Guest guest Report post Posted October 21, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > 1. consciousness presupposes time. > > > > >Werner: I ask again, why does consciousness presuppose time?Time is >tomorrow , yesterday--it is projection. It is therefore >imaginary.Consciousness abides in the NOW.It doesn't presuppose time. >Time rides across it like John Wayne rides across the screen of a >movie theatre--or used to many and many a year ago. Z Hi Tom. Even " to abide in the now " presupposes the concept of " time " . " Now " presupposes time. In a world without time there can be also no " now " . Moreover, think about it: where there is no time, there is not only no movement, no life, no memory, no recognition, no thought. There is also no space. There is no matter. There is less than nothing. Everything that makes your life and my life conscious is built on time. In an attempt to find a verbal metaphor for a state without time Nisargadatta has described it as " a solid, dense, rocklike, homogeneous and changeless mass of pure awareness " . And this pure awareness, according to Nisargadatta, is beyond consciousness. It can be discussed if such a state is a fantasy or maybe a shortcut in the brain. It can be discussed if enlightenment is a myth. But one should not mix the terms and attributes and then declare consciousness is independent of time. Lets leave this business to the fake gurus. We use our intelligence and then we can see that there is still time, otherwise John Wayne could not ride, in which direction however, and we would have to say good bye to each other, for ever. Maybe all this is a little hard for the ego to accept, I hope you can bear it. Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 21, 2007 > > Hi Tom, > > I don't read all posts because my poor eyesight simply doesn't allow it. > So I am sorry if I missed your question and you had to repeat it. > > But as I could see it wasn't really a question but you rather wanted to > tell your views about time. > > Nevertheless: > There are two different times, the physial time of the watch and the > psychological time which is past and future. > > The creation of consciousness in the brain needs time and in addition > it workds serial. The data which has to become conscious is serially > shifted into its corresponding parts of the brain where it is made > conscious. That way we can listen to someone speaking or birds singing, > watch a movies or tv because they all happem serially, bit for bit. > > Sound waves happen serially, light too, and so on. Thefore one cannot > deny and neglect physical time which repeatedly I have seen on this Niz > list which is utter nonsense. > > Btw, because til now there was no way to explain what consciousness is > by traditional means of mechanic physics neuroscience has developed a > theory using quantum mechanis which can explain it. > > Now, you cannot avoid physical time else when time stood still you > instantly had to die when your heart stops beating. > > But psychological time created by thought is the topic one is > discussing in fora like this here. But often people confuse > psychological time with physical time. > > Future is the projection of the past and it is just appearing in > thought but nowhere else. Therefore we have only to deal with that one. > > Werner > Werner: You are right, I do have views I love to expound--but I am open, I hope(probably fondly), to a change in them As for what you say about the neuorlogical underpinnings of experience--I don't say it is wrong, I say it is irrelevant.It is more stuff on the screen.I know the difference between physical time and psychological time--it is still irrelevant.Physical time is more projection.It is another word for short term memory. It is another story.It is not an actuality. Now is the only actuality.Everything else is the ashes of NOW.YOu get up and walk across the room. You say, " Boy, now I am in physical time!I am really with IT. " But by the time you take your 2nd step , the first step is memory--serial, parallel, whatever--and the goal, the other side of the room, is an idea. Your grasp of neurology is impressive and I can't argue with you on that level--but on the level of truth,i.e.,what's happening, what's nakedly happening now--neurology is just one more story, one more recording. Put it on the turntable--do you remember those?--NOW will play it for you beautifully. Z > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 21, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Ok, Stefan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are so right. And because you have realized this > > tremendous > > > > > > > >observation that point 1 and 2 together make no sense you > now > > > have > > > > > > > >got a quiet mind as soon you are alone and no longer any > > > > thought is > > > > > > > >chattering - great. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I do not think that the mind can be quiet. It is its > very > > > > nature > > > > > > > to babble. When it is quiet it means it is not there. But the > > > > question > > > > > > > that follows from point 1. and 2. is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be " not there " ? Is there anything else than thoughts? > > > What do > > > > > > > you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of > > perceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is doing the naming??? > > > > > > > > > > > > Why.........that would be the Namer of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and what's the Namer's name? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bobby, > > > > By definition, the one doing the naming would be the namer. > > > > The only reality is in the accepted meaning of the words. > > > > The namer's name is namer. > > i refer not to a definition. > > i clearly am referring to the substantive aspect of the defined. There is no substantive aspect........anywhere in the conceptual dream. Concepts are empty bobby. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 21, 2007 Hi, I'm trying to follow the layout of this forum and it's a little complex for me to keep track of all the discussions. I came across this quote by Nis and it seemed to fit in with your discussion on consciousness: As long as one is conscious, there will be pain and pleasure. You cannot fight pain and pleasure on the level of consciousness. To go beyond them, you must go beyond consciousness, which is possible only when you look at consciousness as something that happens to you, and not in you, as something external, alien, superimposed. Then, suddenly you are free of consciousness, really alone, with nothing to intrude. And that is your true state. Consciousness is an itching rash that makes you scratch. Of course, you cannot step out of consciousness, for the very stepping out is in consciousness. But if you learn to look at your consciousness as a sort of fever, personal and private, in which you are enclosed like a chick in its shell, out of this very attitude will come the crisis which will break the shell. --- end of Nis quote In the last few months I've been doing some breathe work, known maybe as pranayama. I've had enough of sensing and feeling pain and depression, so I thought, hell... what do I have to lose or gain, but possibly a little more or less depression sensation. I've been combining it with observation of mind and some of Eckart Tolles discussions on the mind program, or thought programs --> conditioned life. Observing mind/thoughts in this way, along with following my breathe, has caused me to notice that life is all a condition and to let it be. Then I follow the breathe and this seems to quickly release me from over occupying on the thoughts of mind. It's led me to a disinterest in the drama of emotion and mind expressions. Then I feel what I am left with, which seems to be a joyful and peaceful sensation, and relatively void of concerns of thoughts as it has been typically experienced. Then I noticed that there is no actual need of an observer or witnesser as it's described in many of the eastern texts.... because if there is really nothing to witness (illusion) and I just let it be as if it weren't even real, then why would there be a need for an observer? This causes me to notice that most " 'spiritual " " writings are a cycle and loop of the mind yet again. And what is this shell Nis speaks of? The minds need to cycle into learning something... and discovering something... and observing something that isn't even there; or didn't even happen in the first place. It all seems like such an endless cycle lately. The only peace I have is to reduce the feeding into it and ignore it, kind of like a mosquito. In that state I seem to have found some kind of feeling of deep joy and peace as an alternative for the opposite of sadness or various levels thereof. I have absolutely no idea if I'm on any kind of right track or not. And I'm guessing that there really is no *right* track afterall, so there is no need to say such and such is right or wrong. (that would be more feeding into the endless ego cycle, I'm pretty sure of that.) So I guess I'm enjoying my disinterest in the mind game and for once in my life feeling a sense of peace and joy, which is afterall what all enlightened-wanna-be's have longed for as their goal is it not? My question in this little debate is this... where does the mind/thought program fit into the term consciousness? In the above text Nis seems to classify them together, however perhaps I don't have his writing in full context either. Is it (mind) some rogue creation? Some further game employed by Consciousness to occupy it's eons of time? Surely it must be a rogue anomoly, since texts seem to stress that consciousness is busy witnessing and observing its (minds) creations that aren't even real. The mind program causes what is known as the *separate* state and dwelling on that state will enhance a sense of separateness, but why did this state of separateness mind come into being in the first place? To me it seems like consciousness had a little breakdown or meltdown and this is what happened... part of it fragmented into what is known as a mind, separating and causing all kinds of delusions/illusions. It feels like consciousness is trying to heal it's breakdown. Again, why would Nis suggest that we should be free of consciousness if he also describes that we are consciousness? ..... just some ramblings on the topic. And what's up with this joy/peace sensation? Where did that come from all of a sudden replacing an undercurrent of sadness... not that I'm complaining, it's just that it's all a little bit of a strange mystery to me. Cosmo Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > . > > > > Consciousness is all there is. > > > > Werner > > > Yes, consciousness is all there is because being is all there is and > being is aware. Z > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 21, 2007 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > P: Everything is real. Unreality doesn't exist. An illusion is just > a misinterpretation of reality. > > > That is an intersting observation. Just a minute before I read your words I also had the thought that everything can just *be* what it is. It seems that someone somewhere along the line coined the phrase *illusion* and we run with it like a dog with a bone in our mouth. The point that I have come across is that a person does not like a particular experience and therefore wishes to get rid of it, perhaps by saying that it isn't real? On the other hand, I admit that I don't care for many experiences, irregardless of whether or not their determined to be real or illusory, imagined or reality. This is what the whole debate seems to be hinged upon... the persons dislike in a given experience. It seems that when I disassociate myself with the experience (whether or not it is actually real or imagined becomes irrelevent). A situation can be theoretically and typically classified as good or bad, loving or hateful, and when I disassociate with any judgment on it it doesn't seem to matter whether it's real or not. The end result for me is that I feel a peace and joy like sensation irregardless of the analysis, or perhaps because of the lack of analysis. And, therefore, the need to classify it as an illusion, or reality seems to be gradually disappearing, since it doesn't seem to matter to my sensation one way or the other. And I'm willing to guess here that most people are in this debate over illusion/reality, and therefore seeking some path of enlightenment to help relieve them of the unfavorable sensations they are experiencing as a result of their life experiences.... the debate then on whether or not it's illusion/dream or reality becomes a scape goat to justify or make sense of the pain doesn't it? cosmo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Ok, Stefan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are so right. And because you have realized this > > > tremendous > > > > > > > > >observation that point 1 and 2 together make no sense you > > now > > > > have > > > > > > > > >got a quiet mind as soon you are alone and no longer any > > > > > thought is > > > > > > > > >chattering - great. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I do not think that the mind can be quiet. It is its > > very > > > > > nature > > > > > > > > to babble. When it is quiet it means it is not there. > But the > > > > > question > > > > > > > > that follows from point 1. and 2. is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be " not there " ? Is there anything else than thoughts? > > > > What do > > > > > > > > you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of > > > perceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is doing the naming??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why.........that would be the Namer of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and what's the Namer's name? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bobby, > > > > > > By definition, the one doing the naming would be the namer. > > > > > > The only reality is in the accepted meaning of the words. > > > > > > The namer's name is namer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i refer not to a definition. > > > > i clearly am referring to the substantive aspect of the defined. > > There is no substantive aspect........anywhere in the conceptual dream. > oh...that's a shame...you stay in the dream. what goes on... is of THAT from which the dream emerges. phantoms lost in mysterious false identity of course are trapped. they're damned (eliminated) if they do (believe projected reality).. damned if they don't (believe [projected reality). in either case or state......or condition.. the phantom evaporates.. and is Realized as false Identity. as is the creatively and freely projected illusion of the conceptual it is the 'worlding' of a world to live in for the idealized zombie. the 'substance' is throughout and within and surrounding and projecting and allowing.. all the limitations 'you' project as constraints on the possible. i'm truly sorry for 'you'.. baba had thought the communion was occurring on a different level... one with far more depth and significance. now it is seen this is incorrect in fact. ok...whatever your little world has you believing... it's ok my child... all is fine and no challenge to your Disneyland ideas. sweet conceptual world dreams little one.. rock a bye baby. > Concepts are empty bobby. > > > toombaru yes toombaru...the concept in and of what 'you' just said..is empty. 'you're' right on about how 'you' don't know what 'you're' saying. 'anyone' listening...knows 'you'.. and 'they' don't know what 'you're' saying either. that's full to the brim clear.. Capacity smiles.. She loves her silly children. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > <s.petersilge@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > <wwoehr@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Ok, Stefan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are so right. And because you have realized this > > > > tremendous > > > > > > > > > >observation that point 1 and 2 together make no sense you > > > now > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > >got a quiet mind as soon you are alone and no longer any > > > > > > thought is > > > > > > > > > >chattering - great. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I do not think that the mind can be quiet. It is its > > > very > > > > > > nature > > > > > > > > > to babble. When it is quiet it means it is not there. > > But the > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > that follows from point 1. and 2. is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be " not there " ? Is there anything else than > thoughts? > > > > > What do > > > > > > > > > you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of > > > > perceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is doing the naming??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why.........that would be the Namer of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and what's the Namer's name? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bobby, > > > > > > > > By definition, the one doing the naming would be the namer. > > > > > > > > The only reality is in the accepted meaning of the words. > > > > > > > > The namer's name is namer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i refer not to a definition. > > > > > > i clearly am referring to the substantive aspect of the defined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no substantive aspect........anywhere in the conceptual dream. > > > > > > oh...that's a shame...you stay in the dream. > > what goes on... > > is of THAT from which the dream emerges. > > phantoms lost in mysterious false identity of course are trapped. > > they're damned (eliminated) if they do (believe projected reality).. > > damned if they don't (believe [projected reality). > > in either case or state......or condition.. > > the phantom evaporates.. > > and is Realized as false Identity. > > as is the creatively and freely projected illusion of the conceptual > > it is the 'worlding' of a world to live in for the idealized zombie. > > the 'substance' is throughout and within and surrounding and > > projecting and allowing.. > > all the limitations 'you' project as constraints on the possible. > > i'm truly sorry for 'you'.. > > baba had thought the communion was occurring on a different level... There is no communion.......anywhere It is not possible. There are no levels. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > <lastrain@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > > <s.petersilge@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Ok, Stefan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are so right. And because you have realized this > > > > > tremendous > > > > > > > > > > >observation that point 1 and 2 together make no > sense you > > > > now > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > >got a quiet mind as soon you are alone and no > longer any > > > > > > > thought is > > > > > > > > > > >chattering - great. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I do not think that the mind can be quiet. It > is its > > > > very > > > > > > > nature > > > > > > > > > > to babble. When it is quiet it means it is not there. > > > But the > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > that follows from point 1. and 2. is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be " not there " ? Is there anything else than > > thoughts? > > > > > > What do > > > > > > > > > > you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of > > > > > perceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is doing the naming??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why.........that would be the Namer of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and what's the Namer's name? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bobby, > > > > > > > > > > By definition, the one doing the naming would be the namer. > > > > > > > > > > The only reality is in the accepted meaning of the words. > > > > > > > > > > The namer's name is namer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i refer not to a definition. > > > > > > > > i clearly am referring to the substantive aspect of the defined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no substantive aspect........anywhere in the conceptual > dream. > > > > > > > > > > > oh...that's a shame...you stay in the dream. > > > > what goes on... > > > > is of THAT from which the dream emerges. > > > > phantoms lost in mysterious false identity of course are trapped. > > > > they're damned (eliminated) if they do (believe projected reality).. > > > > damned if they don't (believe [projected reality). > > > > in either case or state......or condition.. > > > > the phantom evaporates.. > > > > and is Realized as false Identity. > > > > as is the creatively and freely projected illusion of the conceptual > > > > it is the 'worlding' of a world to live in for the idealized zombie. > > > > the 'substance' is throughout and within and surrounding and > > > > projecting and allowing.. > > > > all the limitations 'you' project as constraints on the possible. > > > > i'm truly sorry for 'you'.. > > > > baba had thought the communion was occurring on a different level... > > > > > There is no communion.......anywhere > > It is not possible. > > There are no levels. > > > > > > toombaru oh...that's a shame...you stay in the dream. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > <lastrain@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > > <s.petersilge@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Ok, Stefan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are so right. And because you have realized this > > > > > tremendous > > > > > > > > > > >observation that point 1 and 2 together make no > sense you > > > > now > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > >got a quiet mind as soon you are alone and no > longer any > > > > > > > thought is > > > > > > > > > > >chattering - great. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I do not think that the mind can be quiet. It > is its > > > > very > > > > > > > nature > > > > > > > > > > to babble. When it is quiet it means it is not there. > > > But the > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > that follows from point 1. and 2. is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be " not there " ? Is there anything else than > > thoughts? > > > > > > What do > > > > > > > > > > you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of > > > > > perceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is doing the naming??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why.........that would be the Namer of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and what's the Namer's name? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bobby, > > > > > > > > > > By definition, the one doing the naming would be the namer. > > > > > > > > > > The only reality is in the accepted meaning of the words. > > > > > > > > > > The namer's name is namer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i refer not to a definition. > > > > > > > > i clearly am referring to the substantive aspect of the defined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no substantive aspect........anywhere in the conceptual > dream. > > > > > > > > > > > oh...that's a shame...you stay in the dream. > > > > what goes on... > > > > is of THAT from which the dream emerges. > > > > phantoms lost in mysterious false identity of course are trapped. > > > > they're damned (eliminated) if they do (believe projected reality).. > > > > damned if they don't (believe [projected reality). > > > > in either case or state......or condition.. > > > > the phantom evaporates.. > > > > and is Realized as false Identity. > > > > as is the creatively and freely projected illusion of the conceptual > > > > it is the 'worlding' of a world to live in for the idealized zombie. > > > > the 'substance' is throughout and within and surrounding and > > > > projecting and allowing.. > > > > all the limitations 'you' project as constraints on the possible. > > > > i'm truly sorry for 'you'.. > > > > baba had thought the communion was occurring on a different level... > > > > > There is no communion.......anywhere there is ONLY communion.. everywhere and nowhere... timelessly..all the time. > It is not possible. only the not possible is. the not possible is the only possibility. when that is seen.. " how can it be otherwise? " is the last 'conscious' breath. > There are no levels. > > > > > > toombaru until you're on the level about no levels... levels is all you got. after that .... nothing really. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 22, 2007 > > > > > > > > There is no communion.......anywhere > > > > It is not possible. > > > > There are no levels. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > oh...that's a shame...you stay in the dream. > > .b b.b. There is nothing.........outside of the dream. toombaru > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > > <lastrain@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > > > <s.petersilge@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > > <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Ok, Stefan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are so right. And because you have realized this > > > > > > tremendous > > > > > > > > > > > >observation that point 1 and 2 together make no > > sense you > > > > > now > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > >got a quiet mind as soon you are alone and no > > longer any > > > > > > > > thought is > > > > > > > > > > > >chattering - great. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I do not think that the mind can be quiet. It > > is its > > > > > very > > > > > > > > nature > > > > > > > > > > > to babble. When it is quiet it means it is not there. > > > > But the > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > > that follows from point 1. and 2. is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be " not there " ? Is there anything else than > > > thoughts? > > > > > > > What do > > > > > > > > > > > you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that conceptual thought is merely the naming of > > > > > > perceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is doing the naming??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why.........that would be the Namer of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and what's the Namer's name? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bobby, > > > > > > > > > > > > By definition, the one doing the naming would be the namer. > > > > > > > > > > > > The only reality is in the accepted meaning of the words. > > > > > > > > > > > > The namer's name is namer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i refer not to a definition. > > > > > > > > > > i clearly am referring to the substantive aspect of the defined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no substantive aspect........anywhere in the conceptual > > dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh...that's a shame...you stay in the dream. > > > > > > what goes on... > > > > > > is of THAT from which the dream emerges. > > > > > > phantoms lost in mysterious false identity of course are trapped. > > > > > > they're damned (eliminated) if they do (believe projected reality).. > > > > > > damned if they don't (believe [projected reality). > > > > > > in either case or state......or condition.. > > > > > > the phantom evaporates.. > > > > > > and is Realized as false Identity. > > > > > > as is the creatively and freely projected illusion of the conceptual > > > > > > it is the 'worlding' of a world to live in for the idealized zombie. > > > > > > the 'substance' is throughout and within and surrounding and > > > > > > projecting and allowing.. > > > > > > all the limitations 'you' project as constraints on the possible. > > > > > > i'm truly sorry for 'you'.. > > > > > > baba had thought the communion was occurring on a different level... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no communion.......anywhere > > > > > there is ONLY communion.. > > everywhere and nowhere... > > timelessly..all the time. > > > > There in no communion. > > > > It is not possible. only the not possible is. > > the not possible is the only possibility. > > when that is seen.. > > " how can it be otherwise? " > > is the last 'conscious' breath. > > > > There are no levels. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > until you're on the level about no levels... > > levels is all you got. > > after that .... > > nothing really. > > > .b b.b. > The absence of the absence. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no communion.......anywhere > > > > > > It is not possible. > > > > > > There are no levels. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > oh...that's a shame...you stay in the dream. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > There is nothing.........outside of the dream. > > > > toombaru once become that nothing...and WOW! inside the outside dream is over. i bid you Awake! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > <lastrain@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > > > <lastrain@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > > > > <s.petersilge@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > > > <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Ok, Stefan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are so right. And because you have realized > this > > > > > > > tremendous > > > > > > > > > > > > >observation that point 1 and 2 together make no > > > sense you > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > >got a quiet mind as soon you are alone and no > > > longer any > > > > > > > > > thought is > > > > > > > > > > > > >chattering - great. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I do not think that the mind can be quiet. It > > > is its > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > nature > > > > > > > > > > > > to babble. When it is quiet it means it is not > there. > > > > > But the > > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > > > that follows from point 1. and 2. is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be " not there " ? Is there anything else than > > > > thoughts? > > > > > > > > What do > > > > > > > > > > > > you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that conceptual thought is merely the > naming of > > > > > > > perceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is doing the naming??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why.........that would be the Namer of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and what's the Namer's name? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bobby, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By definition, the one doing the naming would be the namer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only reality is in the accepted meaning of the words. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The namer's name is namer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i refer not to a definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > i clearly am referring to the substantive aspect of the defined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no substantive aspect........anywhere in the conceptual > > > dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh...that's a shame...you stay in the dream. > > > > > > > > what goes on... > > > > > > > > is of THAT from which the dream emerges. > > > > > > > > phantoms lost in mysterious false identity of course are trapped. > > > > > > > > they're damned (eliminated) if they do (believe projected reality).. > > > > > > > > damned if they don't (believe [projected reality). > > > > > > > > in either case or state......or condition.. > > > > > > > > the phantom evaporates.. > > > > > > > > and is Realized as false Identity. > > > > > > > > as is the creatively and freely projected illusion of the conceptual > > > > > > > > it is the 'worlding' of a world to live in for the idealized zombie. > > > > > > > > the 'substance' is throughout and within and surrounding and > > > > > > > > projecting and allowing.. > > > > > > > > all the limitations 'you' project as constraints on the possible. > > > > > > > > i'm truly sorry for 'you'.. > > > > > > > > baba had thought the communion was occurring on a different level... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no communion.......anywhere > > > > > > > > > > there is ONLY communion.. > > > > everywhere and nowhere... > > > > timelessly..all the time. > > > > > > > > There in no communion. > > > > > > > > It is not possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only the not possible is. > > > > the not possible is the only possibility. > > > > when that is seen.. > > > > " how can it be otherwise? " > > > > is the last 'conscious' breath. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are no levels. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > until you're on the level about no levels... > > > > levels is all you got. > > > > after that .... > > > > nothing really. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > The absence of the absence. > > > > toombaru not even that. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " cosmic_mind_bender " <cosmic_mind_bender wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > P: Everything is real. Unreality doesn't exist. An illusion is just > > a misinterpretation of reality. > > > > > > > > > That is an intersting observation. > Just a minute before I read your words I also had the thought that > everything can just *be* what it is. It seems that someone somewhere > along the line coined the phrase *illusion* and we run with it like a > dog with a bone in our mouth. > The point that I have come across is that a person does not like a > particular experience and therefore wishes to get rid of it, perhaps > by saying that it isn't real? > > On the other hand, I admit that I don't care for many experiences, > irregardless of whether or not their determined to be real or > illusory, imagined or reality. This is what the whole debate seems > to be hinged upon... the persons dislike in a given experience. It > seems that when I disassociate myself with the experience (whether or > not it is actually real or imagined becomes irrelevent). A situation > can be theoretically and typically classified as good or bad, loving > or hateful, and when I disassociate with any judgment on it it doesn't > seem to matter whether it's real or not. The end result for me is > that I feel a peace and joy like sensation irregardless of the > analysis, or perhaps because of the lack of analysis. And, > therefore, the need to classify it as an illusion, or reality seems to > be gradually disappearing, since it doesn't seem to matter to my > sensation one way or the other. And I'm willing to guess here that > most people are in this debate over illusion/reality, and therefore > seeking some path of enlightenment to help relieve them of the > unfavorable sensations they are experiencing as a result of their life > experiences.... the debate then on whether or not it's illusion/dream > or reality becomes a scape goat to justify or make sense of the pain > doesn't it? > > cosmo > Oh....you were thinking that there is a person who is experiencing. Well........I can see why that would be a little confusing. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 24, 2007 Cosmo: Seems to me if you got some joy and peace you should shut up and not go around kicking up the dust of " whywhywhywhy " . Anyway, the old sages used to say, " Neti, neti, " to everything including peace and joy. Anything you can know is consciousness. The knower is none of that.Consciousness is what is.The knower is ...what? Z > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > . > > > > > > Consciousness is all there is. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > Yes, consciousness is all there is because being is all there is > and > > being is aware. Z > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Cosmo: Seems to me if you got some joy and peace you should shut up > and not go around kicking up the dust of " whywhywhywhy " . Anyway, > the old sages used to say, " Neti, neti, " to everything including > peace and joy. Anything you can know is consciousness. The knower is > none of that.Consciousness is what is.The knower is ...what? Z The knower is ... a presupposition. a priori. in the question and in the questioning. nothing more...and...nothing less.. the containing manifold without form. the knower is the 'needing' to ask 'what', where', 'who', 'why'... it is not permanent. that scares the hell out of it.. it fights unto death to protect it's hovel. ..b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > Consciousness is all there is. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > Yes, consciousness is all there is because being is all there is > > and > > > being is aware. Z > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 24, 2007 > The knower is ... > > > > a presupposition. > > a priori. > > in the question and in the questioning. > > nothing more...and...nothing less.. > > the containing manifold without form. > > the knower is the 'needing' to ask 'what', where', 'who', 'why'... > > it is not permanent. > > that scares the hell out of it.. > > it fights unto death to protect it's hovel. > > > .b b.b. > > > Yes, you are right. The knower is just one more part of the known. Z > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The knower is ... > > > > > > > > a presupposition. > > > > a priori. > > > > in the question and in the questioning. > > > > nothing more...and...nothing less.. > > > > the containing manifold without form. > > > > the knower is the 'needing' to ask 'what', where', 'who', 'why'... > > > > it is not permanent. > > > > that scares the hell out of it.. > > > > it fights unto death to protect it's hovel. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > Yes, you are right. The knower is just one more part of the known. Z that too is just more claptrap. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The knower is ... > > > > > > > > a presupposition. > > > > a priori. > > > > in the question and in the questioning. > > > > nothing more...and...nothing less.. > > > > the containing manifold without form. > > > > the knower is the 'needing' to ask 'what', where', 'who', 'why'... > > > > it is not permanent. > > > > that scares the hell out of it.. > > > > it fights unto death to protect it's hovel. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > Yes, you are right. The knower is just one more part of the known. Z Which part of the knwon is the knower, Tom ? If the knower is just one part of the known then who knows all the other parts ? Are there several knowers ? Or is the knower the known, no matter which part ? Werner > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " cosmic_mind_bender " <cosmic_mind_bender wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > P: Everything is real. Unreality doesn't exist. An illusion is just > > a misinterpretation of reality. > > > P: > > > P: Everything is real. Unreality doesn't exist. An illusion is just > > a misinterpretation of reality. >C: That is an intersting observation. > Just a minute before I read your words I also had the thought that > everything can just *be* what it is. It seems that someone somewhere > along the line coined the phrase *illusion* and we run with it like a > dog with a bone in our mouth. > The point that I have come across is that a person does not like a > particular experience and therefore wishes to get rid of it, perhaps > by saying that it isn't real? > > On the other hand, I admit that I don't care for many experiences, > irregardless of whether or not their determined to be real or > illusory, imagined or reality. Hi Cosmo, Absolutely right. Everyone knows nightmares are illusory, yet no one wants to have bad nightmares every night. Everyone knows hallucinations are not real, but no one wants to be crazy. People, on the other hand, know movies are illusions yet they spend billions and a good chunk of their time watching movies and TV. So it's not what is real or not that matters, but what gives suffering, or pleasure. There are two main factors that aggravate suffering: a) This is happening to me. b) This can not be happening. This must stop. In other words ownership, and rejection intensify suffering. Once we understand that things happen, but that they don't happen to anyone in particular, that makes the suffering feel less claustrophobic. Once we don't try to reject suffering, the insight may dawn that suffering needs to be renewed by thought and rejection. Like a flame without oxygen can't burn for long, suffering dies when not remembered. All sensations are transient whether they are bad or good. We must accept this to be free. To insist in being happy, blissful or peaceful is also to invite suffering. enlightenedfiction Pete Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 24, 2007 .. Z > > > Which part of the knwon is the knower, Tom ? > > If the knower is just one part of the known then who knows all the > other parts ? Are there several knowers ? > > Or is the knower the known, no matter which part ? > > Werner > > > Werner: When I say the knower is just another part of the know2n, I should put knower in quotes. " Knower " is another idea.It is a way to label something that is utterly other and incomprehensible.Z > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 25, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > . Z > > > > > > Which part of the knwon is the knower, Tom ? > > > > If the knower is just one part of the known then who knows all the > > other parts ? Are there several knowers ? > > > > Or is the knower the known, no matter which part ? > > > > Werner > > > > > > Werner: When I say the knower is just another part of the know2n, > I should put knower in quotes. " Knower " is another idea.It is a way > to label something that is utterly other and incomprehensible.Z No, Tom, It is not incomprehensible. The knower simply does not exist. There is only the known which is memory but there is no knower. It is thought which says " I know, I am the knower " . But thought is just the namer of the known, the verbalizer of the known. Can a tree get reckognized being a tree without verbalizing it ? Yes, it can because the tree is known, so often seen, it is stored in memory as something known. And consciousness is memory. To rechognize a tree does not need a reckognizer because the tree already is the known. The verbalizing of the known only happens to communicate it with the help of words to someone else. Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 25, 2007 > > No, Tom, > > It is not incomprehensible. The knower simply does not exist. There > is only the known which is memory but there is no knower. > > It is thought which says " I know, I am the knower " . But thought is > just the namer of the known, the verbalizer of the known. > > Can a tree get reckognized being a tree without verbalizing it ? Yes, > it can because the tree is known, so often seen, it is stored in > memory as something known. And consciousness is memory. > > To rechognize a tree does not need a reckognizer because the tree > already is the known. > > The verbalizing of the known only happens to communicate it with the > help of words to someone else. > > Werner > > > > >Werner: You are full of stories. Science stories, guru stories, stories from your courses in psychology.You are a walking story book.It is all bullshit.Nis is more of the same.It is just unnecessary.It is all being served up and you are eating it with both hands.If you would just get a little quiet and look for a while you would see that it is all just being served up, served up served up.Werner is being served up and Tom and Nis and Libet and etc etc etc.All just happening.How? Who knows? Z > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 25, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > > No, Tom, > > > > It is not incomprehensible. The knower simply does not exist. > There > > is only the known which is memory but there is no knower. > > > > It is thought which says " I know, I am the knower " . But thought is > > just the namer of the known, the verbalizer of the known. > > > > Can a tree get reckognized being a tree without verbalizing it ? > Yes, > > it can because the tree is known, so often seen, it is stored in > > memory as something known. And consciousness is memory. > > > > To rechognize a tree does not need a reckognizer because the tree > > already is the known. > > > > The verbalizing of the known only happens to communicate it with > the > > help of words to someone else. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > >Werner: You are full of stories. Science stories, guru stories, > stories from your courses in psychology.You are a walking story > book.It is all bullshit.Nis is more of the same.It is just > unnecessary.It is all being served up and you are eating it with > both hands.If you would just get a little quiet and look for a while > you would see that it is all just being served up, served up served > up.Werner is being served up and Tom and Nis and Libet and etc etc > etc.All just happening.How? Who knows? Z No Tom, It is no bullshit what I replied to your post. It is your sluggish mind which found an excuse for its laziness in reacting scornfully. Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 25, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > > No, Tom, > > > > It is not incomprehensible. The knower simply does not exist. > There > > is only the known which is memory but there is no knower. > > > > It is thought which says " I know, I am the knower " . But thought is > > just the namer of the known, the verbalizer of the known. > > > > Can a tree get reckognized being a tree without verbalizing it ? > Yes, > > it can because the tree is known, so often seen, it is stored in > > memory as something known. And consciousness is memory. > > > > To rechognize a tree does not need a reckognizer because the tree > > already is the known. > > > > The verbalizing of the known only happens to communicate it with > the > > help of words to someone else. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > >Werner: You are full of stories. Science stories, guru stories, > stories from your courses in psychology.You are a walking story > book.It is all bullshit.Nis is more of the same.It is just > unnecessary.It is all being served up and you are eating it with > both hands.If you would just get a little quiet and look for a while > you would see that it is all just being served up, served up served > up.Werner is being served up and Tom and Nis and Libet and etc etc > etc.All just happening.How? Who knows? Z .......Werner maybe will write a book..... and tell to/the/his whole imaginary world..... explaining with/by/in many many statements..... how ignorance look like.... ..... Marc Ps: but why not......it's a job like all others.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
