Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

The Enlightenment Question

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/29/2005 2:41:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> cptc@w... writes:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

> >

> > >>About freedom:

> > >>Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

> >

> > >

> > >Especially when there is no one to do the accepting.

> > >

> >

> > but then...

> > there is no one to find it hard either :)

> >

> > S.

> >

>

>

> The nature of thought needs a 'someone' to be the flip side of 'no one'.

>

> This is the great difficulty in thought attempting to think its way through

> the opacity that

> is created by its own machinations.

>

> Thought can see all things......but itself.

>

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

> And so, mayhaps it becomes a matter of becoming willing to 'look' rather

> than think?

>

> Phil

 

 

 

 

That presupposes a distinct and separate 'one' who can become willing to look.

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/29/2005 5:00:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> nli10u@c... writes:

>

> if ever I find noOne, i'm going to ... I'm so tired of hearing about noOne.

> NoOne NoOne NoOne may as well be someone with all this noise about noOne..

> Sheesh

>

>

>

> If you meet " NoOne " on the road, kill him! :)

>

 

 

 

It isn't NoOne that you need to worry about......it is the belief in a certain

SomeOne that

gives you trouble.

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 10/29/2005 2:41:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > cptc@w... writes:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Stefan "

<s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 "

<cptc@w...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan "

<s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

> > >

> > > >>About freedom:

> > > >>Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

> > >

> > > >

> > > >Especially when there is no one to do the accepting.

> > > >

> > >

> > > but then...

> > > there is no one to find it hard either :)

> > >

> > > S.

> > >

> >

> >

> > The nature of thought needs a 'someone' to be the flip side

of 'no one'.

> >

> > This is the great difficulty in thought attempting to think its

way through

> > the opacity that

> > is created by its own machinations.

> >

> > Thought can see all things......but itself.

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> >

> >

> > And so, mayhaps it becomes a matter of becoming willing to 'look'

rather

> > than think?

> >

> > Phil

>

>

>

>

> That presupposes a distinct and separate 'one' who can become

willing to look.

>

> toombaru

 

* It seems that Phil was saying that

'thought' cannot 'see', and that the

'looking' is not done by an 'entity'? :)

 

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/29/2005 10:21:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> cptc@w... writes:

>

> The nature of thought needs a 'someone' to be the flip side

of 'no one'.

> >

> > This is the great difficulty in thought attempting to think its

way

> through

> > the opacity that

> > is created by its own machinations.

> >

> > Thought can see all things......but itself.

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> >

> >

> > And so, mayhaps it becomes a matter of becoming willing

to 'look' rather

> > than think?

> >

> > Phil

>

>

>

>

> That presupposes a distinct and separate 'one' who can become

willing to

> look.

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

> Well, let's see if 'I' can somehow wriggle my way out of this one.

Hehe.

> There is no separate human, but there is an individualized aspect

of

> consciousness which is the author of the individualized dream. The

dream is

> 'occurring' as all dreams do, as demonstrated by the fact that it

is being

> experienced.

>

> It was said here that there is no dreamer. In the context of a

separate

> dreamer, this is true, but from the perspective of consciousness,

which you are,

> there is indeed a dreamer. This dreamer is not an individual but

rather

> consciousness itself. It is this individualized aspect of

consciousness that has

> misidentified itself as the dream character. The dream character

itself has no

> such ability to identify a self.

>

> Within the context of the dream, this aspect of consciousness does

undergo a

> temporal evolution of awareness, and it does experience the

awakening from

> the dream. What it awakens to, however, is not an individuation at

all but

> rather the totality of consciousness itself. Our concern is only

about the

> experience of the dream of individuality, which this misidentifying

aspect of

> consciousness wants to end. To say that it's a dream does not mean

there is not

> the experience of it ending.

>

> As long as identity is firmly entrenched as the human, it can be

seen that

> there is no free will, no choice, nothing that can be done within

the dream to

> bring about awareness. And yet, awareness does increase and

awakening does

> experientially occur within the dream.

>

> All that is required is the willingness to awaken. This is not a

willingness

> caused by the human, but rather a state resulting from a level of

awareness

> of that aspect of consciousness, and this awareness comes about

through the

> exploration of the dream. The willingness is real, even though

it's not

> brought about by any human choice. Awareness occurs, even though

the human does not

> cause it to occur.

>

> And so, the willingness to look, even though it is occurring in the

dream,

> is actually willingness that arises from consciousness as a result

of an

> appropriate level of awareness.

>

> The human does not choose this, and consciousness does not choose

it as

> such, but only within the framework of it's own dream. Perhaps what

can be said

> is that the willingness to 'look' will occur before awakening

occurs, and the

> aspect of consciousness that is creating your particular dream

experience may

> 'choose' to do this now if it is sufficiently aware of Self to do

so.

>

> Hearing the suggestion that one may be willing to look, then, is

not a

> meaningless statement in the context of the totality of the dream

experience.

>

> Anybody buy that one? :)

>

> Phil

 

* I got a little lost on that one. ;)

.... I think it has to do with the use of the word

'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

sense of self remains???

 

* I hope I ask that in a way that makes some sense?

 

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> I'm basically in agreement with what you say, but maybe we can help

> ourselves by expounding on the ideas a bit.

>

>

> Good description. I can see that my mind is in conflict with the flow

> of life. Thinking seems to spring out of memory and that memory is a

> fixed object while life is a flowing process. In the friction between

> memory and the flow of life, thoughts appear. Memory creates desire.

> But that desire is also a fixed object because it is memory.

>

>

> While I agree that memory is involved in the process of attempting

to solve

> the problem of desire, I don't believe it is the source of desire.

You notice

> that bringing yourself to the present moment, without thought of

past or

> future, brings with it a sense of peace and contentment in the

moment and so the

> conclusion is that leaving the moment, and therefore memory, is the

cause of

> desire. (forgive me if I'm mistaken.) But since thinking is the problem

> solver of desire, what must actually be released in order to remain

in the moment

> and suspend thinking is desire itself. The thoughts cease when

there is no

> perceived need to change anything or solve any problem. And so, the

problem is

> not thought, but rather desire.

>

>

>

> Memory and thoughts are valuable, but they constiture a poor sense of

> self (the ego) because thought as the sole controller is inherently

> conflict-ridden. There is understanding in the form of knowledge, but

> that is still on the level of thought and memory. That kind of

> understanding is valuable, but it is merely a tool, as you say.

> Enlightenment is perhaps the ability to drop the tool when it is not

> needed. When we are trapped in the egoic mind, then we see ourselves

> as BEING only the tool.

>

>

> Agreed. Thinkingness actually has no value beyond functioning within

> illusion, and the sort of thinking that circulates memory components

is not being

> encouraged here. The reorganizing of memory can't possibly discover

Truth and

> neither can the seeking of information found within the illusion.

This is so

> because the illusion is a creation of consciousness in it's limited

awareness.

> If one is not aware of what one is seeking, it will not show up in

one's

> experience.

>

> What is being suggested here is a focus of mind on the field of

awareness

> itself, where all answers can be found. This is usually referred to as

> intuition. This knowing is then translated into concepts, where much

is lost. This

> intuition is not enlightenment because it's not seeing wholly, but

only

> partially, but any seeing increases awareness and this is our goal.

>

>

>

> We can use rational thinking to observe the process of thinking.

> Thinking can understand itself in a conceptual way. But as spiritual

> seekers, we must develop a desire for liberation. The kind of desire

> created by thought will always only go around in the same threadmill

> of mere conceptual understanding. The thinking mind must come to a

> point where it sees that understanding on the level of thinking will

> not bring liberation. One must allow one's own mental and rational

> mind to go completely " ? " . Thinking can by itself never know if there

> is a higher more liberated state above thinking.

>

>

>

> Right. And so desire becomes both the problem and the solution. Desire

> arises from a sense of unfulfilment which originates in the fact of

incomplete

> awareness. This is an inherent function of consciousness. In it's

ignorance,

> mind identifies itself as an individual and then seeks ways to

create happiness

> and avoid unhappiness, but since experience is one's own creation,

both

> polarities must be experienced and no permanent state of joy can be

found.

> Eventually, the seeker realizes this and turns within to find joy

outside of

> dualistic striving.

>

> This conclusion is not arrived at without immersing oneself in the

illusion

> and seeing for oneself. So, even though conceptualizing is not going

to cause

> Truth to be known, it is part of the process of releasing illusion,

and is

> not to be dismissed prematurely. The master speaks correctly when

he says the

> mind will not find Truth, because this is not the function of the

mind. The

> mind is the tool that dismantles untruth. What remains is Truth.

>

>

> One must put the question to oneself: " is thinking needed at all? " and

> the answer coming from the thinking mind will be " of course thinking

> is needed, or else one would become a vegetable " But sages are telling

> us: we will NOT become vegetables by transcending thought, we will

> become intelligent in the deeper sense of that word.

>

>

>

> This is true. It is also said that ceasing the thinking is not a

choice that

> can be made. The evolutionary process will not be bypassed, although

it can

> be stalled if the mind is mired in stagnating concepts. One of these

concepts

> is the idea that the mind is of no use in challenging the concepts

of mind.

> The thorn can be used to remove the thorn, and then they can both be

> discarded. If the mind is of no value, then the teachings of the

masters is of no

> value and this is not really so.

>

> Phil

>

 

When the question " is thinking needed? " is put it is the mind itself

that is questioning its own functioning. The answer is of course that

the mind doesn't know. It doesn't know if there exists a higher level

of functioning that transcends thought. But at least, when asking that

question one has stepped out of the idea that thinking is the highest

state possible. The truth may be that thinking is the highest state

possible, and that makes the seeker only trying to find something that

does not exist. On the other hand, the truth may be that thought CAN

be transcended and therefore to be stuck on the level of thought will

only create further suffering.

 

al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/29/2005 10:21:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> cptc@w... writes:

>

> The nature of thought needs a 'someone' to be the flip side of 'no one'.

> >

> > This is the great difficulty in thought attempting to think its way

> through

> > the opacity that

> > is created by its own machinations.

> >

> > Thought can see all things......but itself.

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> >

> >

> > And so, mayhaps it becomes a matter of becoming willing to 'look' rather

> > than think?

> >

> > Phil

>

>

>

>

> That presupposes a distinct and separate 'one' who can become willing to

> look.

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

> Well, let's see if 'I' can somehow wriggle my way out of this one. Hehe.

> There is no separate human, but there is an individualized aspect of

> consciousness which is the author of the individualized dream.

 

 

Are there separate waves on the ocean?

 

 

 

The dream is

> 'occurring' as all dreams do, as demonstrated by the fact that it is being

> experienced.

 

 

 

Are the hallucinations experienced under the influence of LSD an indicator of a

substanital

reality?

 

Are the people in you dream last night real because you 'experienced' them?

 

 

 

>

> It was said here that there is no dreamer. In the context of a separate

> dreamer, this is true, but from the perspective of consciousness, which you

are,

> there is indeed a dreamer.

 

 

Is consciousness a good and impartial observer of its own content?

 

 

This dreamer is not an individual but rather

> consciousness itself. It is this individualized aspect of consciousness that

has

> misidentified itself as the dream character. The dream character itself has no

> such ability to identify a self.

 

 

 

Does the dream character or 'self' exist outside of the dream?

 

 

 

>

> Within the context of the dream, this aspect of consciousness does undergo a

> temporal evolution of awareness, and it does experience the awakening from

> the dream.

 

 

Is this 'awakening' outside of the dream?

 

 

 

 

What it awakens to, however, is not an individuation at all but

> rather the totality of consciousness itself.

 

 

So 'consciousness' can be torn apart......and then reassembled?

 

 

 

Our concern is only about the

> experience of the dream of individuality, which this misidentifying aspect of

> consciousness wants to end. To say that it's a dream does not mean there is

not

> the experience of it ending.

 

 

" Our' concern?

 

There are more of us the one?

 

 

 

>

> As long as identity is firmly entrenched as the human, it can be seen that

> there is no free will, no choice, nothing that can be done within the dream to

> bring about awareness. And yet, awareness does increase and awakening does

> experientially occur within the dream.

 

 

To whom does it occur?

 

 

>

> All that is required is the willingness to awaken.

 

 

That presupposes a separation that can will its own unseparation.

 

 

This is not a willingness

> caused by the human, but rather a state resulting from a level of awareness

> of that aspect of consciousness, and this awareness comes about through the

> exploration of the dream. The willingness is real, even though it's not

> brought about by any human choice. Awareness occurs, even though the human

does

not

> cause it to occur.

>

> And so, the willingness to look, even though it is occurring in the dream,

> is actually willingness that arises from consciousness as a result of an

> appropriate level of awareness.

 

 

 

 

There are levels in awareness?

 

 

 

>

> The human does not choose this, and consciousness does not choose it as

> such, but only within the framework of it's own dream. Perhaps what can be

said

> is that the willingness to 'look' will occur before awakening occurs, and the

> aspect of consciousness that is creating your particular dream experience may

> 'choose' to do this now if it is sufficiently aware of Self to do so.

>

> Hearing the suggestion that one may be willing to look, then, is not a

> meaningless statement in the context of the totality of the dream experience.

>

> Anybody buy that one? :)

>

> Phil

 

 

No.

 

 

It is all merely mind.....attempting to figure itself out with the only tool

that it has.....which

is conceptual thought.

 

......a tool that is simply not up to the task.

 

It is attempting to remove a non-existent goose egg.....from a non-existent

bottle....and

will continue to do so........until it doesn't.

 

 

 

..........and all of that is an integral part of this most magnificent dream.

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil: but I know there is a knowing beyond

thinking. It doesn't require enlightenment to access it.

 

W: Yes, for example when you sense an unpleasant pressure in your

bladder then you know its time to piss.

 

Werner

 

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/29/2005 11:46:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

>

> When the question " is thinking needed? " is put it is the mind

itself

> that is questioning its own functioning. The answer is of course

that

> the mind doesn't know. It doesn't know if there exists a higher

level

> of functioning that transcends thought. But at least, when asking

that

> question one has stepped out of the idea that thinking is the

highest

> state possible. The truth may be that thinking is the highest state

> possible, and that makes the seeker only trying to find something

that

> does not exist. On the other hand, the truth may be that thought

CAN

> be transcended and therefore to be stuck on the level of thought

will

> only create further suffering.

>

> al.

>

>

>

> It may, or may not, be helpful, but I know there is a knowing

beyond

> thinking. It doesn't require enlightenment to access it.

>

> Phil

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Sunday, October 30, 2005 3:31 AM

Re: Re: The Enlightenment Question

 

 

 

* I got a little lost on that one. ;)

... I think it has to do with the use of the word

'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

sense of self remains???

 

* I hope I ask that in a way that makes some sense?

 

 

Let's see. I see the willingness to 'look' at the Truth as the bottom line,

so to speak, but this is just what occurs within the dream. Consciousness

already contains the Truth and all that's required is for consciousness to

focus

on it's own awareness. When the dream character is fed up with the dream and

surrenders and 'looks', consciousness turns it's focus on itself. The stuff

going on in the dream is just the outpicturing of the focus of consciousness.

 

Nothing is actually done within the dream. Everything 'occurs' within

consciousness itself, but consciousness is witnessing the dream. Just as in

your

nightly dreams, nothing that seemingly occurs directly affects you, the

dreamer,

but the experience of the dream has affected you indirectly. This doesn't

mean that anything can be done from within the dream, but you are creating

and

perceiving it all. The dream is not meaningless.

 

 

The " spontaneous choice " occurs as a function of awareness. From the

perspective of the dream, when it is clear that happiness cannot be found in

the

illusion, and thinkingness cannot cause awakening to occur, all desire is

abandoned because it's understood that desire cannot be fulfilled, seeking

ends,

struggle ends, surrender occurs. This is the outpicturing of a high level of

awareness that has all but removed the focus of consciousness on the illusion.

What remains is Truth.

 

I'm suggesting that all of this comes about through the exploration of the

illusion. It is consciousness that is exploring, even though it identifies

itself as a human.

 

 

When consciousness focusses on it's own content, awakening from the dream

occurs, but that content reveals that there never was any separation from the

totality of awareness, and so 'one' does not awaken to a sense of separate

self.

 

I hope that helps clarify my ramblings a little.

 

Phil

 

What an amazing, brilliant detective this consciousness is,

finally realizing awareness of awareness. Wow,

 

Love,

Ana

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 10/29/2005 11:40:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

asimpjoy writes:

 

>

> That presupposes a distinct and separate 'one' who can become

willing to

> look.

>

> toombaru

>

>

>

> Well, let's see if 'I' can somehow wriggle my way out of this one.

Hehe.

> There is no separate human, but there is an individualized aspect

of

> consciousness which is the author of the individualized dream. The

dream is

> 'occurring' as all dreams do, as demonstrated by the fact that it

is being

> experienced.

>

> It was said here that there is no dreamer. In the context of a

separate

> dreamer, this is true, but from the perspective of consciousness,

which you are,

> there is indeed a dreamer. This dreamer is not an individual but

rather

> consciousness itself. It is this individualized aspect of

consciousness that has

> misidentified itself as the dream character. The dream character

itself has no

> such ability to identify a self.

>

> Within the context of the dream, this aspect of consciousness does

undergo a

> temporal evolution of awareness, and it does experience the

awakening from

> the dream. What it awakens to, however, is not an individuation at

all but

> rather the totality of consciousness itself. Our concern is only

about the

> experience of the dream of individuality, which this misidentifying

aspect of

> consciousness wants to end. To say that it's a dream does not mean

there is not

> the experience of it ending.

>

> As long as identity is firmly entrenched as the human, it can be

seen that

> there is no free will, no choice, nothing that can be done within

the dream to

> bring about awareness. And yet, awareness does increase and

awakening does

> experientially occur within the dream.

>

> All that is required is the willingness to awaken. This is not a

willingness

> caused by the human, but rather a state resulting from a level of

awareness

> of that aspect of consciousness, and this awareness comes about

through the

> exploration of the dream. The willingness is real, even though

it's not

> brought about by any human choice. Awareness occurs, even though

the human does not

> cause it to occur.

>

> And so, the willingness to look, even though it is occurring in the

dream,

> is actually willingness that arises from consciousness as a result

of an

> appropriate level of awareness.

>

> The human does not choose this, and consciousness does not choose

it as

> such, but only within the framework of it's own dream. Perhaps what

can be said

> is that the willingness to 'look' will occur before awakening

occurs, and the

> aspect of consciousness that is creating your particular dream

experience may

> 'choose' to do this now if it is sufficiently aware of Self to do

so.

>

> Hearing the suggestion that one may be willing to look, then, is

not a

> meaningless statement in the context of the totality of the dream

experience.

>

> Anybody buy that one? :)

>

> Phil

 

* I got a little lost on that one. ;)

... I think it has to do with the use of the word

'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

sense of self remains???

 

* I hope I ask that in a way that makes some sense?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Sunday, October 30, 2005 3:52 AM

Re: Re: The Enlightenment Question

 

 

 

In a message dated 10/30/2005 1:44:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

nli10u writes:

 

And so, mayhaps it becomes a matter of becoming willing to 'look' rather

than think?

 

Phil

 

 

look and see, and see who looks

 

Ana

 

 

actually after the lookie-see, the seeing looks and it is more and more

gorgeous all the time,

now about the one who starts looking, sheesh what a bag of bones, twisted

sista and bros.

 

 

Ana

 

 

 

It might be scary to see myself staring back at me. Hehe.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Sunday, October 30, 2005 12:06 AM

Re: Re: The Enlightenment Question

 

 

 

In a message dated 10/29/2005 2:41:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

cptc writes:

 

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

>

> >>About freedom:

> >>Yes, it is hard to accept complete helplessness.

>

> >

> >Especially when there is no one to do the accepting.

> >

>

> but then...

> there is no one to find it hard either :)

>

> S.

>

 

 

The nature of thought needs a 'someone' to be the flip side of 'no one'.

 

This is the great difficulty in thought attempting to think its way through

the opacity that

is created by its own machinations.

 

Thought can see all things......but itself.

 

 

toombaru

 

 

 

And so, mayhaps it becomes a matter of becoming willing to 'look' rather

than think?

 

Phil

 

 

look and see, and see who looks

 

Ana

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/29/2005 11:46:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

>

> When the question " is thinking needed? " is put it is the mind itself

> that is questioning its own functioning. The answer is of course that

> the mind doesn't know. It doesn't know if there exists a higher level

> of functioning that transcends thought. But at least, when asking that

> question one has stepped out of the idea that thinking is the highest

> state possible. The truth may be that thinking is the highest state

> possible, and that makes the seeker only trying to find something that

> does not exist. On the other hand, the truth may be that thought CAN

> be transcended and therefore to be stuck on the level of thought will

> only create further suffering.

>

> al.

>

>

>

> It may, or may not, be helpful, but I know there is a knowing beyond

> thinking. It doesn't require enlightenment to access it.

>

> Phil

>

 

 

That is interesting. However for myself, I must come to this

" understanding " myself. I don't even know if it is possible for me.

Eckhart Tolle talked about one's sense of self that is trapped and

confined only to the body opens up to include also that which is

" outside " the body.

 

al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

>

> Phil: but I know there is a knowing beyond

> thinking. It doesn't require enlightenment to access it.

>

> W: Yes, for example when you sense an unpleasant pressure in your

> bladder then you know its time to piss.

>

> Werner

 

 

Actually, I think you have a strong point there Werner, that there is

more than just the thinking mind. Eckhart Tolle talks about the sense

of presence being in the entire body and even " outside " the body. This

means that there is no longer only a " me " in the head being aware of a

pressure in the bladder, but that this " me " is now fused with the

bladder and everything else in the body as a single field of self. I

imagine that the sense of " I " or self becomes distributed and

integrated with the whole body and the whole world. Not as an idea in

the head, but as an ACTUALITY.

 

al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anders,

 

When Niz was asked where he sensed the " I am " his answer was it is a

feeling in the body. (Where else ?)

 

All those speculators here on the list whose mind is filled to the

brim with spirtual shit and day-dreams will feel offended about my

pissing reply.

 

The more now I feel pleased that just you as one of the top

speculators here realizd the truth behind it, besides it wasn't

a " strong " argument but rather simple common sense and not at all

meant to offend. But for those loving and holy-holy members hovering

arround in the heavens of their day-dreaming childish mind already

common sense is an offense :)

 

Werner

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

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

wrote:

> >

> > Phil: but I know there is a knowing beyond

> > thinking. It doesn't require enlightenment to access it.

> >

> > W: Yes, for example when you sense an unpleasant pressure in your

> > bladder then you know its time to piss.

> >

> > Werner

>

>

> Actually, I think you have a strong point there Werner, that there

is

> more than just the thinking mind. Eckhart Tolle talks about the

sense

> of presence being in the entire body and even " outside " the body.

This

> means that there is no longer only a " me " in the head being aware

of a

> pressure in the bladder, but that this " me " is now fused with the

> bladder and everything else in the body as a single field of self. I

> imagine that the sense of " I " or self becomes distributed and

> integrated with the whole body and the whole world. Not as an idea

in

> the head, but as an ACTUALITY.

>

> al.

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/30/2005 2:20:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,

anders_lindman writes:

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 10/29/2005 11:46:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> anders_lindman writes:

>

>

> When the question " is thinking needed? " is put it is the mind itself

> that is questioning its own functioning. The answer is of course that

> the mind doesn't know. It doesn't know if there exists a higher level

> of functioning that transcends thought. But at least, when asking that

> question one has stepped out of the idea that thinking is the highest

> state possible. The truth may be that thinking is the highest state

> possible, and that makes the seeker only trying to find something that

> does not exist. On the other hand, the truth may be that thought CAN

> be transcended and therefore to be stuck on the level of thought will

> only create further suffering.

>

> al.

>

>

>

> It may, or may not, be helpful, but I know there is a knowing beyond

> thinking. It doesn't require enlightenment to access it.

>

> Phil

>

 

 

That is interesting. However for myself, I must come to this

" understanding " myself. I don't even know if it is possible for me.

Eckhart Tolle talked about one's sense of self that is trapped and

confined only to the body opens up to include also that which is

" outside " the body.

 

al.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that's true. Isn't this 'knowing' that we're talking about just

intuition?

 

In one context, the scientist who ponders the answer to a problem for hours

and then 'gives up', and relaxes the mind, and an " Aha! " moment occurs.

Suddenly the answer is there, not as a series of thoughts but as a bright flash

of

realization that had nothing to do with thinking, but resulted from a

pinpoint focus of consciousness, without the thoughts. What happens next is

that the

mind goes to work on it and translates it into a concept that can be used in

a practical way to solve his problem. Ego will invariable jump up and take

credit for figuring it out, but there was no figuring out.

 

Aren't genuine psychics and seers just using this same intuition, but more

easily and clearly? If that's true, is it possible that one can glimpse Truth

with this focus of intuition on a source of knowing beyond the thinkingness of

mind? If that's true, is this different from awareness, and isn't the source

of this awareness, awareness itself?

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:09:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,

anders_lindman writes:

 

I don't know if the description " impersonal consciousness " has been

used by Tolle. Every particle is connected to every other particle in

existence. So when I scratch my ass, then every star in this galaxy

and beyond is literary " affected " . :)

 

al.

 

 

 

Whoa! Then stop that! :)~

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

>

> * I got a little lost on that one. ;)

> ... I think it has to do with the use of the word

> 'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

> the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

> how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

> dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

> sense of self remains???

>

> * I hope I ask that in a way that makes some sense?

>

>

> Let's see. I see the willingness to 'look' at the Truth as the bottom line,

> so to speak, but this is just what occurs within the dream. Consciousness

> already contains the Truth and all that's required is for consciousness to

focus

> on it's own awareness.

 

 

 

 

This morning we turned the clocks back one hour.

 

Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour earlier?

 

 

 

 

 

When the dream character is fed up with the dream and

> surrenders and 'looks', consciousness turns it's focus on itself. The stuff

> going on in the dream is just the outpicturing of the focus of consciousness.

>

> Nothing is actually done within the dream. Everything 'occurs' within

> consciousness itself, but consciousness is witnessing the dream. Just as in

your

> nightly dreams, nothing that seemingly occurs directly affects you, the

dreamer,

> but the experience of the dream has affected you indirectly. This doesn't

> mean that anything can be done from within the dream, but you are creating

and

> perceiving it all. The dream is not meaningless.

 

 

 

......and there is nothing beyond the dream. (WWW).

 

 

>

>

> The " spontaneous choice " occurs as a function of awareness. From the

> perspective of the dream, when it is clear that happiness cannot be found in

the

> illusion, and thinkingness cannot cause awakening to occur, all desire is

> abandoned because it's understood that desire cannot be fulfilled, seeking

ends,

> struggle ends, surrender occurs. This is the outpicturing of a high level of

> awareness that has all but removed the focus of consciousness on the illusion.

> What remains is Truth.

>

> I'm suggesting that all of this comes about through the exploration of the

> illusion. It is consciousness that is exploring, even though it identifies

> itself as a human.

>

>

> When consciousness focusses on it's own content, awakening from the dream

> occurs, but that content reveals that there never was any separation from the

> totality of awareness, and so 'one' does not awaken to a sense of separate

> self.

>

> I hope that helps clarify my ramblings a little.

>

> Phil

>

 

 

 

The mind is chasing its own shadows.

 

That's what's it is designed to do.

 

 

 

" Keep asking those deep questions. sleep on - when you wake even you'll be

gone! "

 

Ikkyu

 

 

 

Love to you in your struggles.

 

 

 

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((Phil))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> >

> > * I got a little lost on that one. ;)

> > ... I think it has to do with the use of the word

> > 'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

> > the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

> > how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

> > dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

> > sense of self remains???

> >

> > * I hope I ask that in a way that makes some sense?

> >

> >

> > Let's see. I see the willingness to 'look' at the Truth as the

bottom line,

> > so to speak, but this is just what occurs within the dream.

Consciousness

> > already contains the Truth and all that's required is for

consciousness to focus

> > on it's own awareness.

>

>

>

>

> This morning we turned the clocks back one hour.

>

> Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour earlier?

>

>

 

The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are

connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is

affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter

time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces

and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things.

 

Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable.

 

al.

 

>

>

>

> When the dream character is fed up with the dream and

> > surrenders and 'looks', consciousness turns it's focus on itself.

The stuff

> > going on in the dream is just the outpicturing of the focus of

consciousness.

> >

> > Nothing is actually done within the dream. Everything 'occurs'

within

> > consciousness itself, but consciousness is witnessing the dream.

Just as in your

> > nightly dreams, nothing that seemingly occurs directly affects

you, the dreamer,

> > but the experience of the dream has affected you indirectly. This

doesn't

> > mean that anything can be done from within the dream, but you are

creating and

> > perceiving it all. The dream is not meaningless.

>

>

>

> .....and there is nothing beyond the dream. (WWW).

>

>

> >

> >

> > The " spontaneous choice " occurs as a function of awareness. From the

> > perspective of the dream, when it is clear that happiness cannot

be found in the

> > illusion, and thinkingness cannot cause awakening to occur, all

desire is

> > abandoned because it's understood that desire cannot be fulfilled,

seeking ends,

> > struggle ends, surrender occurs. This is the outpicturing of a

high level of

> > awareness that has all but removed the focus of consciousness on

the illusion.

> > What remains is Truth.

> >

> > I'm suggesting that all of this comes about through the

exploration of the

> > illusion. It is consciousness that is exploring, even though it

identifies

> > itself as a human.

> >

> >

> > When consciousness focusses on it's own content, awakening from

the dream

> > occurs, but that content reveals that there never was any

separation from the

> > totality of awareness, and so 'one' does not awaken to a sense of

separate

> > self.

> >

> > I hope that helps clarify my ramblings a little.

> >

> > Phil

> >

>

>

>

> The mind is chasing its own shadows.

>

> That's what's it is designed to do.

>

>

>

> " Keep asking those deep questions. sleep on - when you wake even

you'll be gone! "

>

> Ikkyu

>

>

>

> Love to you in your struggles.

>

>

>

> (((((((((((((((((((((((((((Phil))))))))))))))))))))))))

>

>

>

> toombaru

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > * I got a little lost on that one. ;)

> > > ... I think it has to do with the use of the word

> > > 'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

> > > the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

> > > how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

> > > dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

> > > sense of self remains???

> > >

> > > * I hope I ask that in a way that makes some sense?

> > >

> > >

> > > Let's see. I see the willingness to 'look' at the Truth as the

> bottom line,

> > > so to speak, but this is just what occurs within the dream.

> Consciousness

> > > already contains the Truth and all that's required is for

> consciousness to focus

> > > on it's own awareness.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > This morning we turned the clocks back one hour.

> >

> > Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour

earlier?

> >

> >

>

> The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are

> connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is

> affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter

> time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces

> and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things.

>

> Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable.

>

> al.

>

 

And don't be so sure that your thought are flawed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman>

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> <anders_lindman> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > * I got a little lost on that one. ;)

> > > > ... I think it has to do with the use of the word

> > > > 'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

> > > > the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

> > > > how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

> > > > dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

> > > > sense of self remains???

> > > >

> > > > * I hope I ask that in a way that makes some sense?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Let's see. I see the willingness to 'look' at the Truth as the

> > bottom line,

> > > > so to speak, but this is just what occurs within the dream.

> > Consciousness

> > > > already contains the Truth and all that's required is for

> > consciousness to focus

> > > > on it's own awareness.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > This morning we turned the clocks back one hour.

> > >

> > > Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour

> earlier?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are

> > connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is

> > affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter

> > time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces

> > and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things.

> >

> > Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable.

> >

> > al.

> >

>

> And don't be so sure that your thought are flawed. :)

>

 

 

 

All thought is flawed.

 

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anders,

 

The holographic universe is just an idea of Mr. Bohm and no reality.

But watch out, next time I beat up my wife then pay attention if you

feel the blows.

 

Btw, " impersonal consciousness " is that a slogan of Mr. Tolle ? If

yes then next time please kick ass him twice.

 

Werner

 

 

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...>

wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > * I got a little lost on that one. ;)

> > > ... I think it has to do with the use of the word

> > > 'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

> > > the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

> > > how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

> > > dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

> > > sense of self remains???

> > >

> > > * I hope I ask that in a way that makes some sense?

> > >

> > >

> > > Let's see. I see the willingness to 'look' at the Truth as the

> bottom line,

> > > so to speak, but this is just what occurs within the dream.

> Consciousness

> > > already contains the Truth and all that's required is for

> consciousness to focus

> > > on it's own awareness.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > This morning we turned the clocks back one hour.

> >

> > Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour

earlier?

> >

> >

>

> The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are

> connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is

> affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter

> time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces

> and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things.

>

> Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable.

>

> al.

>

> >

> >

> >

> > When the dream character is fed up with the dream and

> > > surrenders and 'looks', consciousness turns it's focus on

itself.

> The stuff

> > > going on in the dream is just the outpicturing of the focus of

> consciousness.

> > >

> > > Nothing is actually done within the dream. Everything 'occurs'

> within

> > > consciousness itself, but consciousness is witnessing the dream.

> Just as in your

> > > nightly dreams, nothing that seemingly occurs directly affects

> you, the dreamer,

> > > but the experience of the dream has affected you indirectly.

This

> doesn't

> > > mean that anything can be done from within the dream, but you

are

> creating and

> > > perceiving it all. The dream is not meaningless.

> >

> >

> >

> > .....and there is nothing beyond the dream. (WWW).

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > The " spontaneous choice " occurs as a function of awareness.

From the

> > > perspective of the dream, when it is clear that happiness cannot

> be found in the

> > > illusion, and thinkingness cannot cause awakening to occur, all

> desire is

> > > abandoned because it's understood that desire cannot be

fulfilled,

> seeking ends,

> > > struggle ends, surrender occurs. This is the outpicturing of a

> high level of

> > > awareness that has all but removed the focus of consciousness on

> the illusion.

> > > What remains is Truth.

> > >

> > > I'm suggesting that all of this comes about through the

> exploration of the

> > > illusion. It is consciousness that is exploring, even though it

> identifies

> > > itself as a human.

> > >

> > >

> > > When consciousness focusses on it's own content, awakening from

> the dream

> > > occurs, but that content reveals that there never was any

> separation from the

> > > totality of awareness, and so 'one' does not awaken to a sense

of

> separate

> > > self.

> > >

> > > I hope that helps clarify my ramblings a little.

> > >

> > > Phil

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > The mind is chasing its own shadows.

> >

> > That's what's it is designed to do.

> >

> >

> >

> > " Keep asking those deep questions. sleep on - when you wake even

> you'll be gone! "

> >

> > Ikkyu

> >

> >

> >

> > Love to you in your struggles.

> >

> >

> >

> > (((((((((((((((((((((((((((Phil))))))))))))))))))))))))

> >

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:21:11 AM Pacific Standard Time,

asimpjoy writes:

 

 

> P: Let's see. I see the willingness to 'look' at the

> Truth as the bottom line, so to speak, but this is

> just what occurs within the dream. Consciousness

> already contains the Truth and all that's required

> is for consciousness to focus on it's own awareness.

 

* '... consciousness... focus(es) on it's

own awareness ...' Instead of identifying

with the dreamer in the dream???

 

 

 

The dream is an outpicturing of the boundaries of consciousness. The dream

is the result of that focus of limitation. Consciousness identifies self as

'it's' own apparent limited content. The dream that you perceive is the literal

creation of the limited awareness of Self. If awareness expands to include

it's entire content, there is no more dream of limitation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: When the dream character is fed up with the dream

> and surrenders and 'looks', consciousness turns it's

> focus on itself. The stuff going on in the dream is

> just the outpicturing of the focus of consciousness.

* So it is only a 'shift' in focus from the

dream/dreamer to awareness, but what brings

about the condition of being 'fed up'. Is it

'suffering', the lack of any kind of lasting

fulfillment? What brings about the 'insight'

for such a 'shift of focus' to occur???

 

 

 

Yeah, it consists of realizations that are actually increases in awareness.

Through the witnessing of the dream, awareness of the content of consciousness

expands.

 

We all began with the belief that our desires could be fulfilled by seeking

happiness and avoiding unhappiness. Eventually, the realization occurs that it

doesn't work; that we create both poles of the duality and we always end up

experiencing both poles. If life improves, we normalize to that and simply

create another duality from there, and the beat goes on. Eventually, we turn

our attention to the possibility of non-dualistic joy and stop trying to make

happiness occur. Ironically, this realization alone brings a degree of peace

and joy.

 

This awareness doesn't come about by hearing somebody talk about it because

it's not a concept. However, by focussing attention on the idea and releasing

thoughts about it, and just 'looking' to see if it's true, a genuine

realization might come about outside of the thinkingness of mind.

 

The same thing can be done with many other ideas. The possibility of

surrendering all struggle and still being able to survive can be looked at. The

idea

" Who am I? " can be looked at in this way, and the realization might occur

that you cannot be body or mind or ego or thoughts, because you are able to

observe these things and you cannot be what you objectively observe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: Nothing is actually done within the dream. Everything

> 'occurs' within consciousness itself, but consciousness

> is witnessing the dream.

* In the 'relativity' of the dream it appears,

to the dreamer that a lot of things are going

on, but do you mean this 'shift of focus' only

occurs in consciousness, and not to the dreamer?

.... What is the 'dreamer'. Can it be aware, or

that the exclusive function of 'consciousness',

within the dream, because only awareness can be

aware?

 

 

 

Well, consciousness IS the dreamer, and even then, it's just an illusion of

limited awareness of Self that 'occurs' within consciousness.

Yes, only awareness can be aware. Consciousness arises from awareness and is

not other than awareness, although it is not fully aware of Self. This

unawareness of Self is what makes it possible to even create this dream of

limitation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: Just as in your nightly dreams, nothing that seemingly

> occurs directly affects you, the dreamer, but the experience

> of the dream has affected you indirectly.

* 'You', meaning the 'dreaming self', because

it seems the character, which is this 'me' in

the dream, is identified as the dream character,

and it DOES appear to be affected while in the

dream? 'Indiredctly'???

 

 

 

Sure. It's true of the consciousness 'Self' just as it is of the imagined

human self. Referring to Self now:Awakening does actually come about through the

dream that consciousness creates, but it doesn't come about in all the ways

that we imagine it does. Since the dreamer (consciousness) creates the dream

out of it's own limited awareness, the dream cannot contain anything of which

consciousness is not aware, therefore no unknown truth can be found in the

dream. The dream is the exploration of the boundaries of awareness, and as

these boundaries are explored in the dream, new awareness of the content of

consciousness can occur. This expansion of awareness of Self results in a

slightly different dream that represents the new boundaries of awareness, which

can

then be explored.

 

So, the dream character can do nothing and doesn't even exist, however,

'you' are the consciousness, exploring your own created dream, seeking to

fulfill

your desires, which is nothing more than seeking the wholeness of Self; your

own awareness content. There is, of course, no individual 'you' to be found

in this wholeness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: This doesn't mean that anything can be done from within

> the dream, but you are creating and perceiving it all. The

> dream is not meaningless.

* 'You', meaning 'consciousness' this time?

.... So, only dream stuff will happen in the

dream, and 'awareness' will 'happen' within

'consciousness'.., but does not it ALL happen

within 'consciousness', except for the 'pure,

subjective awareness', which has not been

objectified? How does this work???

.... And what IS the meaning of the dream?

 

 

 

Yes, it all 'happens' within consciousness. The distinction is just

conceptual, but the point is that the dream character never causes anything to

occur,

but is rather 'caused'.

 

That which is experiencing the words on your monitor is the individualized

aspect of consciousness that imagines itself to be a human. (It's another layer

of illusion) The human itself is of no consequence. What's 'listening' is

consciousness and what's becoming aware is consciousness. If this is realized

(within consciousness) then the human stops trying to do anything in the dream

and the focus (again within consciousness) is turned on itself to notice it's

own contents. This 'results' in new awareness of that content, which is

awareness itself.

 

We talk a lot about the human not existing, but this doesn't mean there is

no existence. It's an attempt to remove the identification of yourself as a

dream character and place it within your individualized aspect of consciousness.

From that identification, the dream changes and awareness can become

accelerated. That aspect of consciousness is also not you, but the entire

unrealized content of it is. This is awareness itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: The " spontaneous choice " occurs as a function of awareness.

* ??? Please elaborate. ;)

 

 

 

Well, when consciousness projects itself into it's own dream and identifies

with the human, it perceives, and in it's perception, it creates duality and

imagines that there are choices. There are no actual choices to be made within

consciousness, because the dualities are entirely self created. All that can

seemingly occur is an expansion of awareness of Self. To avoid projecting

choices into consciousness, I called this expansion " spontaneous choice " .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: From the perspective of the dream, when it is clear that

> happiness cannot be found in the illusion, and thinkingness

> cannot cause awakening to occur, all desire is abandoned

> because it's understood that desire cannot be fulfilled,

> seeking ends, struggle ends, surrender occurs.

* Interesting.., so, liberation ca not occure

within the dream elements, because an 'illusion'

cannot bring about 'happiness', and thought can

not figure a way out?

.... And all this must be seen by the awareness

within consciousness, not by the 'manipulation'

of dream elements?

 

 

 

Zackly. :)

That's how I see it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: This is the outpicturing of a high level of awareness

> that has all but removed the focus of consciousness on the

> illusion. What remains is Truth.

* Consciousness removes its focus from the

dream to awareness, because the awareness

within consciousness has seen the nature of

the dream, and then there is an insight with

regards to its 'limitation'?

 

 

 

Yeah. The 'process' that 'occurs' is not the finding of Truth. This finding

is not necessary because consciousness IS that Truth and merely needs to

become aware of Self. Therefore, the entire exploration is about removing that

which is untruth from view, leaving what has always been present which can then

be noticed. The irony is that the entire spiritual 'path' has nothing to do

with seeking Truth, but only with removing untruth. This is how exploring

illusion leads to awakening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: I'm suggesting that all of this comes about through the

> exploration of the illusion. It is consciousness that is

> exploring, even though it identifies itself as a human.

* Consciousness has identified as the human,

but awareness sees that it is not limited to

to the human, so consciousness 'explores' the

illusion as a human, and the awareness within

consciousness, will 'shift its focus' from the

the human, within the 'illusion', to the pure

subjective awareness???

 

 

 

It's an amazing adventure, isn't it? What we call life couldn't 'exist'

without this exploration of ignorance. The truly amazing thing is that it occurs

entirely on it's own. There's nothing running the show. It's humbling to even

catch a glimpse of the wonder of it all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: When consciousness focusses on it's own content,

* Do you mean the content of 'awareness'?

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: awakening from the dream occurs, but that content

> reveals that there never was any separation from the

> totality of awareness, and so 'one' does not awaken to

> a sense of separate self.

* Are you saying that the 'content of consciousness'

is not also the illusion and the human, but only the

awareness, and this shift of focus from the illusion

to awareness IS the 'awakening'???

.... I'm a little lost, because does not consciousness

also contain the illusion of the dream and the human

as the dreamer? What is the content of consciousness?

 

 

 

The content of consciousness is awareness itself, since it arises from

awareness, but to be conscious is different than to be aware. Subjective

awareness

cannot see itself, and so consciousness arises from awareness as the object.

This allows for a seeming 'other' that can objectify Self (awareness). Since

consciousness IS awareness, awareness can observe Self THROUGH consciousness.

 

This is only possible if consciousness does not seem to be aware of the

totality of it's own content, otherwise, it could not seemingly distinguish

itself from awareness and would lose it's ability to objectify awareness. It

would

then dissolve back into awareness and the dream would end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> P: I hope that helps clarify my ramblings a little.

* Thank you for you efforts, Phil. Much of

what you say rings a bell of truth inside,

but all the various meanings that are used

by words, is a bit confusing.

.... I appreciate you 'willingness' to walk

through this with me. ;)

 

 

 

Thanks. It's fun and I appreciate your kindness. :)

You're right that the words and concepts are a serious limitation. That's

why it's necessary to look for the truth of it within your field of awareness

rather than your mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* BTW, when the word 'mind' is used does that

refer to all phenomena, or do you mean mind,

as thought and self?

.... I am trying to understand the use of terms:

 

 

 

Yeah, I've seen it used different ways. I use it to define an illusory set

of thoughts, including ego and perception and thinkingness itself. Mind, then,

ceases to 'exist' when the focus is no longer on perception/experience/

thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* First there is pure subjective awareness, and

then awareness objectified as 'consciousness',

(we don't know why this happens), and 'mind' is

all the phenomena within consciousness.., apart

from its innate awareness. The dreamer and the

dream is the same as the human and the illusion?

.... I hope that I am understanding what you are

trying to convey?

 

 

That's how I see it, although the dream is a creation of individualized

consciousness and so we could say that this is the dreamer, although that

individualization is also an illusion resulting from consciousness not being

aware

of it's own content.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> > <anders_lindman> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...>

wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > * I got a little lost on that one. ;)

> > > > > ... I think it has to do with the use of the word

> > > > > 'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

> > > > > the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

> > > > > how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

> > > > > dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

> > > > > sense of self remains???

> > > > >

> > > > > * I hope I ask that in a way that makes some sense?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Let's see. I see the willingness to 'look' at the Truth as the

> > > bottom line,

> > > > > so to speak, but this is just what occurs within the dream.

> > > Consciousness

> > > > > already contains the Truth and all that's required is for

> > > consciousness to focus

> > > > > on it's own awareness.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > This morning we turned the clocks back one hour.

> > > >

> > > > Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour

> > earlier?

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are

> > > connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is

> > > affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter

> > > time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces

> > > and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things.

> > >

> > > Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable.

> > >

> > > al.

> > >

> >

> > And don't be so sure that your thought are flawed. :)

> >

>

>

>

> All thought is flawed.

>

>

>

> toombaru

>

 

 

Hehe. I have had the same idea. Maybe thought is only a sign of

ignorance, noise in relation to unfolding perfection.

 

al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

>

> Anders,

>

> The holographic universe is just an idea of Mr. Bohm and no reality.

> But watch out, next time I beat up my wife then pay attention if you

> feel the blows.

>

> Btw, " impersonal consciousness " is that a slogan of Mr. Tolle ? If

> yes then next time please kick ass him twice.

>

> Werner

 

 

I don't know if the description " impersonal consciousness " has been

used by Tolle. Every particle is connected to every other particle in

existence. So when I scratch my ass, then every star in this galaxy

and beyond is literary " affected " . :)

 

al.

 

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> <anders_lindman> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...>

> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > * I got a little lost on that one. ;)

> > > > ... I think it has to do with the use of the word

> > > > 'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

> > > > the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

> > > > how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

> > > > dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

> > > > sense of self remains???

> > > >

> > > > * I hope I ask that in a way that makes some sense?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Let's see. I see the willingness to 'look' at the Truth as the

> > bottom line,

> > > > so to speak, but this is just what occurs within the dream.

> > Consciousness

> > > > already contains the Truth and all that's required is for

> > consciousness to focus

> > > > on it's own awareness.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > This morning we turned the clocks back one hour.

> > >

> > > Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour

> earlier?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are

> > connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is

> > affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter

> > time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces

> > and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things.

> >

> > Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable.

> >

> > al.

> >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > When the dream character is fed up with the dream and

> > > > surrenders and 'looks', consciousness turns it's focus on

> itself.

> > The stuff

> > > > going on in the dream is just the outpicturing of the focus of

> > consciousness.

> > > >

> > > > Nothing is actually done within the dream. Everything 'occurs'

> > within

> > > > consciousness itself, but consciousness is witnessing the dream.

> > Just as in your

> > > > nightly dreams, nothing that seemingly occurs directly affects

> > you, the dreamer,

> > > > but the experience of the dream has affected you indirectly.

> This

> > doesn't

> > > > mean that anything can be done from within the dream, but you

> are

> > creating and

> > > > perceiving it all. The dream is not meaningless.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > .....and there is nothing beyond the dream. (WWW).

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The " spontaneous choice " occurs as a function of awareness.

> From the

> > > > perspective of the dream, when it is clear that happiness cannot

> > be found in the

> > > > illusion, and thinkingness cannot cause awakening to occur, all

> > desire is

> > > > abandoned because it's understood that desire cannot be

> fulfilled,

> > seeking ends,

> > > > struggle ends, surrender occurs. This is the outpicturing of a

> > high level of

> > > > awareness that has all but removed the focus of consciousness on

> > the illusion.

> > > > What remains is Truth.

> > > >

> > > > I'm suggesting that all of this comes about through the

> > exploration of the

> > > > illusion. It is consciousness that is exploring, even though it

> > identifies

> > > > itself as a human.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > When consciousness focusses on it's own content, awakening from

> > the dream

> > > > occurs, but that content reveals that there never was any

> > separation from the

> > > > totality of awareness, and so 'one' does not awaken to a sense

> of

> > separate

> > > > self.

> > > >

> > > > I hope that helps clarify my ramblings a little.

> > > >

> > > > Phil

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > The mind is chasing its own shadows.

> > >

> > > That's what's it is designed to do.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > " Keep asking those deep questions. sleep on - when you wake even

> > you'll be gone! "

> > >

> > > Ikkyu

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Love to you in your struggles.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > (((((((((((((((((((((((((((Phil))))))))))))))))))))))))

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > toombaru

> > >

> >

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

 

> * I got a little lost on that one. ;)

> ... I think it has to do with the use of the word

> 'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

> the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

> how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

> dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

> sense of self remains???

>

> * I hope I asked that in a way that makes some sense?

 

****************************

 

> P: Let's see. I see the willingness to 'look' at the

> Truth as the bottom line, so to speak, but this is

> just what occurs within the dream. Consciousness

> already contains the Truth and all that's required

> is for consciousness to focus on it's own awareness.

 

* '... consciousness... focus(es) on it's

own awareness ...' Instead of identifying

with the dreamer in the dream???

 

> P: When the dream character is fed up with the dream

> and surrenders and 'looks', consciousness turns it's

> focus on itself. The stuff going on in the dream is

> just the outpicturing of the focus of consciousness.

 

* So it is only a 'shift' in focus from the

dream/dreamer to awareness, but what brings

about the condition of being 'fed up'. Is it

'suffering', the lack of any kind of lasting

fulfillment? What brings about the 'insight'

for such a 'shift of focus' to occur???

 

> P: Nothing is actually done within the dream. Everything

> 'occurs' within consciousness itself, but consciousness

> is witnessing the dream.

 

* In the 'relativity' of the dream it appears,

to the dreamer that a lot of things are going

on, but do you mean this 'shift of focus' only

occurs in consciousness, and not to the dreamer?

.... What is the 'dreamer'. Can it be aware, or

that the exclusive function of 'consciousness',

within the dream, because only awareness can be

aware?

 

> P: Just as in your nightly dreams, nothing that seemingly

> occurs directly affects you, the dreamer, but the experience

> of the dream has affected you indirectly.

 

* 'You', meaning the 'dreaming self', because

it seems the character, which is this 'me' in

the dream, is identified as the dream character,

and it DOES appear to be affected while in the

dream? 'Indiredctly'???

 

> P: This doesn't mean that anything can be done from within

> the dream, but you are creating and perceiving it all. The

> dream is not meaningless.

 

* 'You', meaning 'consciousness' this time?

.... So, only dream stuff will happen in the

dream, and 'awareness' will 'happen' within

'consciousness'.., but does not it ALL happen

within 'consciousness', except for the 'pure,

subjective awareness', which has not been

objectified? How does this work???

.... And what IS the meaning of the dream?

 

> P: The " spontaneous choice " occurs as a function of awareness.

 

* ??? Please elaborate. ;)

 

> P: From the perspective of the dream, when it is clear that

> happiness cannot be found in the illusion, and thinkingness

> cannot cause awakening to occur, all desire is abandoned

> because it's understood that desire cannot be fulfilled,

> seeking ends, struggle ends, surrender occurs.

 

* Interesting.., so, liberation ca not occure

within the dream elements, because an 'illusion'

cannot bring about 'happiness', and thought can

not figure a way out?

.... And all this must be seen by the awareness

within consciousness, not by the 'manipulation'

of dream elements?

 

> P: This is the outpicturing of a high level of awareness

> that has all but removed the focus of consciousness on the

> illusion. What remains is Truth.

 

* Consciousness removes its focus from the

dream to awareness, because the awareness

within consciousness has seen the nature of

the dream, and then there is an insight with

regards to its 'limitation'?

 

> P: I'm suggesting that all of this comes about through the

> exploration of the illusion. It is consciousness that is

> exploring, even though it identifies itself as a human.

 

* Consciousness has identified as the human,

but awareness sees that it is not limited to

to the human, so consciousness 'explores' the

illusion as a human, and the awareness within

consciousness, will 'shift its focus' from the

the human, within the 'illusion', to the pure

subjective awareness???

 

> P: When consciousness focusses on it's own content,

 

* Do you mean the content of 'awareness'?

 

> P: awakening from the dream occurs, but that content

> reveals that there never was any separation from the

> totality of awareness, and so 'one' does not awaken to

> a sense of separate self.

 

* Are you saying that the 'content of consciousness'

is not also the illusion and the human, but only the

awareness, and this shift of focus from the illusion

to awareness IS the 'awakening'???

.... I'm a little lost, because does not consciousness

also contain the illusion of the dream and the human

as the dreamer? What is the content of consciousness?

 

> P: I hope that helps clarify my ramblings a little.

 

* Thank you for you efforts, Phil. Much of

what you say rings a bell of truth inside,

but all the various meanings that are used

by words, is a bit confusing.

.... I appreciate you 'willingness' to walk

through this with me. ;)

 

* BTW, when the word 'mind' is used does that

refer to all phenomena, or do you mean mind,

as thought and self?

.... I am trying to understand the use of terms:

 

* First there is pure subjective awareness, and

then awareness objectified as 'consciousness',

(we don't know why this happens), and 'mind' is

all the phenomena within consciousness.., apart

from its innate awareness. The dreamer and the

dream is the same as the human and the illusion?

.... I hope that I am understanding what you are

trying to convey?

 

> Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman>

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> <anders_lindman> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> > > <anders_lindman> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...>

> wrote:

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > * I got a little lost on that one. ;)

> > > > > > ... I think it has to do with the use of the word

> > > > > > 'willingness', and how there are some `things' that

> > > > > > the 'sense of self' can do within 'the dream', and

> > > > > > how this 'spontaneous choice' occurs to mature the

> > > > > > dreamer out of the dream into realization where no

> > > > > > sense of self remains???

> > > > > >

> > > > > > * I hope I ask that in a way that makes some sense?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let's see. I see the willingness to 'look' at the Truth as the

> > > > bottom line,

> > > > > > so to speak, but this is just what occurs within the dream.

> > > > Consciousness

> > > > > > already contains the Truth and all that's required is for

> > > > consciousness to focus

> > > > > > on it's own awareness.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > This morning we turned the clocks back one hour.

> > > > >

> > > > > Does the sun have to focus in order go come up exactly one hour

> > > earlier?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The universe is holographic in nature; at least all " particles " are

> > > > connected. When nations switch to winter time, then yes, the sun is

> > > > affected, and the sun also affects the decisions for creating winter

> > > > time. It is just that our immature science only sees coarse surfaces

> > > > and totally misses the interconnectedness of all things.

> > > >

> > > > Don't be so sure that your mental ideas are impeccable.

> > > >

> > > > al.

> > > >

> > >

> > > And don't be so sure that your thought are flawed. :)

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > All thought is flawed.

> >

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

>

>

> Hehe. I have had the same idea. Maybe thought is only a sign of

> ignorance, noise in relation to unfolding perfection.

>

> al.

>

 

 

 

Conceptual thought is the overlay that occurs within the frontal cortex of the

human brain.

 

It is really an amazing lens and offers consciousness infinite new

possibilities.............................save one..........the ability to see

itself.

 

 

toombaru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...