Short-circuit the thought process

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/23/2005 7:39:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

anders_lindman writes:

 

When love is trapped it becomes fear. That fear creates the illusion

> of separation which is needed in order to create the One and the Many.

> From Oneness to seeminly separation and then into the One and the

Many.

>

> al.

>

>

>

> I would say that the illusion of separation is what leads to fear.

If one is

> everything, what would one fear? If one believes oneself to be

separate,

> there's great cause for fear.

>

> How would love be " trapped " ?

>

> Phil

>

>

 

 

Love must be trapped in " not love " to create the illusion of separation.

 

al.

 

 

 

Wouldn't " not love " also be illusion?

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/23/2005 9:15:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

nli10u writes:

 

 

Love can not be divided into two except by One who thinks Two..and so

experiences two, which is ok, since one and two equals experience

 

 

Yes, and that which thinks/perceives two is already the illusion of duality.

Therefore, the illusion is the source of the perception of 'not love'.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

>

> Anders,

>

> It is the other way round:

>

> Thought is prior to consciousness. First thought is produced in the

> brain and then it is shifted as thought packtes into that part of the

> brain which makes it conscious.

>

> As I could see you also started to partake in love babbling. I can

> understand that because is doesn't feel good to be an outsider.

>

> Question:

> Do you fear to be a nobody ?

>

> Werner

 

 

Maybe thoughts produce consciousness. But I find it strange that

consciousness is closer to the future than thoughts. If you follow

what science says, then all matter is in the past from consciousness'

point of view. My guess is that the present produces the past, not

that the past produces the present. If you look at the moon, it is the

past you are observing. Similarly, when a thought appear in

consciousness, then it is the past that is being observed.

 

I want to be an all-body. Maybe I am. I am not sure.

 

Can we agree that maybe the universe is in consciousness and not the

other way around as seems to be your current belief-system?

 

al.

[Guest guest]

-

anders_lindman

Nisargadatta

Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:32 AM

Re: Short-circuit the thought process

 

 

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

>

> Anders,

>

> It is the other way round:

>

> Thought is prior to consciousness. First thought is produced in the

> brain and then it is shifted as thought packtes into that part of the

> brain which makes it conscious.

>

> As I could see you also started to partake in love babbling. I can

> understand that because is doesn't feel good to be an outsider.

>

> Question:

> Do you fear to be a nobody ?

>

> Werner

 

 

Maybe thoughts produce consciousness. But I find it strange that

consciousness is closer to the future than thoughts. If you follow

what science says, then all matter is in the past from consciousness'

point of view. My guess is that the present produces the past, not

that the past produces the present. If you look at the moon, it is the

past you are observing. Similarly, when a thought appear in

consciousness, then it is the past that is being observed.

 

I want to be an all-body. Maybe I am. I am not sure.

 

Can we agree that maybe the universe is in consciousness and not the

other way around as seems to be your current belief-system?

 

al.

 

 

 

Morning Beloved Al,

 

The universe is.

Consciousness is

Awareness is

 

The unifying Force,

is the Source

 

Is

 

I call it Love unless I define it in

philosophical, scientific, existential,

biographic, poetic, didatic, moralistic,

monochromatic, singularistic, officious

flatterings and spatterings of systematic

ruminations and assimilations of belief

systems which are thought-forms, given life.

 

smiles,

 

Ana.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/23/2005 9:42:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

nli10u writes:

 

ah, we're all on the same page...

 

 

 

I wish we were but it seems we're not. Hehe.

 

Just a little email joke.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote:

>

>

> -

> anders_lindman

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:32 AM

> Re: Short-circuit the thought process

>

>

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

wrote:

> >

> > Anders,

> >

> > It is the other way round:

> >

> > Thought is prior to consciousness. First thought is produced in the

> > brain and then it is shifted as thought packtes into that part

of the

> > brain which makes it conscious.

> >

> > As I could see you also started to partake in love babbling. I can

> > understand that because is doesn't feel good to be an outsider.

> >

> > Question:

> > Do you fear to be a nobody ?

> >

> > Werner

>

>

> Maybe thoughts produce consciousness. But I find it strange that

> consciousness is closer to the future than thoughts. If you follow

> what science says, then all matter is in the past from consciousness'

> point of view. My guess is that the present produces the past, not

> that the past produces the present. If you look at the moon, it is the

> past you are observing. Similarly, when a thought appear in

> consciousness, then it is the past that is being observed.

>

> I want to be an all-body. Maybe I am. I am not sure.

>

> Can we agree that maybe the universe is in consciousness and not the

> other way around as seems to be your current belief-system?

>

> al.

>

>

>

> Morning Beloved Al,

>

> The universe is.

> Consciousness is

> Awareness is

>

> The unifying Force,

> is the Source

>

> Is

>

> I call it Love unless I define it in

> philosophical, scientific, existential,

> biographic, poetic, didatic, moralistic,

> monochromatic, singularistic, officious

> flatterings and spatterings of systematic

> ruminations and assimilations of belief

> systems which are thought-forms, given life.

>

> smiles,

>

> Ana.

>

 

 

Good morning Ana,

 

When love is trapped it becomes fear. That fear creates the illusion

of separation which is needed in order to create the One and the Many.

From Oneness to seeminly separation and then into the One and the Many.

 

al.

[Guest guest]

No agreement, Anders,

 

Why do you look after so big things like the universe, can't we stay

on earth and handle much smaller objects ? Or does it make yourself

feel more greater and bigger to speak about the universe ? It seems

so ...

 

Anders, we now so often talked and conversed about consciousness and

you don't want to give up your dream of consciousness as kind of a

mirror does exits. We can go on endlessly and year for year you try

to solve the riddle of consciousness and you never will succeed

simply becuase your presupposition that consciousness exists is wrong.

 

Last try:

 

What you see as a stabile consciousness is just the endless flow of

sensual data processed and made conscious in different parts of the

brain.

 

When you get an anesthetization then all is gone, not the least bit

of awareness and consciousness remained, nothing remained.

 

Werner

 

 

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

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

wrote:

> >

> > Anders,

> >

> > It is the other way round:

> >

> > Thought is prior to consciousness. First thought is produced in

the

> > brain and then it is shifted as thought packtes into that part of

the

> > brain which makes it conscious.

> >

> > As I could see you also started to partake in love babbling. I

can

> > understand that because is doesn't feel good to be an outsider.

> >

> > Question:

> > Do you fear to be a nobody ?

> >

> > Werner

>

>

> Maybe thoughts produce consciousness. But I find it strange that

> consciousness is closer to the future than thoughts. If you follow

> what science says, then all matter is in the past from

consciousness'

> point of view. My guess is that the present produces the past, not

> that the past produces the present. If you look at the moon, it is

the

> past you are observing. Similarly, when a thought appear in

> consciousness, then it is the past that is being observed.

>

> I want to be an all-body. Maybe I am. I am not sure.

>

> Can we agree that maybe the universe is in consciousness and not the

> other way around as seems to be your current belief-system?

>

> al.

>

[Guest guest]

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

>

> No agreement, Anders,

>

> Why do you look after so big things like the universe, can't we stay

> on earth and handle much smaller objects ? Or does it make yourself

> feel more greater and bigger to speak about the universe ? It seems

> so ...

>

> Anders, we now so often talked and conversed about consciousness and

> you don't want to give up your dream of consciousness as kind of a

> mirror does exits. We can go on endlessly and year for year you try

> to solve the riddle of consciousness and you never will succeed

> simply becuase your presupposition that consciousness exists is wrong.

>

> Last try:

>

> What you see as a stabile consciousness is just the endless flow of

> sensual data processed and made conscious in different parts of the

> brain.

>

> When you get an anesthetization then all is gone, not the least bit

> of awareness and consciousness remained, nothing remained.

>

> Werner

>

 

 

My idea is that there is only now. You have maybe never been asleep.

Think about that for a while, will ya. You have the memory of a gap

which you call sleep, but you cannot prove that the memory actually

contains time itself. There may not be any past except that which

appear now. The same with anesthetization.

 

Don't get stuck too deep in mainstream " safe " belief-system, or you

may be the one who is fooling yourself gravely.

 

al.

[Guest guest]

Self,

 

lock, stock or barrel?

locked stocked or barreling

 

empty or full? empty or full....

 

rolling rolling rolling

down the river....

 

it's all water, cool cool water

evaporating and raining on/as/of/in This.

 

waves, echoes, fire, light, love,

words that fall into

 

This, my Love, my Beloved " I Am " .

 

 

Ana

 

 

 

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Sunday, October 23, 2005 9:18 AM

Re: Re: Short-circuit the thought process

 

 

 

Yes, self knowledge has always been the focus here. This is what humbles

ego, something you might look into.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 10/23/2005 3:09:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

wwoehr writes:

 

Phil,

 

I think you know exactly what I want.

 

Tell me very seriously and honestly, what for do you need this

wonderful " awareness " ? Why so desperately clinging to it ? What does

it promise ? It is that promise you are keen on, right ? What is it ?

 

God, the Self, Bahman ?

 

What are those promising besides security ? Nothing else, isn't it ?

 

You speak of egoic death but don't want to quit those concepts of

cowards like God, Self, Brahman, Awareness.

 

That is a contradiction, to die the egoic death and at the same time

clinging to promising concepts.

 

Maybe you just don't want to admit to yourself that you are just a

cowardish hypocrite ?

 

When one reads those posts here then one realizes that these godly

topics are the most but Maharaj much more stressed undestanding

oneself, self-knowledge is the key and not those laughable divine

ideals whose home is a kindergarten spirituality.

 

Werner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sorry Phil,

 

I cannot answer a question built on wrong premises like I am " doing

battle with those who seek something better " .

 

It is not like brushing teeth to have a battle against bacteria and

those members here trying to escape from facing what is into an ideal

world which only exists as a compensating fluffy image in their mind.

 

Just go on with your dreams, but they will end like all bubbles do:

Plop ...

 

Werner

 

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> The 'promise' is love,joy, peace, freedom.

> In some ways, freedom and security contradict each other.

> There is no desperation or need for security. It's a joyful

exploration

> that's already brought me a dualistic form of all those 'promises'.

> Now tell me, what is it you're so afraid of that has you doing

battle with

> those who seek something better?

>

> Phil

>

>

>

>

>

> In a message dated 10/23/2005 2:38:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> wwoehr@p... writes:

>

> Phil,

>

> Tell me very seriously and honestly, what for do you need that

> wonderful " awareness " ? Why so desperately clinging to it ? What

does

> it promise ? It is that promise you are keen on, right ? What is

it ?

>

> God, the Self, Bahman ?

>

> What are those promising besides security ? Nothing else, isn't

it ?

>

> Werner

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> >

> > I don't know what you want. All that I believe I am will die.

There

> is no

> > possibility of an independent, egoic existence where I know

myself

> to be

> > anything. Enlightenment is the anhilation of any sense of

separate

> self. Ego will

> > not be transferred into awareness.

> >

> > How can I have a serious conversation with someone who's not

> listening?

> > Perhaps it's not my fear of death that we're talking about here.

> >

> > Phil

> >

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> It seems to me that both you and the poet assume that consciousness

has no

> reality but is only made up of content. I can see how this belief

would lead to

> the conclusion that consciousness vanishes when there is no perceived

> content, and that when we die, we're worm food.

>

> I accept your right to believe as you do, but when one holds so

tightly to

> one's beliefs that he feels justified in condemning all other

beliefs as the

> unwillingness to understand and accept, that locks belief in place,

since now

> ego has just as much investment in proving others to be deluded as

others do

> in finding God.

>

> If I believed I was destined to become worm food, I would find more

> worthwhile pursuits, but that's just me.

>

> Phil

 

 

Yes, is consciousness needed in order for matter to appear, or is

matter needed in order for consciousness to appear. I think this

question has not been resolved by science. The ordinary view in

mainstream science is that matter creates consciousness, but then

there comes people like Deepak Chopra who says: " You are not in the

world, the world is in you " If we take that as a literate statement,

then it means that the universe is in consciousness, not consciousness

in the universe. I am myself not sure which view is correct. And I

don't see how other people could be so dogmatically sure, unless, of

course, they know themselves as being the formless before it becomes form.

 

al.

 

>

>

>

>

> In a message dated 10/22/2005 4:37:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> wwoehr@p... writes:

>

> Hi Phil,

>

> What you wrote is confusing. You mix some things, like being

> conscious, consciousness, perception and also their relationship to

> body mind.

>

> Do you have the feeling you are clear about that ?

>

> I know that this what I call " spiritual pest " sits deep and that most

> seekers believing that they are awareness don't want to give that

> up. " Being conscious " ist just a different way to say " I am

> consciousness " but the point is that you " are " not conscious but you

> are all these contents of consciousness. There is no I or me which is

> conscious or which is the " knower " or which is awareness.

>

> I know you will read this lines and are not willing to understand and

> to accept it.

>

> So, why to go on with that ?

>

> See the following famous poem from Anna Elizabeth Frey which exactly

> expresses what I want to convey.

>

> Do not stand at my grave and weep;

> I am not there. I do not sleep.

> I am a thousand winds that blow.

> I am the diamond glints on snow.

> I am sunlight on ripened grain.

> I am the gentle autumn rain.

> When you awaken in the morning's hush

> I am the swift uplifting rush

> Of quiet birds in circled flight.

> I am the soft stars that shine at night.

> Do not stand at my grave and cry;

> I am not there. I did not die.

>

> Werner

>

>

> --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> > I see what your pondering is here. If the world goes away when

> we're not

> > conscious, everybody goes away. Maybe the difficulty here is the

> assumption that

> > 'being' conscious is equivalent to consciousness itself. It's only

> perception

> > within consciousness that has any relationship with the mind/body.

> When you

> > croak, you won't cease to be consciousness nor will you cease to be

> aware, do

> > just won't be perceiving yourself as a mind/body.

> What " disappears " is

> > perception.

> >

> > Phil

> >

 

[Guest guest]

>

> " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman

> 2005/10/23 Sun AM 02:52:42 EDT

> Nisargadatta

> Re: Short-circuit the thought process

>

>

 

 

 

 

Good morning Beloved,

Consciousness and the Universe arise simultaneously in

awareness. This is 'abiding in/as.'.

 

love,

Ana

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/23/2005 9:58:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

anders_lindman writes:

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/23/2005 7:39:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

> When love is trapped it becomes fear. That fear creates the illusion

> > of separation which is needed in order to create the One and the

Many.

> > From Oneness to seeminly separation and then into the One and the

> Many.

> >

> > al.

> >

> >

> >

> > I would say that the illusion of separation is what leads to fear.

> If one is

> > everything, what would one fear? If one believes oneself to be

> separate,

> > there's great cause for fear.

> >

> > How would love be " trapped " ?

> >

> > Phil

> >

> >

>

>

> Love must be trapped in " not love " to create the illusion of

separation.

>

> al.

>

>

>

> Wouldn't " not love " also be illusion?

>

> Phil

>

 

Yes, of course. Reality does not consist of more than one thing. There

is ONLY the Source; and space, time, matter, energy, consciousness are

aspects of that same reality.

 

al.

 

 

 

Space, time, matter, energy are phenomena that make up what we've been

calling the illusion. Consciousness is awareness and therefore makes up the

unmanifest Reality.

 

The point was that fear arises from perception within illusion, rather than

fear causing the illusion.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Aleady better as Anders' idea,

 

But still wrong.

 

Thought arises as consciuosness - it is consciousness because

consciousness is its content. There is no consciousness waiting for

thought to arise in, like a vagina for a penetrating penis. No, no,

 

Werner

 

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> Thought arises within consciousness.

>

> Phil

>

>

>

> In a message dated 10/23/2005 4:16:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> wwoehr@p... writes:

>

> Anders,

>

> It is the other way round:

>

> Thought is prior to consciousness. First thought is produced in

the

> brain and then it is shifted as thought packtes into that part of

the

> brain which makes it conscious.

>

> As I could see you also started to partake in love babbling. I can

> understand that because is doesn't feel good to be an outsider.

>

> Question:

> Do you fear to be a nobody ?

>

> Werner

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/23/2005 6:08:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

>

> When love is trapped it becomes fear. That fear creates the illusion

> of separation which is needed in order to create the One and the Many.

> From Oneness to seeminly separation and then into the One and the

Many.

>

> al.

>

>

>

> I would say that the illusion of separation is what leads to fear.

If one is

> everything, what would one fear? If one believes oneself to be

separate,

> there's great cause for fear.

>

> How would love be " trapped " ?

>

> Phil

>

>

 

 

Love must be trapped in " not love " to create the illusion of separation.

 

al.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/23/2005 7:39:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

> When love is trapped it becomes fear. That fear creates the illusion

> > of separation which is needed in order to create the One and the

Many.

> > From Oneness to seeminly separation and then into the One and the

> Many.

> >

> > al.

> >

> >

> >

> > I would say that the illusion of separation is what leads to fear.

> If one is

> > everything, what would one fear? If one believes oneself to be

> separate,

> > there's great cause for fear.

> >

> > How would love be " trapped " ?

> >

> > Phil

> >

> >

>

>

> Love must be trapped in " not love " to create the illusion of

separation.

>

> al.

>

>

>

> Wouldn't " not love " also be illusion?

>

> Phil

>

 

Yes, of course. Reality does not consist of more than one thing. There

is ONLY the Source; and space, time, matter, energy, consciousness are

aspects of that same reality.

 

al.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/23/2005 9:58:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 10/23/2005 7:39:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > anders_lindman writes:

> >

> > When love is trapped it becomes fear. That fear creates the

illusion

> > > of separation which is needed in order to create the One and the

> Many.

> > > From Oneness to seeminly separation and then into the One and

the

> > Many.

> > >

> > > al.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I would say that the illusion of separation is what leads to fear.

> > If one is

> > > everything, what would one fear? If one believes oneself to be

> > separate,

> > > there's great cause for fear.

> > >

> > > How would love be " trapped " ?

> > >

> > > Phil

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > Love must be trapped in " not love " to create the illusion of

> separation.

> >

> > al.

> >

> >

> >

> > Wouldn't " not love " also be illusion?

> >

> > Phil

> >

>

> Yes, of course. Reality does not consist of more than one thing. There

> is ONLY the Source; and space, time, matter, energy, consciousness are

> aspects of that same reality.

>

> al.

>

>

>

> Space, time, matter, energy are phenomena that make up what we've been

> calling the illusion. Consciousness is awareness and therefore makes

up the

> unmanifest Reality.

>

> The point was that fear arises from perception within illusion,

rather than

> fear causing the illusion.

>

> Phil

>

 

 

Without the " illusion " of separation, there would be no experience.

Fear is a brake for the thinking mind. Without psychological fear, the

thinking mind would do all kinds of mischiefs.

 

al.