Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Be warned Anders, Using words like ass, fuck, or similar indecent expressions is my copyright. Now to " impersonal consciousness " : 1. Consciousness doesn't exist. 2. Consciousness is its content. Those contents are preprocessed in the brain and then made conscious in their corresponding parts of the brain. The question now no longer is if there is an impersonal consciousness but are there impersonal contents. Right ? If the content is a tree then is that image of that tree processed in an impersonal way or is the result again a personal one ? You can go on thinking about many different contents and the question still remains: Is there an impersonal processing of sensations possible ? And please don't just grab some slogans but do inquire in a more serious way and no longer parroting what you have read before. For example find out: Can you inquire in an impersonal way or can you only inquire by following the parroting thought stream the brain is offering ? And then: Who is inquiring, is it " you " , or is it the brain ? Are you the brain ? (Please, no slogans) Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Be warned Anders, > > Using words like ass, fuck, or similar indecent expressions is my > copyright. > > Now to " impersonal consciousness " : > > 1. Consciousness doesn't exist. > 2. Consciousness is its content. > > Those contents are preprocessed in the brain and then made conscious > in their corresponding parts of the brain. > > The question now no longer is if there is an impersonal consciousness > but are there impersonal contents. Right ? > > If the content is a tree then is that image of that tree processed in > an impersonal way or is the result again a personal one ? > > You can go on thinking about many different contents and the question > still remains: Is there an impersonal processing of sensations > possible ? > > And please don't just grab some slogans but do inquire in a more > serious way and no longer parroting what you have read before. > > For example find out: > Can you inquire in an impersonal way or can you only inquire by > following the parroting thought stream the brain is offering ? > > And then: Who is inquiring, is it " you " , or is it the brain ? Are you > the brain ? (Please, no slogans) > > Werner I am aware. That sense of being aware I sometimes call consciousness. Is there anything other than consciousness? I don't know. I suspect that in the end everything must be of one and the same " substance " . We can say: " there is a car, and there is a brain " , but possibly these are only " ripples " in consciousness without any independent existence. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Anders, You just produced excuses. " Ripples in consiousness " , how is that possible if consciousness doesn't exist ? Does the brains produce ripples and then tranports them into that part which makes them conscious ? What about if you write a book about how you discovered the " ripple's cortex " which will offer you another chance for a Nobel prize ? At least you no longer used that nonsense expression " impersonal consciousness " , which is already an improvement. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Be warned Anders, > > > > Using words like ass, fuck, or similar indecent expressions is my > > copyright. > > > > Now to " impersonal consciousness " : > > > > 1. Consciousness doesn't exist. > > 2. Consciousness is its content. > > > > Those contents are preprocessed in the brain and then made conscious > > in their corresponding parts of the brain. > > > > The question now no longer is if there is an impersonal consciousness > > but are there impersonal contents. Right ? > > > > If the content is a tree then is that image of that tree processed in > > an impersonal way or is the result again a personal one ? > > > > You can go on thinking about many different contents and the question > > still remains: Is there an impersonal processing of sensations > > possible ? > > > > And please don't just grab some slogans but do inquire in a more > > serious way and no longer parroting what you have read before. > > > > For example find out: > > Can you inquire in an impersonal way or can you only inquire by > > following the parroting thought stream the brain is offering ? > > > > And then: Who is inquiring, is it " you " , or is it the brain ? Are you > > the brain ? (Please, no slogans) > > > > Werner > > > I am aware. That sense of being aware I sometimes call consciousness. > Is there anything other than consciousness? I don't know. I suspect > that in the end everything must be of one and the same " substance " . We > can say: " there is a car, and there is a brain " , but possibly these > are only " ripples " in consciousness without any independent existence. > > al. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 In a message dated 10/30/2005 2:41:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, cptc writes: Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > - > toombaru2004 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM > Re: The Enlightenment Question > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > cptc@w... writes: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What > > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that. > > > > Phil > > > > That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity. > > The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary kingdom. > > Look for this king......when the body dies. > > > toombaru > > > > > how can " you " be so certain, > of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm? > > Ana > > ** > Only the ego speaks of being everything. toombaru So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of everything and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. How's that working for ya? Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 In a message dated 10/30/2005 3:52:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, s.petersilge writes: >So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of >everything and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting >approach. How's that working for ya? Ha! He is maybe not trapped but he is trapping you... How's that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 In a message dated 10/30/2005 3:54:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, nli10u writes: ----- Original Message ----- ADHHUB Nisargadatta Sunday, October 30, 2005 6:47 PM Re: Re: The Enlightenment Question In a message dated 10/30/2005 2:41:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, cptc writes: Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > - > toombaru2004 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:27 PM > Re: The Enlightenment Question > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > cptc@w... writes: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What > > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that. > > > > Phil > > > > That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity. > > The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary kingdom. > > Look for this king......when the body dies. > > > toombaru > > > > > how can " you " be so certain, > of knowing or imagining now or then? Hmmm? > > Ana > > ** > Only the ego speaks of being everything. toombaru So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of everything and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. How's that working for ya? Phil LOL Dr. Phil I presume, eureka, I have found him at last!! LOL, chuckle, hehe and haha Yup, that's where it came from. I just wish I could remember some of the other things his Grampappy used to say. Dr Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 In a message dated 10/30/2005 4:06:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, cptc writes: > So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of everything > and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. How's > that working for ya? > > Phil > You selectively believe the words that flow only through the 'enlightened masters' that coincide with your own misconceptions. The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing. The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its own imagined vastness. toombaru You do? Then maybe you should consider that the ego will not be able to project itself into the Absolute. There will be no individual to experience this. Sorry bout that. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Oh Phil, The source of intuition mus be awareness because awareness is your joker card which presents all your child's dreams and hopes of miraculous, mystical, " higher " wonderfule secrets. What is called intuition is just the work of a balanced brain which got the chance to work without stress. Get down to earth: You are totally alone and no one loves you - childhood is over. Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > 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 > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 In a message dated 10/30/2005 4:23:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, cptc writes: Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 4:06:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, > cptc@w... writes: > > > So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of > everything > > and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. How's > > that working for ya? > > > > Phil > > > > > > You selectively believe the words that flow only through the 'enlightened > masters' that > coincide with your own misconceptions. > > The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing. > > The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its own > imagined vastness. > > > toombaru > > > > You do? > Then maybe you should consider that the ego will not be able to project > itself into the Absolute. There will be no individual to experience this. Sorry > bout that. > > Phil Oh..........you were thinking that the 'ego' actually exists. Now I understand your confusion. toombaru Who is it that understands this confusion, please? Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 In a message dated 10/30/2005 5:06:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, cptc writes: Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 4:23:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, > cptc@w... writes: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 4:06:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > cptc@w... writes: > > > > > So every enlightened master who speaks of Self as the totality of > > everything > > > and nothing is trapped in ego fantasy? Hmmmm, interesting approach. > How's > > > that working for ya? > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > You selectively believe the words that flow only through the 'enlightened > > > masters' that > > coincide with your own misconceptions. > > > > The master tells a student that the Self is everything and nothing. > > > > The student takes this literally....and feels quite comfortable in its > own > > imagined vastness. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > You do? > > Then maybe you should consider that the ego will not be able to project > > itself into the Absolute. There will be no individual to experience this. > Sorry > > bout that. > > > > Phil > > Oh..........you were thinking that the 'ego' actually exists. > > Now I understand your confusion. > > > toombaru > > > > Who is it that understands this confusion, please? > It is I.......... the Mother of Confusion......... that understands all confusion. It does get a little silly after a while, huh? Mayhaps we can save a lot of wear on our typing fingers if we can all agree to some basics: A) No ego will ever experience enlightenment. It's just the way it is. Get over it. B) Truth can be known only by being that Truth. All else is a shadow of Truth, and therefore untrue. Every written word is a lie and we like it that way. C) All expressions are ego expressions, since there really isn't the option of expressing from our left kidney. Given these understandings, possibly, we can allow those mind/ego mechanisms who choose to write things, to continue to do so without the need to continually remind them of these basics as if it's some sort of an Earth shattering revelation. ~ Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Be warned Anders, > > Using words like ass, fuck, or similar indecent expressions is my > copyright. > > Now to " impersonal consciousness " : > > 1. Consciousness doesn't exist. > 2. Consciousness is its content. * Warner, you are saying that the 'content of consciousness' consists of the body & brain's 'neurological interface' with 'what is', and there is no 'field of consciousness' that is outside of that? * So, do you think of consciousness is just the 'objectified' expression of 'awareness'? Do you think awareness is might be a 'perceptive faculty' that is NOT dependent on the body/brain? > W: Those contents are preprocessed in the brain and then > made conscious in their corresponding parts of the brain. > > The question now no longer is if there is an impersonal > consciousness but are there impersonal contents. Right ? * What does 'impersonal' mean? If the nature of awareness is to objectify as consciousness in human beings, is that personal or impersonal, since it is so with everyone? .... Perhaps the objectification itself, in its 'entirety', is of an 'impersonal nature', but it is represented in each individual in a 'personal' way? > W: If the content is a tree then is that image of that tree > processed in an impersonal way or is the result again a > personal one ? * The interface for each individual, is 'unique', so the tree will contain both elements.., but the 'perception' of the tree will be a 'personal' one, from the standpoint of the individual? > W: You can go on thinking about many different contents > and the question still remains: Is there an impersonal > processing of sensations possible ? * Probably not - through the 'body/brain', but I am not convinced that awareness is not a 'perceptive mode' NOT dependent on the body/brain? > W: And please don't just grab some slogans but do inquire > in a more serious way and no longer parroting what you > have read before. > > For example find out: > Can you inquire in an impersonal way or can you only inquire by > following the parroting thought stream the brain is offering ? > W: And then: Who is inquiring, is it " you " , or is it the > brain ? Are you the brain ? (Please, no slogans) * Actually, is not the 'sense of self' a product of this 'internal dialogue', and its identifications/attachments - thought? > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > >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! ~ > Hahahahahah!!!!! LOLROTF!!!!! Stefan (finally you guys made me laugh, thanks from the heart) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Oh Phil, > > The source of intuition mus be awareness because awareness is your > joker card which presents all your child's dreams and hopes of > miraculous, mystical, " higher " wonderfule secrets. > > What is called intuition is just the work of a balanced brain which > got the chance to work without stress. * Isn't that a little dogmatic and a bit simplistic, Warner? > W: Get down to earth: > You are totally alone and no one loves you - childhood is over. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >If you dream of seeing trees and other objects " as they are " then >good luck in becoming a tree, I mean a real tree. Hahaha!!! That was a good one, too. Today seems to be a promising day :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Right RF, It is dogmatic and simplistic when you want to see it that way. I am not responsible for your views. Werner the warner Nisargadatta , " assiduity2004 " <asimpjoy@e...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Oh Phil, > > > > The source of intuition mus be awareness because awareness is your > > joker card which presents all your child's dreams and hopes of > > miraculous, mystical, " higher " wonderfule secrets. > > > > What is called intuition is just the work of a balanced brain which > > got the chance to work without stress. > > * Isn't that a little dogmatic > and a bit simplistic, Warner? > > > W: Get down to earth: > > You are totally alone and no one loves you - childhood is over. > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 RF, What I wrote is pretty clear, I cannot add more or take anything away. If you dream of seeing trees and other objects " as they are " then good luck in becoming a tree yourself, I mean a real tree. The personal glasses you look through is your past memories, the old ones are your genes and the recent ones are memories stored in your brain. To escape your genes and your brain's memory is a hopeles task. And I wonder if it isn't better to learn to live with what you are instead of dreaming to escape it ? Werner Nisargadatta , " assiduity2004 " <asimpjoy@e...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Be warned Anders, > > > > Using words like ass, fuck, or similar indecent expressions is my > > copyright. > > > > Now to " impersonal consciousness " : > > > > 1. Consciousness doesn't exist. > > 2. Consciousness is its content. > > * Warner, you are saying that the > 'content of consciousness' consists > of the body & brain's 'neurological > interface' with 'what is', and there > is no 'field of consciousness' that > is outside of that? > > * So, do you think of consciousness is > just the 'objectified' expression of > 'awareness'? Do you think awareness is > might be a 'perceptive faculty' that > is NOT dependent on the body/brain? > > > W: Those contents are preprocessed in the brain and then > > made conscious in their corresponding parts of the brain. > > > > The question now no longer is if there is an impersonal > > consciousness but are there impersonal contents. Right ? > > * What does 'impersonal' mean? If the > nature of awareness is to objectify as > consciousness in human beings, is that > personal or impersonal, since it is so > with everyone? > ... Perhaps the objectification itself, > in its 'entirety', is of an 'impersonal > nature', but it is represented in each > individual in a 'personal' way? > > > W: If the content is a tree then is that image of that tree > > processed in an impersonal way or is the result again a > > personal one ? > > * The interface for each individual, is > 'unique', so the tree will contain both > elements.., but the 'perception' of the > tree will be a 'personal' one, from the > standpoint of the individual? > > > W: You can go on thinking about many different contents > > and the question still remains: Is there an impersonal > > processing of sensations possible ? > > * Probably not - through the 'body/brain', > but I am not convinced that awareness is > not a 'perceptive mode' NOT dependent on > the body/brain? > > > W: And please don't just grab some slogans but do inquire > > in a more serious way and no longer parroting what you > > have read before. > > > > For example find out: > > Can you inquire in an impersonal way or can you only inquire by > > following the parroting thought stream the brain is offering ? > > > W: And then: Who is inquiring, is it " you " , or is it the > > brain ? Are you the brain ? (Please, no slogans) > > * Actually, is not the 'sense of self' a > product of this 'internal dialogue', and > its identifications/attachments - thought? > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 In a message dated 10/30/2005 5:47:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, anders_lindman writes: Werner, from my point of view I don't know if you are aware or only in my imagination. Your rational ideas will get me nowhere. al. What sort of awareness are you suggesting here? Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 - Stefan Nisargadatta Sunday, October 30, 2005 3:57 PM Re: The Enlightenment Question Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > >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! ~ > Hahahahahah!!!!! LOLROTF!!!!! Stefan (finally you guys made me laugh, thanks from the heart) Oh, my beautiful stars, stefan and al. is that laughing gas? hehe, Love, me ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 In a message dated 10/30/2005 6:02:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, anders_lindman writes: Yes, maybe intuition is a link between thinking based of past memories and novelty. al. What does " novelty " mean in this context? Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 * Well, you seem to definitely know, but I am not so sure. This appears just a 'hard-core stance' of belief in a kind of 'secular materialism', or something like that? .... Don't be so condescending, I'm not just 'dreaming' to be a tree, or anything like that. I am 'looking', and I'm not sure that perception IS limited to just the interpretations of the body/brain, which you always seem to be asserting? * I see memory, as thought, becoming dormant when not needed, so it's not an escape not to use it. The cellular memory functions on its own.., but I am not ready to limit perception to only the 'body/brain' the way you are doing. .... It appears 'awareness' perceives, and is not dependent on the physical neurology. So I think Plil has a good point in the way he describes it, but I cant tell for sure.., yet! )) Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > RF, > > What I wrote is pretty clear, I cannot add more or take anything away. > > If you dream of seeing trees and other objects " as they are " then > good luck in becoming a tree yourself, I mean a real tree. > > The personal glasses you look through is your past memories, the old > ones are your genes and the recent ones are memories stored in your > brain. > > To escape your genes and your brain's memory is a hopeles task. And I > wonder if it isn't better to learn to live with what you are instead > of dreaming to escape it ? > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " assiduity2004 " <asimpjoy@e...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Be warned Anders, > > > > > > Using words like ass, fuck, or similar indecent expressions is my > > > copyright. > > > > > > Now to " impersonal consciousness " : > > > > > > 1. Consciousness doesn't exist. > > > 2. Consciousness is its content. > > > > * Warner, you are saying that the > > 'content of consciousness' consists > > of the body & brain's 'neurological > > interface' with 'what is', and there > > is no 'field of consciousness' that > > is outside of that? > > > > * So, do you think of consciousness is > > just the 'objectified' expression of > > 'awareness'? Do you think awareness is > > might be a 'perceptive faculty' that > > is NOT dependent on the body/brain? > > > > > W: Those contents are preprocessed in the brain and then > > > made conscious in their corresponding parts of the brain. > > > > > > The question now no longer is if there is an impersonal > > > consciousness but are there impersonal contents. Right ? > > > > * What does 'impersonal' mean? If the > > nature of awareness is to objectify as > > consciousness in human beings, is that > > personal or impersonal, since it is so > > with everyone? > > ... Perhaps the objectification itself, > > in its 'entirety', is of an 'impersonal > > nature', but it is represented in each > > individual in a 'personal' way? > > > > > W: If the content is a tree then is that image of that tree > > > processed in an impersonal way or is the result again a > > > personal one ? > > > > * The interface for each individual, is > > 'unique', so the tree will contain both > > elements.., but the 'perception' of the > > tree will be a 'personal' one, from the > > standpoint of the individual? > > > > > W: You can go on thinking about many different contents > > > and the question still remains: Is there an impersonal > > > processing of sensations possible ? > > > > * Probably not - through the 'body/brain', > > but I am not convinced that awareness is > > not a 'perceptive mode' NOT dependent on > > the body/brain? > > > > > W: And please don't just grab some slogans but do inquire > > > in a more serious way and no longer parroting what you > > > have read before. > > > > > > For example find out: > > > Can you inquire in an impersonal way or can you only inquire by > > > following the parroting thought stream the brain is offering ? > > > > > W: And then: Who is inquiring, is it " you " , or is it the > > > brain ? Are you the brain ? (Please, no slogans) > > > > * Actually, is not the 'sense of self' a > > product of this 'internal dialogue', and > > its identifications/attachments - thought? > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 In a message dated 10/30/2005 6:25:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, anders_lindman writes: My hope is that my body is " just " a 3D holographic projection. A very advanced projection, because in a hologram, every part contains some version of the whole. If true, it means that I can perhaps someday be able to alter this projection called the body into a younger body, or into something else, or into an older body too for that matter. A holographic projection cannot die, it is just pure " information " . al. Did God get lost in that equation? Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 - ADHHUB Nisargadatta Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:03 PM Re: Re: The Enlightenment Question In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, cptc writes: 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 You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that. Phil Hi gentlemen, We are what we think until we know who we are and then we stop thinking about it and we just Do it, like the Nike commercial says, Just Do It!, by Being It. Smiles, Ana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 * Well, if you say: " ... intuition is just the work of a balanced brain which got the chance to work without stress ... " , it is not 'clear' how you arrived at this, because intuition is something that implies a 'seeing' that is not just a biological process of a physical brain? .... So, to you, it is all just a 'body/brain', and there is nothing else outside that? That means whatever is talked about, which does not conform to this 'belief', is just the 'fantasy' of an adult who has not yet grown up. It is a call of unmet childhood needs 'projected' into a desired make-believe domain of warmth and love? Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Right RF, > > It is dogmatic and simplistic when you want to see it that way. I am > not responsible for your views. > > Werner the warner > > > Nisargadatta , " assiduity2004 " <asimpjoy@e...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Oh Phil, > > > > > > The source of intuition mus be awareness because awareness is > your > > > joker card which presents all your child's dreams and hopes of > > > miraculous, mystical, " higher " wonderfule secrets. > > > > > > What is called intuition is just the work of a balanced brain > which > > > got the chance to work without stress. > > > > * Isn't that a little dogmatic > > and a bit simplistic, Warner? > > > > > W: Get down to earth: > > > You are totally alone and no one loves you - childhood is over. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Surely you must see that Phil has a good point, because he is clinging, same as you, to a child's concepts, he is a Disneylander like you. Only when you fully accept that you are totally alone and no one loves you, then you can end the child's socialization process and be what you are, otherwise you go on, in constant conflict with yourself, hoping one day to become a real lovable child. Werner Nisargadatta , " assiduity2004 " <asimpjoy@e...> wrote: > ,> > * Well, you seem to definitely know, > but I am not so sure. This appears > just a 'hard-core stance' of belief > in a kind of 'secular materialism', > or something like that? > ... Don't be so condescending, I'm > not just 'dreaming' to be a tree, or > anything like that. I am 'looking', > and I'm not sure that perception IS > limited to just the interpretations > of the body/brain, which you always > seem to be asserting? > > * I see memory, as thought, becoming > dormant when not needed, so it's not > an escape not to use it. The cellular > memory functions on its own.., but I > am not ready to limit perception to > only the 'body/brain' the way you are > doing. > ... It appears 'awareness' perceives, > and is not dependent on the physical > neurology. So I think Plil has a good > point in the way he describes it, but > I cant tell for sure.., yet! )) > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > RF, > > > > What I wrote is pretty clear, I cannot add more or take anything > away. > > > > If you dream of seeing trees and other objects " as they are " then > > good luck in becoming a tree yourself, I mean a real tree. > > > > The personal glasses you look through is your past memories, the old > > ones are your genes and the recent ones are memories stored in your > > brain. > > > > To escape your genes and your brain's memory is a hopeles task. And > I > > wonder if it isn't better to learn to live with what you are instead > > of dreaming to escape it ? > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " assiduity2004 " > <asimpjoy@e...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Be warned Anders, > > > > > > > > Using words like ass, fuck, or similar indecent expressions is > my > > > > copyright. > > > > > > > > Now to " impersonal consciousness " : > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness doesn't exist. > > > > 2. Consciousness is its content. > > > > > > * Warner, you are saying that the > > > 'content of consciousness' consists > > > of the body & brain's 'neurological > > > interface' with 'what is', and there > > > is no 'field of consciousness' that > > > is outside of that? > > > > > > * So, do you think of consciousness is > > > just the 'objectified' expression of > > > 'awareness'? Do you think awareness is > > > might be a 'perceptive faculty' that > > > is NOT dependent on the body/brain? > > > > > > > W: Those contents are preprocessed in the brain and then > > > > made conscious in their corresponding parts of the brain. > > > > > > > > The question now no longer is if there is an impersonal > > > > consciousness but are there impersonal contents. Right ? > > > > > > * What does 'impersonal' mean? If the > > > nature of awareness is to objectify as > > > consciousness in human beings, is that > > > personal or impersonal, since it is so > > > with everyone? > > > ... Perhaps the objectification itself, > > > in its 'entirety', is of an 'impersonal > > > nature', but it is represented in each > > > individual in a 'personal' way? > > > > > > > W: If the content is a tree then is that image of that tree > > > > processed in an impersonal way or is the result again a > > > > personal one ? > > > > > > * The interface for each individual, is > > > 'unique', so the tree will contain both > > > elements.., but the 'perception' of the > > > tree will be a 'personal' one, from the > > > standpoint of the individual? > > > > > > > W: You can go on thinking about many different contents > > > > and the question still remains: Is there an impersonal > > > > processing of sensations possible ? > > > > > > * Probably not - through the 'body/brain', > > > but I am not convinced that awareness is > > > not a 'perceptive mode' NOT dependent on > > > the body/brain? > > > > > > > W: And please don't just grab some slogans but do inquire > > > > in a more serious way and no longer parroting what you > > > > have read before. > > > > > > > > For example find out: > > > > Can you inquire in an impersonal way or can you only inquire by > > > > following the parroting thought stream the brain is offering ? > > > > > > > W: And then: Who is inquiring, is it " you " , or is it the > > > > brain ? Are you the brain ? (Please, no slogans) > > > > > > * Actually, is not the 'sense of self' a > > > product of this 'internal dialogue', and > > > its identifications/attachments - thought? > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:25:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, > cptc@w... writes: > > > 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 > > > > You ARE seeing yourself. Look around you; it's all your creation. What > you're having difficulty with is knowing yourself to BE that. > > Phil > That.........is new age..... egoic grandiosity. The 'self' imagines itself to the the king of its own imaginary kingdom. Look for this king......when the body dies. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
