Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 HI all. My name is Geovani... nice to be here. I would like to say a few words as a kind of introduction... There are several interesting subjects posted here and I chose one that I noticed a few days ago, something like: "Is the separate ME and consciouness the same?" It seems to me that one could consider two levels of consciousness. The first is the "normal, average" level where there is an assumed inner separate center. At this stage I think consciouness is deeply conected, or fused, or linked to the inner self in such a way that they are non-separable. I am not sure one could say they are the same though... Certainly without the ME this localized consciousness crumbles. There is another "next" level, where one is aware of the fact that everything exists because I exist. The significance, the meaning of this "I" is left open. But here again.... existence is deeply "linked" to the fact that I am. It is not a localized inner center anymore - nonetheless somehow... there is a kind of an "I". At this level I would say that consciousness and this "I" are the same. This "I" is the same as "existence of the world" And then...the next level. I don't think it could be called a consciousness.... or anything at all. It is the ground of all. Regards -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > HI all. My name is Geovani... nice to be here. I would like to say a few words as a kind of introduction... > > There are several interesting subjects posted here and I chose one that I noticed a few days ago, something like: > " Is the separate ME and consciouness the same? " > > It seems to me that one could consider two levels of consciousness. The first is the " normal, average " level > where there is an assumed inner separate center. At this stage I think consciouness is deeply conected, or fused, > or linked to the inner self in such a way that they are non-separable. I am not sure one could say they are the same though... > Certainly without the ME this localized consciousness crumbles. > > There is another " next " level, where one is aware of the fact that everything exists because I exist. The significance, the meaning > of this " I " is left open. But here again.... existence is deeply " linked " to the fact that I am. It is not a localized inner center > anymore - nonetheless somehow... there is a kind of an " I " . At this level I would say that consciousness and this " I " are the same. > This " I " is the same as " existence of the world " > > And then...the next level. I don't think it could be called a consciousness.... or anything at all. It is the ground of all. > > Regards > > -geo- > Hi Geo. Do you think that consciousness has the ability to include itself within its realm of understanding? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > HI all. My name is Geovani... nice to be here. I would like to say a few words as a kind of introduction... > > > > There are several interesting subjects posted here and I chose one that I noticed a few days ago, something like: > > " Is the separate ME and consciouness the same? " > > > > It seems to me that one could consider two levels of consciousness. The first is the " normal, average " level > > where there is an assumed inner separate center. At this stage I think consciouness is deeply conected, or fused, > > or linked to the inner self in such a way that they are non-separable. I am not sure one could say they are the same though... > > Certainly without the ME this localized consciousness crumbles. > > > > There is another " next " level, where one is aware of the fact that everything exists because I exist. The significance, the meaning > > of this " I " is left open. But here again.... existence is deeply " linked " to the fact that I am. It is not a localized inner center > > anymore - nonetheless somehow... there is a kind of an " I " . At this level I would say that consciousness and this " I " are the same. > > This " I " is the same as " existence of the world " > > > > And then...the next level. I don't think it could be called a consciousness.... or anything at all. It is the ground of all. > > > > Regards > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Hi Geo. > > Do you think that consciousness has the ability to include itself within its realm of understanding? > > > > toombaru > P: Understanding is not a realm, but the digestion of data. Consciousness is like fatty data, the more data, the more self-conscious one becomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 geo> Hi toombaru. Interesting question. One point here is the meaning of "understanding". At the lowest level, consciousness (through the localized, conditioned brain) is able to understand lots of things - usually all in the wrong way. Its actions of "understanding" issue from a center based mainly on animal instincts. It is a mechanical understanding based on memory. The center is identified with the organism. At the level of consciousness as "I am all manifestation" - there seems to exist the possibility of insight - a quite deep level of perceiving-seeing-understanding things. In this field, consciousness is able to understand the limitations of thought, of logic, of our animal survival instincts. It is a very rare fact in mankind as it is today - the ability to function at this level. Nonetheless even at this level if consciousness in some way tries to understand, grasp, project any "ideas" about the nature of the ground it is mystaken. But it has the ability to "understand" that the only way to grasp the meaning of the ground is by being it. How do see it? - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Sunday, April 19, 2009 12:32 PM Re: Sense of ME and consciousness... Nisargadatta , "geo" <inandor wrote:>> HI all. My name is Geovani... nice to be here. I would like to say a few words as a kind of introduction...> > There are several interesting subjects posted here and I chose one that I noticed a few days ago, something like:> "Is the separate ME and consciouness the same?"> > It seems to me that one could consider two levels of consciousness. The first is the "normal, average" level> where there is an assumed inner separate center. At this stage I think consciouness is deeply conected, or fused,> or linked to the inner self in such a way that they are non-separable. I am not sure one could say they are the same though...> Certainly without the ME this localized consciousness crumbles.> > There is another "next" level, where one is aware of the fact that everything exists because I exist. The significance, the meaning > of this "I" is left open. But here again.... existence is deeply "linked" to the fact that I am. It is not a localized inner center > anymore - nonetheless somehow... there is a kind of an "I". At this level I would say that consciousness and this "I" are the same. > This "I" is the same as "existence of the world"> > And then...the next level. I don't think it could be called a consciousness.... or anything at all. It is the ground of all.> > Regards> > -geo->Hi Geo.Do you think that consciousness has the ability to include itself within its realm of understanding?toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 geo> cerosoul, would you refer to the two levels of consciousness, the one as centered and identified with the organism, and the other as "all manifested world" in the same manner? rgds -geo- - cerosoul Nisargadatta Sunday, April 19, 2009 1:20 PM Re: Sense of ME and consciousness... Nisargadatta , "toombaru2006" <lastrain wrote:>> Nisargadatta , "geo" <inandor@> wrote:> >> > HI all. My name is Geovani... nice to be here. I would like to say a few words as a kind of introduction...> > > > There are several interesting subjects posted here and I chose one that I noticed a few days ago, something like:> > "Is the separate ME and consciouness the same?"> > > > It seems to me that one could consider two levels of consciousness. The first is the "normal, average" level> > where there is an assumed inner separate center. At this stage I think consciouness is deeply conected, or fused,> > or linked to the inner self in such a way that they are non-separable. I am not sure one could say they are the same though...> > Certainly without the ME this localized consciousness crumbles.> > > > There is another "next" level, where one is aware of the fact that everything exists because I exist. The significance, the meaning > > of this "I" is left open. But here again.... existence is deeply "linked" to the fact that I am. It is not a localized inner center > > anymore - nonetheless somehow... there is a kind of an "I". At this level I would say that consciousness and this "I" are the same. > > This "I" is the same as "existence of the world"> > > > And then...the next level. I don't think it could be called a consciousness.... or anything at all. It is the ground of all.> > > > Regards> > > > -geo-> >> > > > Hi Geo.> > Do you think that consciousness has the ability to include itself within its realm of understanding?> > > > toombaru>P: Understanding is not a realm, but the digestionof data. Consciousness is like fatty data,the more data, the more self-conscious one becomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> cerosoul, would you refer to the two levels of consciousness, the one as centered and identified with the organism, > and the other as " all manifested world " in the same manner? > > rgds > > -geo- > P: Consciousness has no levels, it's not continuous, it's not a strip of film imprinted with your life. It's more like the flashes of a strobe light. It's memory that remembers those flashes and builds a life out of them. There is something eternal that could reflect itself in consciousness and that is not aware itself. Maybe, that's what you are referring to as a higher level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 geo> cerosoul, would you refer to the two levels of consciousness, the one as centered and identified with the organism, > and the other as "all manifested world" in the same manner?> > rgds> > -geo-> P: Consciousness has no levels, it's not continuous, it's not a strip of film imprinted with your life. It's more like the flashes of a strobe light. It'smemory that remembers those flashes and builds alife out of them. There is something eternal thatcould reflect itself in consciousness and that isnot aware itself. Maybe, that's what you are referringto as a higher level.geo> I perceive a big qualitative difference between two fields of existance. 1- To feel that there is some inner separate entity looking outside upon same separate outside nature-world-universe. 2- Everything and anything manifest, non-manifested, past, present, future, spacial, non-spacial, material, imaterial, in order to exist can only be so if I am - in other words - the universe must go through "my being" to be. But even being and non-being share a common inexpressible ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> Hi toombaru. Interesting question. One point here is the meaning of " understanding " . At the lowest level, > consciousness (through the localized, conditioned brain) is able to understand lots of things - usually all in the wrong way.el There are no levels. " Higher and lower " are notions of conditioned values derived from one's upbringing, one's social environment etc. If you are interested in clear thinking you better throw away all those " values " . > Its actions of " understanding " issue from a center based mainly on animal instincts. It is a mechanical understanding based gon memory. > The center is identified with the organism. There is no center wich does indentify with something. The " center " already IS the identification. The center is a bundle of conditioned reflexes and reactions and there is no doer which is doing all those reactions. > > At the level of consciousness as " I am all manifestation " - there seems to exist the possibility of insight - a quite deep level > of perceiving-seeing-understanding things. In this field, consciousness is able to understand the limitations of thought, of logic, of our animal survival instincts. Consciousness doesn't understand anything nor does it do anything. It is like a movie. Does a movie understand anything ? No, it doesn't. > It is a very rare fact in mankind as it is today - the ability to function at this level. What please is " mankind " ? You or me, Hitler or the Pope or some rappers next corner playing their getto-blaster ? Are those people just mentionend living and acting on different " levels " or is each of them just following the dictate of his psyche and his conditioning ? > > Nonetheless even at this level if consciousness in some way tries to understand, grasp, project any " ideas " about the nature > of the ground it is mystaken. Again, consciousness has no levels. It it is the categorizing thought which is distributing the contents of consciousness into " levels " . All those levels don't exist. They are just mental reactions based on your upbringing, on books you have read or what you teachers or relatives have told you. In short they are ideas and concepts which have nothing to do with consciousness. Their origin lies in your own biography. Werner > But it has the ability to " understand " that the only way to grasp the meaning of the ground is > by being it. > > How do see it? > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, April 19, 2009 12:32 PM > Re: Sense of ME and consciousness... > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > HI all. My name is Geovani... nice to be here. I would like to say a few words as a kind of introduction... > > > > There are several interesting subjects posted here and I chose one that I noticed a few days ago, something like: > > " Is the separate ME and consciouness the same? " > > > > It seems to me that one could consider two levels of consciousness. The first is the " normal, average " level > > where there is an assumed inner separate center. At this stage I think consciouness is deeply conected, or fused, > > or linked to the inner self in such a way that they are non-separable. I am not sure one could say they are the same though... > > Certainly without the ME this localized consciousness crumbles. > > > > There is another " next " level, where one is aware of the fact that everything exists because I exist. The significance, the meaning > > of this " I " is left open. But here again.... existence is deeply " linked " to the fact that I am. It is not a localized inner center > > anymore - nonetheless somehow... there is a kind of an " I " . At this level I would say that consciousness and this " I " are the same. > > This " I " is the same as " existence of the world " > > > > And then...the next level. I don't think it could be called a consciousness.... or anything at all. It is the ground of all. > > > > Regards > > > > -geo- > > > > Hi Geo. > > Do you think that consciousness has the ability to include itself within its realm of understanding? > > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Werner: "In short they are ideas and concepts which have nothing to do with consciousness." geo> I wonder.... what are ideas and concepts, mental reactions based on one's upbringing, on books one have have read or what teachers or relatives have told..... if not consciousness? - Werner Woehr Nisargadatta Sunday, April 19, 2009 2:41 PM Re: Sense of ME and consciousness... Nisargadatta , "geo" <inandor wrote:>> geo> Hi toombaru. Interesting question. One point here is the meaning of "understanding". At the lowest level,> consciousness (through the localized, conditioned brain) is able to understand lots of things - usually all in the wrong way.elThere are no levels. "Higher and lower" are notions of conditioned values derived from one's upbringing, one's social environment etc.If you are interested in clear thinking you better throw away all those "values".> Its actions of "understanding" issue from a center based mainly on animal instincts. It is a mechanical understanding based gon memory.> The center is identified with the organism.There is no center wich does indentify with something. The "center" already IS the identification. The center is a bundle of conditioned reflexes and reactions and there is no doer which is doing all those reactions.> > At the level of consciousness as "I am all manifestation" - there seems to exist the possibility of insight - a quite deep level> of perceiving-seeing-understanding things. In this field, consciousness is able to understand the limitations of thought, of logic, of our animal survival instincts.Consciousness doesn't understand anything nor does it do anything. It is like a movie. Does a movie understand anything ? No, it doesn't.> It is a very rare fact in mankind as it is today - the ability to function at this level.What please is "mankind" ? You or me, Hitler or the Pope or some rappers next corner playing their getto-blaster ? Are those people just mentionend living and acting on different "levels" or is each of them just following the dictate of his psyche and his conditioning ?> > Nonetheless even at this level if consciousness in some way tries to understand, grasp, project any "ideas" about the nature> of the ground it is mystaken.Again, consciousness has no levels. It it is the categorizing thought which is distributing the contents of consciousness into "levels".All those levels don't exist. They are just mental reactions based on your upbringing, on books you have read or what you teachers or relatives have told you. In short they are ideas and concepts which have nothing to do with consciousness. Their origin lies in your own biography.Werner> But it has the ability to "understand" that the only way to grasp the meaning of the ground is> by being it.> > How do see it?> > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, April 19, 2009 12:32 PM> Re: Sense of ME and consciousness...> > > > > > Nisargadatta , "geo" <inandor@> wrote:> >> > HI all. My name is Geovani... nice to be here. I would like to say a few words as a kind of introduction...> > > > There are several interesting subjects posted here and I chose one that I noticed a few days ago, something like:> > "Is the separate ME and consciouness the same?"> > > > It seems to me that one could consider two levels of consciousness. The first is the "normal, average" level> > where there is an assumed inner separate center. At this stage I think consciouness is deeply conected, or fused,> > or linked to the inner self in such a way that they are non-separable. I am not sure one could say they are the same though...> > Certainly without the ME this localized consciousness crumbles.> > > > There is another "next" level, where one is aware of the fact that everything exists because I exist. The significance, the meaning > > of this "I" is left open. But here again.... existence is deeply "linked" to the fact that I am. It is not a localized inner center > > anymore - nonetheless somehow... there is a kind of an "I". At this level I would say that consciousness and this "I" are the same. > > This "I" is the same as "existence of the world"> > > > And then...the next level. I don't think it could be called a consciousness.... or anything at all. It is the ground of all.> > > > Regards> > > > -geo-> >> > Hi Geo.> > Do you think that consciousness has the ability to include itself within its realm of understanding?> > toombaru> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Werner: What please is "mankind" ? You or me, Hitler or the Pope or some rappers next corner playing their getto-blaster ? Are those people just mentionend living and acting on different "levels" or is each of them just following the dictate of his psyche and his conditioning ? geo> I feel that there is a "field" of mankind. It is the consciouness that men share. I think there is a "field" of lions and zebra also. It is the world they share. For example: eagles can spot a mouse two miles away - we can not. Elephants can hear infra-sound - we can not. So... Hitler, the Pope, rappers, you , me... all share the human consciousness. Among all levels of vibrations of the air we can hear sounds between 20 - 20000 hz. Among all possible light frequencies, we man can see between infra-red and ultra-violet. But most then anything else, we human beings share thinking habits, emotional reactions, self-righteousness - and then - old age, deseise and death. As you say: we are just following the dictates of our psyche and conditioning. Which dictates and which conditionings? The human one's of course. Why do you object? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Werner: " In short they are ideas and concepts which have nothing to do with consciousness. " > > geo> I wonder.... what are ideas and concepts, mental reactions based on one's upbringing, > on books one have have read or what teachers or relatives have told..... if not consciousness? Mental reactions, Geo, are indeed a content of concsciousness. Same as are trees, a pop concert you listen to or the scent of roses also are contents of consciousness. Werner > > > - > Werner Woehr > Nisargadatta > Sunday, April 19, 2009 2:41 PM > Re: Sense of ME and consciousness... > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > geo> Hi toombaru. Interesting question. One point here is the meaning of " understanding " . At the lowest level, > > consciousness (through the localized, conditioned brain) is able to understand lots of things - usually all in the wrong way.el > > There are no levels. " Higher and lower " are notions of conditioned values derived from one's upbringing, one's social environment etc. > > If you are interested in clear thinking you better throw away all those " values " . > > > Its actions of " understanding " issue from a center based mainly on animal instincts. It is a mechanical understanding based gon memory. > > The center is identified with the organism. > > There is no center wich does indentify with something. The " center " already IS the identification. The center is a bundle of conditioned reflexes and reactions and there is no doer which is doing all those reactions. > > > > > At the level of consciousness as " I am all manifestation " - there seems to exist the possibility of insight - a quite deep level > > of perceiving-seeing-understanding things. In this field, consciousness is able to understand the limitations of thought, of logic, of our animal survival instincts. > > Consciousness doesn't understand anything nor does it do anything. It is like a movie. Does a movie understand anything ? No, it doesn't. > > > It is a very rare fact in mankind as it is today - the ability to function at this level. > > What please is " mankind " ? You or me, Hitler or the Pope or some rappers next corner playing their getto-blaster ? Are those people just mentionend living and acting on different " levels " or is each of them just following the dictate of his psyche and his conditioning ? > > > > > Nonetheless even at this level if consciousness in some way tries to understand, grasp, project any " ideas " about the nature > > of the ground it is mystaken. > > Again, consciousness has no levels. It it is the categorizing thought which is distributing the contents of consciousness into " levels " . > > All those levels don't exist. They are just mental reactions based on your upbringing, on books you have read or what you teachers or relatives have told you. In short they are ideas and concepts which have nothing to do with consciousness. Their origin lies in your own biography. > > Werner > > > But it has the ability to " understand " that the only way to grasp the meaning of the ground is > > by being it. > > > > How do see it? > > > > - > > toombaru2006 > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, April 19, 2009 12:32 PM > > Re: Sense of ME and consciousness... > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > HI all. My name is Geovani... nice to be here. I would like to say a few words as a kind of introduction... > > > > > > There are several interesting subjects posted here and I chose one that I noticed a few days ago, something like: > > > " Is the separate ME and consciouness the same? " > > > > > > It seems to me that one could consider two levels of consciousness. The first is the " normal, average " level > > > where there is an assumed inner separate center. At this stage I think consciouness is deeply conected, or fused, > > > or linked to the inner self in such a way that they are non-separable. I am not sure one could say they are the same though... > > > Certainly without the ME this localized consciousness crumbles. > > > > > > There is another " next " level, where one is aware of the fact that everything exists because I exist. The significance, the meaning > > > of this " I " is left open. But here again.... existence is deeply " linked " to the fact that I am. It is not a localized inner center > > > anymore - nonetheless somehow... there is a kind of an " I " . At this level I would say that consciousness and this " I " are the same. > > > This " I " is the same as " existence of the world " > > > > > > And then...the next level. I don't think it could be called a consciousness.... or anything at all. It is the ground of all. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > Hi Geo. > > > > Do you think that consciousness has the ability to include itself within its realm of understanding? > > > > toombaru > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Werner: What please is " mankind " ? You or me, Hitler or the Pope or some > rappers next corner playing their getto-blaster ? Are those people just mentionend > living and acting on different " levels " or is each of them just following the dictate of > his psyche and his conditioning ? > > geo> I feel that there is a " field " of mankind. It is the consciouness that men share. > I think there is a " field " of lions and zebra also. It is the world they share. > For example: eagles can spot a mouse two miles away - we can not. Elephants > can hear infra-sound - we can not. > > So... Hitler, the Pope, rappers, you , me... all share the human consciousness. Among all > levels of vibrations of the air we can hear sounds between 20 - 20000 hz. Among all possible > light frequencies, we man can see between infra-red and ultra-violet. But most then anything else, > we human beings share thinking habits, emotional reactions, self-righteousness - and then - old age, > deseise and death. As you say: we are just following the dictates of our psyche and conditioning. > Which dictates and which conditionings? The human one's of course. Why do you object? > Geo, I objected those " levels of consciousness " which half dozend of times you were mentioning but I did not object that consciousness is the world humans are sharing. Do you still remember thoes " levels " you mentioned ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> Hi toombaru. Interesting question. One point here is the meaning of " understanding " . At the lowest level, > consciousness (through the localized, conditioned brain) is able to understand lots of things - usually all in the wrong way. > Its actions of " understanding " issue from a center based mainly on animal instincts. It is a mechanical understanding based on memory. > The center is identified with the organism. > > At the level of consciousness as " I am all manifestation " - there seems to exist the possibility of insight - a quite deep level > of perceiving-seeing-understanding things. In this field, consciousness is able to understand the limitations of thought, of logic, > of our animal survival instincts. It is a very rare fact in mankind as it is today - the ability to function at this level. > > Nonetheless even at this level if consciousness in some way tries to understand, grasp, project any " ideas " about the nature > of the ground it is mystaken. But it has the ability to " understand " that the only way to grasp the meaning of the ground is > by being it. > > How do see it? I think that the conceptual mind IS the naming of " things " . And in that process the named things are mistaken for reality. I think that which the thought stream calls " consciousness " is the name that it gives to that which it imagines to be itself. I would suggest that " consciousness " .....in actuality......is not a thing and the attempt to isolate and analyze it only leads further and further into the dream of separation. Come to know that there is no self and the conundrum of self consciousness will unravel. Consciousness and its objects cannot be separated anymore than you can lift yourself up by your bootstraps. Where do you live Geo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> Hi toombaru. Interesting question. One point here is the meaning of > " understanding " . At the lowest level, > consciousness (through the localized, conditioned brain) is able to > understand lots of things - usually all in the wrong way. > Its actions of " understanding " issue from a center based mainly on animal > instincts. It is a mechanical understanding based on memory. > The center is identified with the organism. > > At the level of consciousness as " I am all manifestation " - there seems to > exist the possibility of insight - a quite deep level > of perceiving-seeing-understanding things. In this field, consciousness is > able to understand the limitations of thought, of logic, > of our animal survival instincts. It is a very rare fact in mankind as it > is today - the ability to function at this level. > > Nonetheless even at this level if consciousness in some way tries to > understand, grasp, project any " ideas " about the nature > of the ground it is mystaken. But it has the ability to " understand " that > the only way to grasp the meaning of the ground is > by being it. > > How do see it? I think that the conceptual mind IS the naming of " things " . And in that process the named things are mistaken for reality. I think that which the thought stream calls " consciousness " is the name that it gives to that which it imagines to be itself. I would suggest that " consciousness " .....in actuality......is not a thing and the attempt to isolate and analyze it only leads further and further into the dream of separation. Come to know that there is no self and the conundrum of self consciousness will unravel. Consciousness and its objects cannot be separated anymore than you can lift yourself up by your bootstraps. Where do you live Geo? geo> Hi toombaru. I live in the south-eastern part of Brazil. You are right in saying that " conceptual mind IS the naming of " things " and that that which the thought stream calls " consciousness " is the name that it gives to that which it imagines to be itself. " I dont want to make a statement of truth, but rather an ongoing meditative quest... OK? Of course anything thought thinks to be is just an image. In the other hand I feel one MUST be able to see the totallity of consciousness in order not to be entangled in it. How could it be otherwise? We must see the nature of time, space, thought, manifestation and even a hint about emptiness and non-manifestation... But the seeing of the totality of consciousness is NOT a function of the mind, NEITHER a function of consciousness itself. Consciousness can only see a part of itself not the whole. The question " who am I " deeply and honestly put will lead to a negative stand: I am not anything of consciousness. But then what am I? The answer can not be intelectual or conceptual - but the actual seeing of the totality of what I am not: consciousness. And you.... where are you from? rgds -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 - Werner Woehr Nisargadatta Sunday, April 19, 2009 5:26 PM Re: Sense of ME and consciousness... Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Werner: What please is " mankind " ? You or me, Hitler or the Pope or some > rappers next corner playing their getto-blaster ? Are those people just > mentionend > living and acting on different " levels " or is each of them just following > the dictate of > his psyche and his conditioning ? > > geo> I feel that there is a " field " of mankind. It is the consciouness > that men share. > I think there is a " field " of lions and zebra also. It is the world they > share. > For example: eagles can spot a mouse two miles away - we can not. > Elephants > can hear infra-sound - we can not. > > So... Hitler, the Pope, rappers, you , me... all share the human > consciousness. Among all > levels of vibrations of the air we can hear sounds between 20 - 20000 hz. > Among all possible > light frequencies, we man can see between infra-red and ultra-violet. But > most then anything else, > we human beings share thinking habits, emotional reactions, > self-righteousness - and then - old age, > deseise and death. As you say: we are just following the dictates of our > psyche and conditioning. > Which dictates and which conditionings? The human one's of course. Why do > you object? > Geo, I objected those " levels of consciousness " which half dozend of times you were mentioning but I did not object that consciousness is the world humans are sharing. Do you still remember thoes " levels " you mentioned ? Werner geo> Yes, of course. If you dont like the word " level " you can choose another you like better - the fact is that those two " fields " are very different regarding consciousness. In the first field one feels to be limited to the body, while on the second one is everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Werner Woehr > Nisargadatta > Sunday, April 19, 2009 5:26 PM > Re: Sense of ME and consciousness... > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Werner: What please is " mankind " ? You or me, Hitler or the Pope or some > > rappers next corner playing their getto-blaster ? Are those people just > > mentionend > > living and acting on different " levels " or is each of them just following > > the dictate of > > his psyche and his conditioning ? > > > > geo> I feel that there is a " field " of mankind. It is the consciouness > > that men share. > > I think there is a " field " of lions and zebra also. It is the world they > > share. > > For example: eagles can spot a mouse two miles away - we can not. > > Elephants > > can hear infra-sound - we can not. > > > > So... Hitler, the Pope, rappers, you , me... all share the human > > consciousness. Among all > > levels of vibrations of the air we can hear sounds between 20 - 20000 hz. > > Among all possible > > light frequencies, we man can see between infra-red and ultra-violet. But > > most then anything else, > > we human beings share thinking habits, emotional reactions, > > self-righteousness - and then - old age, > > deseise and death. As you say: we are just following the dictates of our > > psyche and conditioning. > > Which dictates and which conditionings? The human one's of course. Why do > > you object? > > > > Geo, I objected those " levels of consciousness " which half dozend of times > you were mentioning but I did not object that consciousness is the world > humans are sharing. > > Do you still remember thoes " levels " you mentioned ? > > Werner > > geo> Yes, of course. If you dont like the word " level " you can choose > another you like better - the fact is that > those two " fields " are very different regarding consciousness. In the first > field one feels to be limited to the body, > while on the second one is everything. > Sorry, Geo, I know nothing about " fields " . Eventually you could be so nice and try to avoid expressing your ideas in terms of fileds. First of all, most people confuse thought or thinking with consciousness. It seems you too are doing that. When you are speaking about understanding or about knowing then it is thought which does know or understand but it is not consciousness. Consciousness is only a reporting agent, similar like a movie. When the movie is showing Einstein explaining relativity then you never will get the idea that the movie is understanding Einstein. Consciousness doesn't understand a thing nor does it know anything. It is thought which does that. Consciousness has no levels. Those levels you ascribe to consciousness are ideas or concepts created by thought. Can you see that ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 > > Werner: What please is " mankind " ? You or me, Hitler or the Pope or some > > rappers next corner playing their getto-blaster ? Are those people just > > mentionend > > living and acting on different " levels " or is each of them just > > following > > the dictate of > > his psyche and his conditioning ? > > > > geo> I feel that there is a " field " of mankind. It is the consciouness > > that men share. > > I think there is a " field " of lions and zebra also. It is the world they > > share. > > For example: eagles can spot a mouse two miles away - we can not. > > Elephants > > can hear infra-sound - we can not. > > > > So... Hitler, the Pope, rappers, you , me... all share the human > > consciousness. Among all > > levels of vibrations of the air we can hear sounds between 20 - 20000 > > hz. > > Among all possible > > light frequencies, we man can see between infra-red and ultra-violet. > > But > > most then anything else, > > we human beings share thinking habits, emotional reactions, > > self-righteousness - and then - old age, > > deseise and death. As you say: we are just following the dictates of our > > psyche and conditioning. > > Which dictates and which conditionings? The human one's of course. Why > > do > > you object? > > > > Geo, I objected those " levels of consciousness " which half dozend of times > you were mentioning but I did not object that consciousness is the world > humans are sharing. > > Do you still remember thoes " levels " you mentioned ? > > Werner > > geo> Yes, of course. If you dont like the word " level " you can choose > another you like better - the fact is that > those two " fields " are very different regarding consciousness. In the > first > field one feels to be limited to the body, > while on the second one is everything. > Sorry, Geo, I know nothing about " fields " . Eventually you could be so nice and try to avoid expressing your ideas in terms of fileds. First of all, most people confuse thought or thinking with consciousness. It seems you too are doing that. When you are speaking about understanding or about knowing then it is thought which does know or understand but it is not consciousness. Consciousness is only a reporting agent, similar like a movie. When the movie is showing Einstein explaining relativity then you never will get the idea that the movie is understanding Einstein. Consciousness doesn't understand a thing nor does it know anything. It is thought which does that. Consciousness has no levels. Those levels you ascribe to consciousness are ideas or concepts created by thought. Can you see that ? Werner geo> Our perception of what consciousness is is so different that I am afraid it will be difficult to talk the same language. As I see it Werner, thought, the whole logical thinking process, is just a tiny part of the vast movement of consciousness. For example: our notions of time, of space, of materiality, of death, of life, the very notion that we know de nature of the dimension of our existence, are part of consciousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> Our perception of what consciousness is is so different that I am > afraid it will be difficult to talk the same language. > As I see it Werner, thought, the whole logical thinking process, is just a > tiny part of the vast movement of consciousness. > For example: our notions of time, of space, of materiality, of death, of > life, the very notion that we know de nature of the dimension > of our existence, are part of consciousness. > No, Geo, Thought, logical thinking, notions of time and space, materiality, death are all belonging to the realm of thinking and are in no way belonging to the " vast movement of consciousness " . For example consciousness knows nothing about death but thought does, etc, etc. I am well conscious of that people who were confusing throught all their life thought with consciousness must write sentences like " Our perception of what consciousness is is so different that I am afraid it will be difficult to talk the same language " . Geo, what about first pondering what I wrote to you about confusing consciousness with thought " (which most people do) and then start pondering about the reluctance to learn anything new, and then ponder about the blockage to be open to new views ? Btw, look at the satement I was using " I am well conscious of " . Here you clearly can see that confusing thinking with consciousness already became part of our language. That's why it is so difficult to convince others that they are confsuing thought with consciousness. The main reason of this confusion is that thoughts too are a content of consciousness and when you understand Einstein then you easily believe it is consciousness which understood him. No, it was the categorizing thought process which was giving Einstein an adequate place within the brain's memory. And it was not consciousness which has done that mental work of understanding Einstein. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > geo> Hi toombaru. Interesting question. One point here is the meaning of > > " understanding " . At the lowest level, > > consciousness (through the localized, conditioned brain) is able to > > understand lots of things - usually all in the wrong way. > > Its actions of " understanding " issue from a center based mainly on animal > > instincts. It is a mechanical understanding based on memory. > > The center is identified with the organism. > > > > At the level of consciousness as " I am all manifestation " - there seems to > > exist the possibility of insight - a quite deep level > > of perceiving-seeing-understanding things. In this field, consciousness is > > able to understand the limitations of thought, of logic, > > of our animal survival instincts. It is a very rare fact in mankind as it > > is today - the ability to function at this level. > > > > Nonetheless even at this level if consciousness in some way tries to > > understand, grasp, project any " ideas " about the nature > > of the ground it is mystaken. But it has the ability to " understand " that > > the only way to grasp the meaning of the ground is > > by being it. > > > > How do see it? > > I think that the conceptual mind IS the naming of " things " . > > And in that process the named things are mistaken for reality. > > I think that which the thought stream calls " consciousness " is the name that > it gives to that which it imagines to be itself. > > I would suggest that " consciousness " .....in actuality......is not a thing > and the attempt to isolate and analyze it only leads further and further > into the dream of separation. > > Come to know that there is no self and the conundrum of self consciousness > will unravel. > > Consciousness and its objects cannot be separated anymore than you can lift > yourself up by your bootstraps. > > Where do you live Geo? > > geo> Hi toombaru. I live in the south-eastern part of Brazil. > You are right in saying that " conceptual mind IS the naming of " things " and > that that which the thought stream > calls " consciousness " is the name that it gives to that which it imagines to > be itself. " > > I dont want to make a statement of truth, but rather an ongoing meditative > quest... OK? > > Of course anything thought thinks to be is just an image. In the other hand > I feel one MUST be able to > see the totallity of consciousness in order not to be entangled in it. How > could it be otherwise? > We must see the nature of time, space, thought, manifestation and even a > hint about emptiness and non-manifestation... > But the seeing of the totality of consciousness is NOT a function of the > mind, NEITHER a function of > consciousness itself. Consciousness can only see a part of itself not the > whole. > The question " who am I " deeply and honestly put will lead to a negative > stand: I am not anything > of consciousness. But then what am I? The answer can not be intelectual or > conceptual - but the actual > seeing of the totality of what I am not: consciousness. > And you.... where are you from? > > rgds > > -geo- > The only means that the conceptual mind has in its attempt to understand itself is combining and recombining the names that it assigns to its perceptual input. The sense of self emerges concurrently within the naming process. All " things " exist only in relationship to the I amness and refer back to the assumption of autonomy. It is a closed loop.....a hall of mirrors. Nisargadatta calls this searching for that which never existed as " washing blood with blood " The self is trying to find itself within the conceptual overlay that comprises its own totality. Its searching seems to confirm its personal reality which leads only to more and more searching. The search for meaning is comparable to you trying to find who you are by searching your dreams at night. There is a break in the loop. But it is not found within the loop. The self can never find itself in its own dream. Something else has to happen. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 > geo> Our perception of what consciousness is is so different that I am > afraid it will be difficult to talk the same language. > As I see it Werner, thought, the whole logical thinking process, is just a > tiny part of the vast movement of consciousness. > For example: our notions of time, of space, of materiality, of death, of > life, the very notion that we know de nature of the dimension > of our existence, are part of consciousness. > No, Geo, Thought, logical thinking, notions of time and space, materiality, death are all belonging to the realm of thinking and are in no way belonging to the " vast movement of consciousness " . For example consciousness knows nothing about death but thought does, etc, etc. I am well conscious of that people who were confusing throught all their life thought with consciousness must write sentences like " Our perception of what consciousness is is so different that I am afraid it will be difficult to talk the same language " . Geo, what about first pondering what I wrote to you about confusing consciousness with thought " (which most people do) and then start pondering about the reluctance to learn anything new, and then ponder about the blockage to be open to new views ? Btw, look at the satement I was using " I am well conscious of " . Here you clearly can see that confusing thinking with consciousness already became part of our language. That's why it is so difficult to convince others that they are confsuing thought with consciousness. The main reason of this confusion is that thoughts too are a content of consciousness and when you understand Einstein then you easily believe it is consciousness which understood him. No, it was the categorizing thought process which was giving Einstein an adequate place within the brain's memory. And it was not consciousness which has done that mental work of understanding Einstein. Werner geo> I look up at the name of this forum and read Nisargadatta - so I am trying to use his language when referring to " consciousness " . I am aware of the fact that this word can be used in many different ways but, it seems, that Nisargadatta, Krishnamurti and Buddha, used this expression in a similar way. Of course other philosophers use it in many different ways with quite different meanings - including modern psychologists. Perhaps you are trying to convey something valuable regarding your understanding of the expression. How would you best describe " consciousness " .... as you see it? rgds -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 > > geo> Hi toombaru. Interesting question. One point here is the meaning of > > " understanding " . At the lowest level, > > consciousness (through the localized, conditioned brain) is able to > > understand lots of things - usually all in the wrong way. > > Its actions of " understanding " issue from a center based mainly on > > animal > > instincts. It is a mechanical understanding based on memory. > > The center is identified with the organism. > > > > At the level of consciousness as " I am all manifestation " - there seems > > to > > exist the possibility of insight - a quite deep level > > of perceiving-seeing-understanding things. In this field, consciousness > > is > > able to understand the limitations of thought, of logic, > > of our animal survival instincts. It is a very rare fact in mankind as > > it > > is today - the ability to function at this level. > > > > Nonetheless even at this level if consciousness in some way tries to > > understand, grasp, project any " ideas " about the nature > > of the ground it is mystaken. But it has the ability to " understand " > > that > > the only way to grasp the meaning of the ground is > > by being it. > > > > How do see it? > > I think that the conceptual mind IS the naming of " things " . > > And in that process the named things are mistaken for reality. > > I think that which the thought stream calls " consciousness " is the name > that > it gives to that which it imagines to be itself. > > I would suggest that " consciousness " .....in actuality......is not a thing > and the attempt to isolate and analyze it only leads further and further > into the dream of separation. > > Come to know that there is no self and the conundrum of self consciousness > will unravel. > > Consciousness and its objects cannot be separated anymore than you can > lift > yourself up by your bootstraps. > > Where do you live Geo? > > geo> Hi toombaru. I live in the south-eastern part of Brazil. > You are right in saying that " conceptual mind IS the naming of " things " > and > that that which the thought stream > calls " consciousness " is the name that it gives to that which it imagines > to > be itself. " > > I dont want to make a statement of truth, but rather an ongoing meditative > quest... OK? > > Of course anything thought thinks to be is just an image. In the other > hand > I feel one MUST be able to > see the totallity of consciousness in order not to be entangled in it. How > could it be otherwise? > We must see the nature of time, space, thought, manifestation and even a > hint about emptiness and non-manifestation... > But the seeing of the totality of consciousness is NOT a function of the > mind, NEITHER a function of > consciousness itself. Consciousness can only see a part of itself not the > whole. > The question " who am I " deeply and honestly put will lead to a negative > stand: I am not anything > of consciousness. But then what am I? The answer can not be intelectual or > conceptual - but the actual > seeing of the totality of what I am not: consciousness. > And you.... where are you from? > > rgds > > -geo- > The only means that the conceptual mind has in its attempt to understand itself is combining and recombining the names that it assigns to its perceptual input. The sense of self emerges concurrently within the naming process. All " things " exist only in relationship to the I amness and refer back to the assumption of autonomy. It is a closed loop.....a hall of mirrors. Nisargadatta calls this searching for that which never existed as " washing blood with blood " The self is trying to find itself within the conceptual overlay that comprises its own totality. Its searching seems to confirm its personal reality which leads only to more and more searching. The search for meaning is comparable to you trying to find who you are by searching your dreams at night. There is a break in the loop. But it is not found within the loop. The self can never find itself in its own dream. Something else has to happen. toombaru geo> Yes. The realization of the nature of existence is not a movement within consciousness. Also, any attempt to try to understand the nature of what I am not - consciousness - in some gradual manner may be a good exercise but can not lead to that realization. It is trying to end time taking time (washing blood with blood). The grasping of what consciousness is is a quantum leap - as you put it: " something else. " A sane mind is able to understand the fact that it is limited. It can go further and understand that it must shut up, stop the movement of knowledge in order to break its own boundaries. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > geo> Hi toombaru. Interesting question. One point here is the meaning of > > > " understanding " . At the lowest level, > > > consciousness (through the localized, conditioned brain) is able to > > > understand lots of things - usually all in the wrong way. > > > Its actions of " understanding " issue from a center based mainly on > > > animal > > > instincts. It is a mechanical understanding based on memory. > > > The center is identified with the organism. > > > > > > At the level of consciousness as " I am all manifestation " - there seems > > > to > > > exist the possibility of insight - a quite deep level > > > of perceiving-seeing-understanding things. In this field, consciousness > > > is > > > able to understand the limitations of thought, of logic, > > > of our animal survival instincts. It is a very rare fact in mankind as > > > it > > > is today - the ability to function at this level. > > > > > > Nonetheless even at this level if consciousness in some way tries to > > > understand, grasp, project any " ideas " about the nature > > > of the ground it is mystaken. But it has the ability to " understand " > > > that > > > the only way to grasp the meaning of the ground is > > > by being it. > > > > > > How do see it? > > > > I think that the conceptual mind IS the naming of " things " . > > > > And in that process the named things are mistaken for reality. > > > > I think that which the thought stream calls " consciousness " is the name > > that > > it gives to that which it imagines to be itself. > > > > I would suggest that " consciousness " .....in actuality......is not a thing > > and the attempt to isolate and analyze it only leads further and further > > into the dream of separation. > > > > Come to know that there is no self and the conundrum of self consciousness > > will unravel. > > > > Consciousness and its objects cannot be separated anymore than you can > > lift > > yourself up by your bootstraps. > > > > Where do you live Geo? > > > > geo> Hi toombaru. I live in the south-eastern part of Brazil. > > You are right in saying that " conceptual mind IS the naming of " things " > > and > > that that which the thought stream > > calls " consciousness " is the name that it gives to that which it imagines > > to > > be itself. " > > > > I dont want to make a statement of truth, but rather an ongoing meditative > > quest... OK? > > > > Of course anything thought thinks to be is just an image. In the other > > hand > > I feel one MUST be able to > > see the totallity of consciousness in order not to be entangled in it. How > > could it be otherwise? > > We must see the nature of time, space, thought, manifestation and even a > > hint about emptiness and non-manifestation... > > But the seeing of the totality of consciousness is NOT a function of the > > mind, NEITHER a function of > > consciousness itself. Consciousness can only see a part of itself not the > > whole. > > The question " who am I " deeply and honestly put will lead to a negative > > stand: I am not anything > > of consciousness. But then what am I? The answer can not be intelectual or > > conceptual - but the actual > > seeing of the totality of what I am not: consciousness. > > And you.... where are you from? > > > > rgds > > > > -geo- > > > > The only means that the conceptual mind has in its attempt to understand > itself is combining and recombining the names that it assigns to its > perceptual input. > > The sense of self emerges concurrently within the naming process. > > All " things " exist only in relationship to the I amness and refer back to > the assumption of autonomy. > > It is a closed loop.....a hall of mirrors. > > Nisargadatta calls this searching for that which never existed as " washing > blood with blood " > > The self is trying to find itself within the conceptual overlay that > comprises its own totality. > > Its searching seems to confirm its personal reality which leads only to more > and more searching. > > The search for meaning is comparable to you trying to find who you are by > searching your dreams at night. > > There is a break in the loop. > > But it is not found within the loop. > > The self can never find itself in its own dream. > > Something else has to happen. > > toombaru > > > geo> Yes. The realization of the nature of existence is not a movement > within consciousness. > > Also, any attempt to try to understand the nature of what I am not - > consciousness - in some > > gradual manner may be a good exercise but can not lead to that realization. > It is trying to end > > time taking time (washing blood with blood). The grasping of what > consciousness is > > is a quantum leap - as you put it: " something else. " > > > > A sane mind is able to understand the fact that it is limited. It can go > further and understand that > > it must shut up, stop the movement of knowledge in order to break its own > boundaries. > > > > -geo- > It IS it own boundaries. There is nothing that it can do to escape its own imaginary confinement. It cannot quiet itself....it....like the wind...exists only in its own movement. The sense of self is a highly evolved program. It is a program that functions to search for those things that enhance its chances to survive and reproduce. In a few...the program is configured in such a way that it searches for itself. It is not designed to be happy......it evolved to search for happiness. It's really quite beautiful when one finally gets a glimpse of it running through the shadows. :-) I live on the Central Coast of California. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 > > > geo> Hi toombaru. Interesting question. One point here is the meaning > > > of > > > " understanding " . At the lowest level, > > > consciousness (through the localized, conditioned brain) is able to > > > understand lots of things - usually all in the wrong way. > > > Its actions of " understanding " issue from a center based mainly on > > > animal > > > instincts. It is a mechanical understanding based on memory. > > > The center is identified with the organism. > > > > > > At the level of consciousness as " I am all manifestation " - there > > > seems > > > to > > > exist the possibility of insight - a quite deep level > > > of perceiving-seeing-understanding things. In this field, > > > consciousness > > > is > > > able to understand the limitations of thought, of logic, > > > of our animal survival instincts. It is a very rare fact in mankind as > > > it > > > is today - the ability to function at this level. > > > > > > Nonetheless even at this level if consciousness in some way tries to > > > understand, grasp, project any " ideas " about the nature > > > of the ground it is mystaken. But it has the ability to " understand " > > > that > > > the only way to grasp the meaning of the ground is > > > by being it. > > > > > > How do see it? > > > > I think that the conceptual mind IS the naming of " things " . > > > > And in that process the named things are mistaken for reality. > > > > I think that which the thought stream calls " consciousness " is the name > > that > > it gives to that which it imagines to be itself. > > > > I would suggest that " consciousness " .....in actuality......is not a > > thing > > and the attempt to isolate and analyze it only leads further and further > > into the dream of separation. > > > > Come to know that there is no self and the conundrum of self > > consciousness > > will unravel. > > > > Consciousness and its objects cannot be separated anymore than you can > > lift > > yourself up by your bootstraps. > > > > Where do you live Geo? > > > > geo> Hi toombaru. I live in the south-eastern part of Brazil. > > You are right in saying that " conceptual mind IS the naming of " things " > > and > > that that which the thought stream > > calls " consciousness " is the name that it gives to that which it > > imagines > > to > > be itself. " > > > > I dont want to make a statement of truth, but rather an ongoing > > meditative > > quest... OK? > > > > Of course anything thought thinks to be is just an image. In the other > > hand > > I feel one MUST be able to > > see the totallity of consciousness in order not to be entangled in it. > > How > > could it be otherwise? > > We must see the nature of time, space, thought, manifestation and even a > > hint about emptiness and non-manifestation... > > But the seeing of the totality of consciousness is NOT a function of the > > mind, NEITHER a function of > > consciousness itself. Consciousness can only see a part of itself not > > the > > whole. > > The question " who am I " deeply and honestly put will lead to a negative > > stand: I am not anything > > of consciousness. But then what am I? The answer can not be intelectual > > or > > conceptual - but the actual > > seeing of the totality of what I am not: consciousness. > > And you.... where are you from? > > > > rgds > > > > -geo- > > > > The only means that the conceptual mind has in its attempt to understand > itself is combining and recombining the names that it assigns to its > perceptual input. > > The sense of self emerges concurrently within the naming process. > > All " things " exist only in relationship to the I amness and refer back to > the assumption of autonomy. > > It is a closed loop.....a hall of mirrors. > > Nisargadatta calls this searching for that which never existed as " washing > blood with blood " > > The self is trying to find itself within the conceptual overlay that > comprises its own totality. > > Its searching seems to confirm its personal reality which leads only to > more > and more searching. > > The search for meaning is comparable to you trying to find who you are by > searching your dreams at night. > > There is a break in the loop. > > But it is not found within the loop. > > The self can never find itself in its own dream. > > Something else has to happen. > > toombaru > > > geo> Yes. The realization of the nature of existence is not a movement > within consciousness. > > Also, any attempt to try to understand the nature of what I am not - > consciousness - in some > > gradual manner may be a good exercise but can not lead to that > realization. > It is trying to end > > time taking time (washing blood with blood). The grasping of what > consciousness is > > is a quantum leap - as you put it: " something else. " > > > > A sane mind is able to understand the fact that it is limited. It can go > further and understand that > > it must shut up, stop the movement of knowledge in order to break its own > boundaries. > > > > -geo- > It IS it own boundaries. There is nothing that it can do to escape its own imaginary confinement. It cannot quiet itself....it....like the wind...exists only in its own movement. The sense of self is a highly evolved program. It is a program that functions to search for those things that enhance its chances to survive and reproduce. In a few...the program is configured in such a way that it searches for itself. It is not designed to be happy......it evolved to search for happiness. It's really quite beautiful when one finally gets a glimpse of it running through the shadows. :-) I live on the Central Coast of California. toombaru geo> Yes it can not quiet itself... as if holding a beast tight to stop it from kiking and moving (itself...lol) But it can understand the meaninglessness of its own movement as knowledge and time. How strange, how winder-full...something that is wider and deeper then time, space and manifestation. //\/\\/\//\/\\/\//\/\\/\// What is the nature of that which gets a glimpse of it running through the shadows? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> Our perception of what consciousness is is so different that I am > > afraid it will be difficult to talk the same language. > > As I see it Werner, thought, the whole logical thinking process, is just a > > tiny part of the vast movement of consciousness. > > For example: our notions of time, of space, of materiality, of death, of > > life, the very notion that we know de nature of the dimension > > of our existence, are part of consciousness. > > > > No, Geo, > > Thought, logical thinking, notions of time and space, materiality, death are > all belonging to the realm of thinking and are in no way belonging to the > " vast movement of consciousness " . > > For example consciousness knows nothing about death but thought does, etc, > etc. > > I am well conscious of that people who were confusing throught all their > life thought with consciousness must write sentences like " Our perception of > what consciousness is is so different that I am afraid it will be difficult > to talk the same language " . > > Geo, what about first pondering what I wrote to you about confusing > consciousness with thought " (which most people do) and then start pondering > about the reluctance to learn anything new, and then ponder about the > blockage to be open to new views ? > > > > Btw, look at the satement I was using " I am well conscious of " . Here you > clearly can see that confusing thinking with consciousness already became > part of our language. That's why it is so difficult to convince others that > they are confsuing thought with consciousness. > > The main reason of this confusion is that thoughts too are a content of > consciousness and when you understand Einstein then you easily believe it is > consciousness which understood him. > > No, it was the categorizing thought process which was giving Einstein an > adequate place within the brain's memory. And it was not consciousness which > has done that mental work of understanding Einstein. > > Werner > > > > geo> I look up at the name of this forum and read Nisargadatta - so I am > trying to use his language when > > referring to " consciousness " . I am aware of the fact that this word can be > used in many different ways but, it seems, > > that Nisargadatta, Krishnamurti and Buddha, used this expression in a > similar way. Of course other > > philosophers use it in many different ways with quite different meanings - > including modern psychologists. > > Perhaps you are trying to convey something valuable regarding your > understanding of the expression. > > How would you best describe " consciousness " .... as you see it? > > rgds > > -geo- > A very simple experiment, Geo: Look at an object, it doesn't matter what it is. During that looking totally stop thinking. With all your attention don't allow a single thought. Very soon you just will see something unknown, just some shape, a mix of colors etc. And you will understand that without thinking those contents which consciousness is offering are unknown. The known is added or associated by thought. Now I hope you understood what consciousness is not - it is not the known. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 > > geo> Our perception of what consciousness is is so different that I am > > afraid it will be difficult to talk the same language. > > As I see it Werner, thought, the whole logical thinking process, is just > > a > > tiny part of the vast movement of consciousness. > > For example: our notions of time, of space, of materiality, of death, of > > life, the very notion that we know de nature of the dimension > > of our existence, are part of consciousness. > > > > No, Geo, > > Thought, logical thinking, notions of time and space, materiality, death > are > all belonging to the realm of thinking and are in no way belonging to the > " vast movement of consciousness " . > > For example consciousness knows nothing about death but thought does, etc, > etc. > > I am well conscious of that people who were confusing throught all their > life thought with consciousness must write sentences like " Our perception > of > what consciousness is is so different that I am afraid it will be > difficult > to talk the same language " . > > Geo, what about first pondering what I wrote to you about confusing > consciousness with thought " (which most people do) and then start > pondering > about the reluctance to learn anything new, and then ponder about the > blockage to be open to new views ? > > > > Btw, look at the satement I was using " I am well conscious of " . Here you > clearly can see that confusing thinking with consciousness already became > part of our language. That's why it is so difficult to convince others > that > they are confsuing thought with consciousness. > > The main reason of this confusion is that thoughts too are a content of > consciousness and when you understand Einstein then you easily believe it > is > consciousness which understood him. > > No, it was the categorizing thought process which was giving Einstein an > adequate place within the brain's memory. And it was not consciousness > which > has done that mental work of understanding Einstein. > > Werner > > > > geo> I look up at the name of this forum and read Nisargadatta - so I am > trying to use his language when > > referring to " consciousness " . I am aware of the fact that this word can be > used in many different ways but, it seems, > > that Nisargadatta, Krishnamurti and Buddha, used this expression in a > similar way. Of course other > > philosophers use it in many different ways with quite different meanings - > including modern psychologists. > > Perhaps you are trying to convey something valuable regarding your > understanding of the expression. > > How would you best describe " consciousness " .... as you see it? > > rgds > > -geo- > A very simple experiment, Geo: Look at an object, it doesn't matter what it is. During that looking totally stop thinking. With all your attention don't allow a single thought. Very soon you just will see something unknown, just some shape, a mix of colors etc. And you will understand that without thinking those contents which consciousness is offering are unknown. The known is added or associated by thought. Now I hope you understood what consciousness is not - it is not the known. Werner geo> If consciousness is not the known - as you say - I should perhaps conclude that consciousness is the unknown? What is the known then? Is the known apart from consciousness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.