Short-circuit the thought process

October 20, 2005

Oh Werner,

Stuck on yourself? ;-) ;-)

love,

Ana

-

Werner Woehr

Nisargadatta

Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:34 AM

Re: Short-circuit the thought process

Oh friend of horses,

Why do you need others to justify and explain your own structure,

hangups, fears, hopes, fallings and raisings ?

Forget me and anyone else and stick to gaining self-knowlege.

Werner

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> I take it you're enjoying yourself here?

>

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

> wwoehr@p... 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

Suffering from authority complex, ay ?

Werner

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

>

> Oh Werner,

>

> Stuck on yourself? ;-) ;-)

>

> love,

> Ana

> -

> Werner Woehr

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:34 AM

> Re: Short-circuit the thought process

>

> Oh friend of horses,

>

> Why do you need others to justify and explain your own structure,

> hangups, fears, hopes, fallings and raisings ?

>

> Forget me and anyone else and stick to gaining self-knowlege.

>

> Werner

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> > I take it you're enjoying yourself here?

> >

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

Time,

> > wwoehr@p... 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

Lol,

That would be a yes and a no ;-)

Ana

-

Werner Woehr

Nisargadatta

Thursday, October 20, 2005 7:41 AM

Re: Short-circuit the thought process

Suffering from authority complex, ay ?

Werner

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

>

> Oh Werner,

>

> Stuck on yourself? ;-) ;-)

>

> love,

> Ana

> -

> Werner Woehr

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:34 AM

> Re: Short-circuit the thought process

>

> Oh friend of horses,

>

> Why do you need others to justify and explain your own structure,

> hangups, fears, hopes, fallings and raisings ?

>

> Forget me and anyone else and stick to gaining self-knowlege.

>

> Werner

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> > I take it you're enjoying yourself here?

> >

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

Time,

> > wwoehr@p... 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

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

>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.

language itself is the ultimate security strategy

lolila

Stefan

October 21, 2005

In a message dated 10/19/2005 10:31:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

anders_lindman writes:

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.

If what we mean by " consciousness " here is the Self, then it seems clear it

can't be understood through thought. Thought arises out of consciousness as

one of it's manifestations, and so cannot turn around and conceptualize it's

creator. Consciousness is not a concept, nor does it conceptualize. The mind

creation of consciousness, alone, is designed to conceptualize. It's the

illusion that analyzes the illusion, but can never be used to conceive the

inconceivable.

.......Did I conceive the question right?

Phil

October 22, 2005

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 10/19/2005 10:31:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

> 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.

>

> If what we mean by " consciousness " here is the Self, then it seems

clear it

> can't be understood through thought. Thought arises out of

consciousness as

> one of it's manifestations, and so cannot turn around and

conceptualize it's

> creator. Consciousness is not a concept, nor does it conceptualize.

The mind

> creation of consciousness, alone, is designed to conceptualize. It's

the

> illusion that analyzes the illusion, but can never be used to

conceive the

> inconceivable.

>

> ......Did I conceive the question right?

>

> Phil

>

Hi Phil,

Yes, that was what I was thinking about. We cannot understand

consciousness the way we understand, for example, that 2 + 2 = 4.

Yet, we can " see " consciousness, even think about our own awareness as

it happens, in realtime so to speak, and that is in itself a

non-consceptual direct experience of consciousness.

From the Ashtavakra Gita:

Janaka said:

How is one to acquire knowledge? How is one to attain liberation? And

how is one to reach dispassion? Tell me this, sir. 1.1

Ashtavakra said:

If you are seeking liberation, my son, avoid the objects of the senses

like poison and cultivate tolerance, sincerity, compassion,

contentment, and truthfulness as the antidote. 1.2

You do not consist of any of the elements -- earth, water, fire, air,

or even ether. To be liberated, know yourself as consisting of

consciousness, the witness of these. 1.3

If only you will remain resting in consciousness, seeing yourself as

distinct from the body, then even now you will become happy, peaceful

and free from bonds. 1.4

You do not belong to the brahmin or any other caste, you are not at

any stage, nor are you anything that the eye can see. You are

unattached and formless, the witness of everything -- so be happy. 1.5

Righteousness and unrighteousness, pleasure and pain are purely of the

mind and are no concern of yours. You are neither the doer nor the

reaper of the consequences, so you are always free. 1.6

You are the one witness of everything and are always completely free.

The cause of your bondage is that you see the witness as something

other than this. 1.7

Since you have been bitten by the black snake, the opinion about

yourself that " I am the doer, " drink the antidote of faith in the fact

that " I am not the doer, " and be happy. 1.8

Burn down the forest of ignorance with the fire of the understanding

that " I am the one pure awareness, " and be happy and free from

distress. 1.9

That in which all this appears is imagined like the snake in a rope;

that joy, supreme joy, and awareness is what you are, so be happy. 1.10

If one thinks of oneself as free, one is free, and if one thinks of

oneself as bound, one is bound. Here this saying is true, " Thinking

makes it so. " 1.11

October 22, 2005

In a message dated 10/21/2005 5:55:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

nli10u writes:

Exactly Werner, a question i have been ruminating upon for some time. One

part of consciousness is all of consciousness,

n'est pas? So, when I am no longer, er, connected, what will become of the

consciousness that I have not identified as mine?

er, that would be 'you'..

Another way of saying this is after my body-mind 'dies' if it will, does

This all disappear/die with it? Solopsistic thinking to the

extreme or just something no one living want to discuss? Or is it me?

Ana

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

October 22, 2005

Right, I think it's a given that none of us can speak with authority on the

matter.

I personally love science, but long ago, I recognized the self imposed

limits inherent in the nature of scientific investigation itself. This is as it

should be, but science and God don't seem to mix well. When I wanna know how my

refrigerator works, I look to science. When I wanna know how God works, I

look to those who claim to have knowledge of this.

The teachers tell us that God is pure, subjective awareness, which is

consciousness at rest. The movement of consciousness is like the waves on the

ocean, discernible from the ocean through conceptualization only. Movement of

consciousness manifests in physicality, and while it may be true that, once it

is

no longer physically manifest, it dissolves back into awareness from which it

arose, nothing ever ceased to exist that actually existed before.

The ego/mind/body was never a valid entity to begin with. What 'we' are,

have always been, and always will be is that pure awareness out of which the

universe arises. This is terrifying to ego, but since ego is just a

misconception anyhoo, who cares?

Phil

In a message dated 10/22/2005 11:53:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

anders_lindman writes:

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.

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

October 22, 2005

In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

wwoehr writes:

But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are awareness

and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats

your only eternity.

Werner

You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything for

eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness doesn't preclude

being

anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got here in the

first place, only you only think you're here.

Phil

October 22, 2005

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Saturday, October 22, 2005 5:45 PM

Re: Re: Short-circuit the thought process

In a message dated 10/21/2005 5:55:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

nli10u writes:

Exactly Werner, a question i have been ruminating upon for some time. One

part of consciousness is all of consciousness,

n'est pas? So, when I am no longer, er, connected, what will become of the

consciousness that I have not identified as mine?

er, that would be 'you'..

Another way of saying this is after my body-mind 'dies' if it will, does

This all disappear/die with it? Solopsistic thinking to the

extreme or just something no one living want to discuss? Or is it me?

Ana

And you know this how?

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

October 23, 2005

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

In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:55:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

wwoehr writes:

Phil,

How can I have a serious conversion with someone who doesn't dare to

face his own death ?

Werner

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> wwoehr@p... writes:

>

> But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are

awareness

> and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats

> your only eternity.

>

> Werner

>

> You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything

for

> eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness

doesn't preclude being

> anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got here

in the

> first place, only you only think you're here.

>

> Phil

>

October 23, 2005

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

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

>

October 23, 2005

>

> " 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

October 23, 2005

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

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

wwoehr 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

>

October 23, 2005

In European languages there is only one word for consciousness and

awareness. In German it is " Bewusstsein " .

That means only for English and Americans the universe and

consciousness abide in awareness.

Europeans are condemned to be food for worms, English can live

eternally and are the " knowers " .

But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are awareness

and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats

your only eternity.

Werner

Nisargadatta , <nli10u@c...> wrote:

>

> >

> > " 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

>

October 23, 2005

Phil,

How can I have a serious conversion with someone who doesn't dare to

face his own death ?

Werner

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> wwoehr@p... writes:

>

> But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are

awareness

> and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats

> your only eternity.

>

> Werner

>

> You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything

for

> eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness

doesn't preclude being

> anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got here

in the

> first place, only you only think you're here.

>

> Phil

>

October 23, 2005

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 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

>

October 23, 2005

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

October 23, 2005

In a message dated 10/23/2005 3:21:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

nli10u writes:

awareness is a linear extracurricular event evenly modulated

and remotely oriented in a fraction of time, herein and

herafter called now. Now now is an interesting phenomenon,

a dimension of reprehension and suspension of events horizoned

for it includes the indifference paid to in attending the attention

of what one is not aware of and this is remotely suspect in

object and subject within multi-sensoral beings whose inclinations

and provacations and predilections have not yet incited and inticed

an inner riot of who lives in capacity of understanding and therefore

standing in multidimensional living or, just who can be at/in more than

one place at a time....

hmmmm

Ana

.....................What? (Hehe)

Phil

October 23, 2005

Thought arises within consciousness.

Phil

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

wwoehr 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

October 23, 2005

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

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

>

> In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:55:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> wwoehr@p... writes:

>

> Phil,

>

> How can I have a serious conversion with someone who doesn't dare

to

> face his own death ?

>

> Werner

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > wwoehr@p... writes:

> >

> > But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are

> awareness

> > and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and

thats

> > your only eternity.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> > You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything

> for

> > eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness

> doesn't preclude being

> > anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got

here

> in the

> > first place, only you only think you're here.

> >

> > Phil

> >

October 23, 2005

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:43 AM

Re: Re: Short-circuit the thought process

In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

wwoehr writes:

But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are awareness

and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats

your only eternity.

Werner

You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything for

eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness doesn't

preclude being

anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got here in the

first place, only you only think you're here.

Phil

awareness is a linear extracurricular event evenly modulated

and remotely oriented in a fraction of time, herein and

herafter called now. Now now is an interesting phenomenon,

a dimension of reprehension and suspension of events horizoned

for it includes the indifference paid to in attending the attention

of what one is not aware of and this is remotely suspect in

object and subject within multi-sensoral beings whose inclinations

and provacations and predilections have not yet incited and inticed

an inner riot of who lives in capacity of understanding and therefore

standing in multidimensional living or, just who can be at/in more than

one place at a time....

hmmmm

Ana

October 23, 2005

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

October 23, 2005

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

>

> -

> ADHHUB@A...

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:43 AM

> Re: Re: Short-circuit the thought process

>

> In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> wwoehr@p... writes:

>

> But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are awareness

> and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats

> your only eternity.

>

> Werner

>

> You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything for

> eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness

doesn't preclude being

> anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got

here in the

> first place, only you only think you're here.

>

> Phil

>

> awareness is a linear extracurricular event evenly modulated

> and remotely oriented in a fraction of time, herein and

> herafter called now. Now now is an interesting phenomenon,

> a dimension of reprehension and suspension of events horizoned

> for it includes the indifference paid to in attending the attention

> of what one is not aware of and this is remotely suspect in

> object and subject within multi-sensoral beings whose inclinations

> and provacations and predilections have not yet incited and inticed

> an inner riot of who lives in capacity of understanding and therefore

> standing in multidimensional living or, just who can be at/in more

than

> one place at a time....

>

> hmmmm

>

> Ana

>

Awareness is prior to thought, even (and only) within this very now.

Love comes out of awareness, not out of thought. Although thoughts can

be inspired by love, they are not themselves the source of that love.

al.

October 23, 2005

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

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

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

wrote:

> >

> > -

> > ADHHUB@A...

> > Nisargadatta

> > Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:43 AM

> > Re: Re: Short-circuit the thought

process

> >

> > In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight

Time,

> > wwoehr@p... writes:

> >

> > But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are

awareness

> > and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and

thats

> > your only eternity.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> > You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything

for

> > eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness

> doesn't preclude being

> > anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got

> here in the

> > first place, only you only think you're here.

> >

> > Phil

> >

> > awareness is a linear extracurricular event evenly modulated

> > and remotely oriented in a fraction of time, herein and

> > herafter called now. Now now is an interesting phenomenon,

> > a dimension of reprehension and suspension of events horizoned

> > for it includes the indifference paid to in attending the

attention

> > of what one is not aware of and this is remotely suspect in

> > object and subject within multi-sensoral beings whose

inclinations

> > and provacations and predilections have not yet incited and

inticed

> > an inner riot of who lives in capacity of understanding and

therefore

> > standing in multidimensional living or, just who can be at/in

more

> than

> > one place at a time....

> >

> > hmmmm

> >

> > Ana

> >

>

> Awareness is prior to thought, even (and only) within this very now.

> Love comes out of awareness, not out of thought. Although thoughts

can

> be inspired by love, they are not themselves the source of that

love.

>

> al.

>

Sign In

Short-circuit the thought process

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest