consciousness and the world appears in you.

>

> No, no, forget it, better lets have now an abortion and start anew.

> There is no object appearing in " You, Anders - there are only

> appearances and there is noone they appear in.

>

> And you see: There is no need to decribe consciousness.

>

> Werner

>

Ah, I think I " know " what you mean now. By content you mean ALL

content. Including " my " thoughts. Including the computer screen in

front of me! Including my hands writing this, and so on... even

including space and time. It's all content.

al.

October 20, 2005

That which is aware cannot itself be explained, I agree. But we can

use words to try to define things on the level of conceptual

understanding. Nothing wrong with conceptual understanding, except if

we think that we someday will understand awareness using concepts and

thought we will go crazy indeed.

Sure, we can conceptualize anything. Actually, the point was not that we

can't conceptualize or 'explain', but that we cannot 'see' the self objectively,

because it is the subject. As analogy, it would be like using a telescope to

find yourself. No matter where you point it, you'll never be able to find it

because you're looking for the person who is looking through the telescope.

It's a very subtle shift from looking for the Self 'out there' to identifying

it as what you are.

When you say awareness is not contained in consciousness, then to me

it is not clear what you mean by consciousness.

We can perhaps say: nondual awareness -> dual consciousness (mind +

physical manifestation). Consciousness is all there is, and

consciousness is a coin with two sides: (1) the unmanifested awareness

and (2) the manifested universe.

Yeah, the language gets difficult and folks start to define the terms

differently. What I 'see' is that awareness is all that exists. That is,

therefore,

what you are. Awareness cannot perceive itself, and so consciousness arises

out of that awareness as an objectified individuation. This consciousness is

also awareness, since it arose from awareness, but we can conceptualize it as

consciousness that initially has no content. The content is within awareness,

and consciousness is 'free' to draw upon the content as it expands it's

awareness of Self.

Since nothing exists but awareness, the idea of an individuated

consciousness becoming aware within time is all an illusion, but it allows for a

seemingly separate entity, that is seemingly not awareness itself, and is not

'aware'

of that fact, to 'look back' and objectively observe the awareness that it

is. This is the only way for awareness to know itself.

Therefore, consciousness does not seemingly contain the entire contents of

awareness, but only that of which it is 'aware'. So, in one sense,

consciousness IS awareness. In a more descriptive sense, consciousness is not

aware of

the totality of Self. Once it 'becomes' fully aware, it ceases to be in any way

distinguishable from awareness, and dissolves back into what it always was.

Enlightenment, then, is simply consciousness noticing the totality of the

awareness that it is.

Phil

In a message dated 10/19/2005 11:56:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

anders_lindman writes:

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> Yet another pointless mentation:

>

> Yes, thought is the content of consciousness, but awareness is not

contained

> within consciousness. Consciousness arises from awareness and is not

aware

> of all the contents of awareness from which it arises, or all that is

> conscious would experience itself as fully aware.

>

> Possibly, the point that is being made is that the subject cannot

> objectively identify itself. Whatever it is that one is tempted to

identify as Self

> cannot be Self. To observe body is to know body is not Self. To

observe thoughts

> is to know thoughts are not Self.

>

> That which is aware that thoughts are occurring is what you are.

This is

> awareness itself, and cannot be identified as something, since to do

so would be

> to see it as something outside the Self. The Self can only be known

by virtue

> of the awareness of being that Self.

>

> Phil

>

That which is aware cannot itself be explained, I agree. But we can

use words to try to define things on the level of conceptual

understanding. Nothing wrong with conceptual understanding, except if

we think that we someday will understand awareness using concepts and

thought we will go crazy indeed.

More pointless mentation:

When you say awareness is not contained in consciousness, then to me

it is not clear what you mean by consciousness.

We can perhaps say: nondual awareness -> dual consciousness (mind +

physical manifestation). Consciousness is all there is, and

consciousness is a coin with two sides: (1) the unmanifested awareness

and (2) the manifested universe.

al.

October 20, 2005

Yeah, you're right. What do all those stupidhead enlightened masters know

anyhoo?

I don't see how calling it awareness instead of consciousness somehow makes

it seem more attainable or cool, in case that's your point, but I'll assume

that your belligerence is really a projection of your fear that your ego will

never experience enlightenment. It's true, as you approach that knowingness,

ego inches itself ever closer to the gallows. The question then becomes, do

you have the courage to die for the love of God?

Phil

In a message dated 10/20/2005 1:06:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

wwoehr writes:

Phil,

" Awareness " is the last residue of romantic spiritual cowards.

If consciousness no longer will do it to get near the " higher " , then

at least awareness will help which is the Ultimate, Absolute, Divine,

God, Atman=Brahman, etc.

And so the spiritual coward is no longer alone in this vastness, he

now is the Aboslute, God, and all those Greatnesses and no longer

that shabby lonely little piece of flesh, suffering, longing for

love, trying to escape boredom, etc ...

All those what awareness stands for are just bubbles ...

Werner

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> Yet another pointless mentation:

>

> Yes, thought is the content of consciousness, but awareness is not

contained

> within consciousness. Consciousness arises from awareness and is

not aware

> of all the contents of awareness from which it arises, or all that

is

> conscious would experience itself as fully aware.

>

> Possibly, the point that is being made is that the subject cannot

> objectively identify itself. Whatever it is that one is tempted to

identify as Self

> cannot be Self. To observe body is to know body is not Self. To

observe thoughts

> is to know thoughts are not Self.

>

> That which is aware that thoughts are occurring is what you are.

This is

> awareness itself, and cannot be identified as something, since to

do so would be

> to see it as something outside the Self. The Self can only be known

by virtue

> of the awareness of being that Self.

>

> Phil

>

October 20, 2005

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote:

>

> Anders,

>

> So simple:

>

> If consciousness is its content then when thought is the content then

> thought is consciousness. There is no difference if a tree or the sky

> or thought is the content - all are consciousness.

>

> You always have this problem to accept that consciousness is its

> content because you are pregnant with that wonderful dream that YOU

> are consciousness and the world appears in you.

>

> No, no, forget it, better lets have now an abortion and start anew.

> There is no object appearing in " You, Anders - there are only

> appearances and there is noone they appear in.

>

> And you see: There is no need to decribe consciousness.

>

> Werner

>

Ah, I think I " know " what you mean now. By content you mean ALL

content. Including " my " thoughts. Including the computer screen in

front of me! Including my hands writing this, and so on... even

including space and time. It's all content.

al.

October 20, 2005

Yes, I'm clearly the only one here who uses words. Hehe.

When limiting beliefs are not challenged, they don't disappear on their own.

They remain, and the boundaries they represent remain. Consider the

possibility that the expansion of concepts to the limits of comprehension, and

perhaps a little further, may expand those boundaries far enough so that they

cease

to limit the next 'level' of awareness. Ego cannot find Truth within the

illusion, but it can do some serious damage to it's self created illusions.

Some

folks also find that the masters aren't fools after all for using words in

their teachings.

Possibly, some words from Balsekar will clarify a bit:

" Though in itself limited, a developed intellect is nonetheless

necessary as the one faculty that can bring us to the brink of true

Advaitic understanding. The person with a keen intellect becomes

enlightened even when the instruction of the guru is imparted

casually, whereas without it the immature seeker continues to remain

confused even after a lifetime of seeking.

A mature and penetrating intellect will not have divorced itself from

intuition and bound itself so extensively in logic and reason as to

obstruct its natural receptivity to the spontaneous arising of divinity. "

In a message dated 10/20/2005 1:31:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

wwoehr writes:

Phil,

Who is using so many words words to explain, to define his escapes

like " awareness " ? Who is that ?

Who is using so many words to give life to bubbles like awareness,

God, the Divine, Brahman, etc ? Who needs those ? Is there at all an

entity which is defining those and needing those, or isn't the

definition already a security strategy of the brain ?

Without the word what will remain ?

Werner

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> That which is aware cannot itself be explained, I agree. But we can

> use words to try to define things on the level of conceptual

> understanding. Nothing wrong with conceptual understanding, except

if

> we think that we someday will understand awareness using concepts

and

> thought we will go crazy indeed.

>

> Sure, we can conceptualize anything. Actually, the point was not

that we

> can't conceptualize or 'explain', but that we cannot 'see' the self

objectively,

> because it is the subject. As analogy, it would be like using a

telescope to

> find yourself. No matter where you point it, you'll never be able

to find it

> because you're looking for the person who is looking through the

telescope.

> It's a very subtle shift from looking for the Self 'out there' to

identifying

> it as what you are.

>

> When you say awareness is not contained in consciousness, then to

me

> it is not clear what you mean by consciousness.

>

> We can perhaps say: nondual awareness -> dual consciousness (mind +

> physical manifestation). Consciousness is all there is, and

> consciousness is a coin with two sides: (1) the unmanifested

awareness

> and (2) the manifested universe.

>

> Yeah, the language gets difficult and folks start to define the

terms

> differently. What I 'see' is that awareness is all that exists.

That is, therefore,

> what you are. Awareness cannot perceive itself, and so

consciousness arises

> out of that awareness as an objectified individuation. This

consciousness is

> also awareness, since it arose from awareness, but we can

conceptualize it as

> consciousness that initially has no content. The content is within

awareness,

> and consciousness is 'free' to draw upon the content as it expands

it's

> awareness of Self.

>

> Since nothing exists but awareness, the idea of an individuated

> consciousness becoming aware within time is all an illusion, but it

allows for a

> seemingly separate entity, that is seemingly not awareness itself,

and is not 'aware'

> of that fact, to 'look back' and objectively observe the awareness

that it

> is. This is the only way for awareness to know itself.

>

> Therefore, consciousness does not seemingly contain the entire

contents of

> awareness, but only that of which it is 'aware'. So, in one sense,

> consciousness IS awareness. In a more descriptive sense,

consciousness is not aware of

> the totality of Self. Once it 'becomes' fully aware, it ceases to

be in any way

> distinguishable from awareness, and dissolves back into what it

always was.

>

> Enlightenment, then, is simply consciousness noticing the totality

of the

> awareness that it is.

>

> Phil

>

October 20, 2005

I take it you're enjoying yourself here?

In a message dated 10/20/2005 1:47:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

wwoehr writes:

Phil,

You already made that step to see yourself a stupidhead and now you

ask if one has the courage to die for God. Please see:

The definition, the explanation are security strategies not to be

helpless, not to be alone in this vastness, to be a someone and not a

noone. And awareness, God, the Divine are all just those definitions.

Why should one die for a definition ?

Werner

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> Yeah, you're right. What do all those stupidhead enlightened

masters know

> anyhoo?

>

> I don't see how calling it awareness instead of consciousness

somehow makes

> it seem more attainable or cool, in case that's your point, but

I'll assume

> that your belligerence is really a projection of your fear that

your ego will

> never experience enlightenment. It's true, as you approach that

knowingness,

> ego inches itself ever closer to the gallows. The question then

becomes, do

> you have the courage to die for the love of God?

>

> Phil

>

October 20, 2005

Thanks. It's pleasant to hear a kind word now and then.

In a message dated 10/20/2005 2:01:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

anders_lindman writes:

Hi Phil,

That was a nice description. I like the illustration of the telescope.

It connects very well to an illustration Vernon Howard made.

Concepts are good on a practical level. Science, for example, would

not exist without concepts. Earlier in the history of humanity, the

idea existed that the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

Then it was recognized that the earth is a sphere and not the center

of the universe. The next big step in science could be the recognition

that consciousness is at the center of the universe and that all the

" stuff " is mere " Maya " , " images/forms " withing consciousness.

al.

October 20, 2005

Thanks, teddy bear.

In a message dated 10/20/2005 2:16:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

nli10u writes:

Oh, Phil

You hit the nail on the head!!!

Love you forever,

Ana

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Thursday, October 20, 2005 4:34 AM

Re: Re: Short-circuit the thought process

Yeah, you're right. What do all those stupidhead enlightened masters know

anyhoo?

I don't see how calling it awareness instead of consciousness somehow makes

it seem more attainable or cool, in case that's your point, but I'll assume

that your belligerence is really a projection of your fear that your ego

will

never experience enlightenment. It's true, as you approach that

knowingness,

ego inches itself ever closer to the gallows. The question then becomes, do

you have the courage to die for the love of God?

Phil

In a message dated 10/20/2005 1:06:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

wwoehr writes:

Phil,

" Awareness " is the last residue of romantic spiritual cowards.

If consciousness no longer will do it to get near the " higher " , then

at least awareness will help which is the Ultimate, Absolute, Divine,

God, Atman=Brahman, etc.

And so the spiritual coward is no longer alone in this vastness, he

now is the Aboslute, God, and all those Greatnesses and no longer

that shabby lonely little piece of flesh, suffering, longing for

love, trying to escape boredom, etc ...

All those what awareness stands for are just bubbles ...

Werner

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> Yet another pointless mentation:

>

> Yes, thought is the content of consciousness, but awareness is not

contained

> within consciousness. Consciousness arises from awareness and is

not aware

> of all the contents of awareness from which it arises, or all that

is

> conscious would experience itself as fully aware.

>

> Possibly, the point that is being made is that the subject cannot

> objectively identify itself. Whatever it is that one is tempted to

identify as Self

> cannot be Self. To observe body is to know body is not Self. To

observe thoughts

> is to know thoughts are not Self.

>

> That which is aware that thoughts are occurring is what you are.

This is

> awareness itself, and cannot be identified as something, since to

do so would be

> to see it as something outside the Self. The Self can only be known

by virtue

> of the awareness of being that Self.

>

> Phil

>

October 20, 2005

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> Yet another pointless mentation:

>

> Yes, thought is the content of consciousness, but awareness is not

contained

> within consciousness. Consciousness arises from awareness and is not

aware

> of all the contents of awareness from which it arises, or all that is

> conscious would experience itself as fully aware.

>

> Possibly, the point that is being made is that the subject cannot

> objectively identify itself. Whatever it is that one is tempted to

identify as Self

> cannot be Self. To observe body is to know body is not Self. To

observe thoughts

> is to know thoughts are not Self.

>

> That which is aware that thoughts are occurring is what you are.

This is

> awareness itself, and cannot be identified as something, since to do

so would be

> to see it as something outside the Self. The Self can only be known

by virtue

> of the awareness of being that Self.

>

> Phil

>

That which is aware cannot itself be explained, I agree. But we can

use words to try to define things on the level of conceptual

understanding. Nothing wrong with conceptual understanding, except if

we think that we someday will understand awareness using concepts and

thought we will go crazy indeed.

More pointless mentation:

When you say awareness is not contained in consciousness, then to me

it is not clear what you mean by consciousness.

We can perhaps say: nondual awareness -> dual consciousness (mind +

physical manifestation). Consciousness is all there is, and

consciousness is a coin with two sides: (1) the unmanifested awareness

and (2) the manifested universe.

al.

October 20, 2005

Phil,

" Awareness " is the last residue of romantic spiritual cowards.

If consciousness no longer will do it to get near the " higher " , then

at least awareness will help which is the Ultimate, Absolute, Divine,

God, Atman=Brahman, etc.

And so the spiritual coward is no longer alone in this vastness, he

now is the Aboslute, God, and all those Greatnesses and no longer

that shabby lonely little piece of flesh, suffering, longing for

love, trying to escape boredom, etc ...

All those what awareness stands for are just bubbles ...

Werner

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> Yet another pointless mentation:

>

> Yes, thought is the content of consciousness, but awareness is not

contained

> within consciousness. Consciousness arises from awareness and is

not aware

> of all the contents of awareness from which it arises, or all that

is

> conscious would experience itself as fully aware.

>

> Possibly, the point that is being made is that the subject cannot

> objectively identify itself. Whatever it is that one is tempted to

identify as Self

> cannot be Self. To observe body is to know body is not Self. To

observe thoughts

> is to know thoughts are not Self.

>

> That which is aware that thoughts are occurring is what you are.

This is

> awareness itself, and cannot be identified as something, since to

do so would be

> to see it as something outside the Self. The Self can only be known

by virtue

> of the awareness of being that Self.

>

> Phil

>

> In a message dated 10/19/2005 9:58:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

wrote:

> >

> > Anders,

> >

> > So simple:

> >

> > If consciousness is its content then when thought is the content

then

> > thought is consciousness. There is no difference if a tree or

the sky

> > or thought is the content - all are consciousness.

> >

> > You always have this problem to accept that consciousness is its

> > content because you are pregnant with that wonderful dream that

YOU

> > are consciousness and the world appears in you.

> >

> > No, no, forget it, better lets have now an abortion and start

anew.

> > There is no object appearing in " You, Anders - there are only

> > appearances and there is noone they appear in.

> >

> > And you see: There is no need to decribe consciousness.

> >

> > Werner

> >

>

> Ah, I think I " know " what you mean now. By content you mean ALL

> content. Including " my " thoughts. Including the computer screen in

> front of me! Including my hands writing this, and so on... even

> including space and time. It's all content.

>

> al.

October 20, 2005

Phil,

Who is using so many words words to explain, to define his escapes

like " awareness " ? Who is that ?

Who is using so many words to give life to bubbles like awareness,

God, the Divine, Brahman, etc ? Who needs those ? Is there at all an

entity which is defining those and needing those, or isn't the

definition already a security strategy of the brain ?

Without the word what will remain ?

Werner

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> That which is aware cannot itself be explained, I agree. But we can

> use words to try to define things on the level of conceptual

> understanding. Nothing wrong with conceptual understanding, except

if

> we think that we someday will understand awareness using concepts

and

> thought we will go crazy indeed.

>

> Sure, we can conceptualize anything. Actually, the point was not

that we

> can't conceptualize or 'explain', but that we cannot 'see' the self

objectively,

> because it is the subject. As analogy, it would be like using a

telescope to

> find yourself. No matter where you point it, you'll never be able

to find it

> because you're looking for the person who is looking through the

telescope.

> It's a very subtle shift from looking for the Self 'out there' to

identifying

> it as what you are.

>

> When you say awareness is not contained in consciousness, then to

me

> it is not clear what you mean by consciousness.

>

> We can perhaps say: nondual awareness -> dual consciousness (mind +

> physical manifestation). Consciousness is all there is, and

> consciousness is a coin with two sides: (1) the unmanifested

awareness

> and (2) the manifested universe.

>

> Yeah, the language gets difficult and folks start to define the

terms

> differently. What I 'see' is that awareness is all that exists.

That is, therefore,

> what you are. Awareness cannot perceive itself, and so

consciousness arises

> out of that awareness as an objectified individuation. This

consciousness is

> also awareness, since it arose from awareness, but we can

conceptualize it as

> consciousness that initially has no content. The content is within

awareness,

> and consciousness is 'free' to draw upon the content as it expands

it's

> awareness of Self.

>

> Since nothing exists but awareness, the idea of an individuated

> consciousness becoming aware within time is all an illusion, but it

allows for a

> seemingly separate entity, that is seemingly not awareness itself,

and is not 'aware'

> of that fact, to 'look back' and objectively observe the awareness

that it

> is. This is the only way for awareness to know itself.

>

> Therefore, consciousness does not seemingly contain the entire

contents of

> awareness, but only that of which it is 'aware'. So, in one sense,

> consciousness IS awareness. In a more descriptive sense,

consciousness is not aware of

> the totality of Self. Once it 'becomes' fully aware, it ceases to

be in any way

> distinguishable from awareness, and dissolves back into what it

always was.

>

> Enlightenment, then, is simply consciousness noticing the totality

of the

> awareness that it is.

>

> Phil

In a message dated 10/19/2005 11:56:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> > Yet another pointless mentation:

> >

> > Yes, thought is the content of consciousness, but awareness is

not

> contained

> > within consciousness. Consciousness arises from awareness and is

not

> aware

> > of all the contents of awareness from which it arises, or all

that is

> > conscious would experience itself as fully aware.

> >

> > Possibly, the point that is being made is that the subject

cannot

> > objectively identify itself. Whatever it is that one is tempted

to

> identify as Self

> > cannot be Self. To observe body is to know body is not Self. To

> observe thoughts

> > is to know thoughts are not Self.

> >

> > That which is aware that thoughts are occurring is what you are.

> This is

> > awareness itself, and cannot be identified as something, since

to do

> so would be

> > to see it as something outside the Self. The Self can only be

known

> by virtue

> > of the awareness of being that Self.

> >

> > Phil

> >

>

> That which is aware cannot itself be explained, I agree. But we can

> use words to try to define things on the level of conceptual

> understanding. Nothing wrong with conceptual understanding, except

if

> we think that we someday will understand awareness using concepts

and

> thought we will go crazy indeed.

>

> More pointless mentation:

>

> When you say awareness is not contained in consciousness, then to

me

> it is not clear what you mean by consciousness.

>

> We can perhaps say: nondual awareness -> dual consciousness (mind +

> physical manifestation). Consciousness is all there is, and

> consciousness is a coin with two sides: (1) the unmanifested

awareness

> and (2) the manifested universe.

>

> al.

October 20, 2005

Phil,

You already made that step to see yourself a stupidhead and now you

ask if one has the courage to die for God. Please see:

The definition, the explanation are security strategies not to be

helpless, not to be alone in this vastness, to be a someone and not a

noone. And awareness, God, the Divine are all just those definitions.

Why should one die for a definition ?

Werner

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> Yeah, you're right. What do all those stupidhead enlightened

masters know

> anyhoo?

>

> I don't see how calling it awareness instead of consciousness

somehow makes

> it seem more attainable or cool, in case that's your point, but

I'll assume

> that your belligerence is really a projection of your fear that

your ego will

> never experience enlightenment. It's true, as you approach that

knowingness,

> ego inches itself ever closer to the gallows. The question then

becomes, do

> you have the courage to die for the love of God?

>

> Phil

>

In a message dated 10/20/2005 1:06:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> wwoehr@p... writes:

>

> Phil,

>

> " Awareness " is the last residue of romantic spiritual cowards.

>

> If consciousness no longer will do it to get near the " higher " ,

then

> at least awareness will help which is the Ultimate, Absolute,

Divine,

> God, Atman=Brahman, etc.

>

> And so the spiritual coward is no longer alone in this vastness,

he

> now is the Aboslute, God, and all those Greatnesses and no longer

> that shabby lonely little piece of flesh, suffering, longing for

> love, trying to escape boredom, etc ...

>

> All those what awareness stands for are just bubbles ...

>

> Werner

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> > Yet another pointless mentation:

> >

> > Yes, thought is the content of consciousness, but awareness is

not

> contained

> > within consciousness. Consciousness arises from awareness and is

> not aware

> > of all the contents of awareness from which it arises, or all

that

> is

> > conscious would experience itself as fully aware.

> >

> > Possibly, the point that is being made is that the subject

cannot

> > objectively identify itself. Whatever it is that one is tempted

to

> identify as Self

> > cannot be Self. To observe body is to know body is not Self. To

> observe thoughts

> > is to know thoughts are not Self.

> >

> > That which is aware that thoughts are occurring is what you are.

> This is

> > awareness itself, and cannot be identified as something, since

to

> do so would be

> > to see it as something outside the Self. The Self can only be

known

> by virtue

> > of the awareness of being that Self.

> >

> > Phil

> >

October 20, 2005

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> That which is aware cannot itself be explained, I agree. But we can

> use words to try to define things on the level of conceptual

> understanding. Nothing wrong with conceptual understanding, except if

> we think that we someday will understand awareness using concepts and

> thought we will go crazy indeed.

>

> Sure, we can conceptualize anything. Actually, the point was not

that we

> can't conceptualize or 'explain', but that we cannot 'see' the self

objectively,

> because it is the subject. As analogy, it would be like using a

telescope to

> find yourself. No matter where you point it, you'll never be able to

find it

> because you're looking for the person who is looking through the

telescope.

> It's a very subtle shift from looking for the Self 'out there' to

identifying

> it as what you are.

>

> When you say awareness is not contained in consciousness, then to me

> it is not clear what you mean by consciousness.

>

> We can perhaps say: nondual awareness -> dual consciousness (mind +

> physical manifestation). Consciousness is all there is, and

> consciousness is a coin with two sides: (1) the unmanifested awareness

> and (2) the manifested universe.

>

> Yeah, the language gets difficult and folks start to define the terms

> differently. What I 'see' is that awareness is all that exists. That

is, therefore,

> what you are. Awareness cannot perceive itself, and so consciousness

arises