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 > > 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? > Geo, Consciousness is the unknown. The brain is interpeting the unknown with data from your biography, your past. That way consciousness becomes totally subjective. The known is your past. It is the memory stored in your brain. Can you see now that consciousness in no way is useful to explain anything you might declare as truth and then to reveal that " truth " to others ? This mix of the unknown (uninterpeted data attained through the senses) and interpreted by the known (which is your past) is what Maharaj has called the " I am " which according to him is a fever, a disease. 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? > Geo, Consciousness is the unknown. The brain is interpeting the unknown with data from your biography, your past. That way consciousness becomes totally subjective. The known is your past. It is the memory stored in your brain. Can you see now that consciousness in no way is useful to explain anything you might declare as truth and then to reveal that " truth " to others ? This mix of the unknown (uninterpeted data attained through the senses) and interpreted by the known (which is your past) is what Maharaj has called the " I am " which according to him is a fever, a disease. Werner geo> I suppose I am grasping the situation... I will ponder over it. 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 > > > > 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? > > > > Geo, > > Consciousness is the unknown. The brain is interpeting the unknown with data > from your biography, your past. That way consciousness becomes totally > subjective. > > The known is your past. It is the memory stored in your brain. > > Can you see now that consciousness in no way is useful to explain anything > you might declare as truth and then to reveal that " > truth " to others ? > > This mix of the unknown (uninterpeted data attained through the senses) and > interpreted by the known (which is your past) is what Maharaj has called the > " I am " which according to him is a fever, a disease. > > Werner > > > geo> I suppose I am grasping the situation... I will ponder over it. > You are welcome, Geo. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 > > > > 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) Yes. Nice analogy. > But it can understand the meaninglessness of its own movement as knowledge > and time. It can understand that it cannot understand anything about its own nature........because it doesn't have one. > 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 It is the primal awareness that can never be seen because it is the ever co-emergence of the seeing-seen. That which is seen is the same phenomenon and the seeing. When it sees that.......its usual response of laughter. And then the laughter laughs. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 > 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) Yes. Nice analogy. > But it can understand the meaninglessness of its own movement as knowledge > and time. It can understand that it cannot understand anything about its own nature........because it doesn't have one. geo> We are contemplating thought. You seem to be saying that thought has not a nature? I would say everything and anything that can be referred to must have its own nature. Even if it is the nature of the false. The thinking mind has this tremendous wonderful power. It is the powerhouse of this whole multimedia tragicomedy. Thought is matter, it is time, it has a weight... (...perhaps I just misunderstood you... ) > How strange, how wonder-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 It is the primal awareness that can never be seen because it is the ever co-emergence of the seeing-seen. That which is seen is the same phenomenon and the seeing. When it sees that.......its usual response of laughter. And then the laughter laughs. geo> ...one day I met a complete stranger. His name was " I am " . toombaru -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain 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 as such, no such " thing " as mind... > And in that process the named things are mistaken for reality. yes... and, the very notion of " reality " is useless except from the standpoint of playing with names. Sometimes the notion Reality is used to point beyond mind, but beyond mind there is no need for notions as such at all. Notions and names go together... appear together, disappear together and in disappearing, nothing is lost. > 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. yes > 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. yes, all nicely said Toom. Bill > > > Where do you live Geo? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > 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) > > Yes. > Nice analogy. > > > But it can understand the meaninglessness of its own movement as knowledge > > and time. > > It can understand that it cannot understand anything about its own > nature........because it doesn't have one. > > geo> We are contemplating thought. Can " thought " (what ever that is) think about thought? If it can......can the result of that thought be thought about? Conceptual thought thinks that " thought " is a separate-distinct thing.....and thinks that it can think about itself. There is a fundamental problem in such thinking. You seem to be saying that thought has > not a nature? Even if it has a nature......it could never know it. Nothing can see itself. I would say everything and > anything that can be referred to must have its own nature. Even if it is the > nature of the false. What is a " wave " ? What is the nature of a " wave " ? The thinking mind has this > > tremendous wonderful power. It is the powerhouse of this whole multimedia > tragicomedy. Thought is matter, it is time, > > it has a weight... (...perhaps I just misunderstood you... ) > > > It is essentially.............nothing. > > > How strange, how wonder-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 > > It is the primal awareness that can never be seen because it is the ever > co-emergence of the seeing-seen. > > That which is seen is the same phenomenon and the seeing. > > When it sees that.......its usual response of laughter. > > And then the laughter laughs. > > geo> ...one day I met a complete stranger. His name was " I am " . > > > -geo- > Nice. The only access to the ineffable comes in a flash and evaporates in a flash. What you wrote has that surprise factor. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 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? statements of truth, aren't. > 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. Do you mean " seeing the totality of consciousness " and being able to say, " Ah, *that* is consciousness. " Consider that consciousness is not a " thing " but a process... Consider that the issue is not one of identifying what-is-consciousness, but of dis-identifying with this and that notion, this and that manifest aspect of <un-named>. Consider that the issue is not one of identifying the Root, but rather of disintegration of myriad false roots. > 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. You ask a very good question, Geo (both here and above). But again, consider that any apprehension of what-is-consciousness is pointless and moot, that liberation from false imaginings is where freedom lies. What if there is complete relaxation and non-concern with any of it? Re: " In the other hand I feel one MUST be able to see the totallity of consciousness in order not to be entangled in it. " If in this moment one is not entangled, does that mean one must be " seeing the totality of consciousness " ? Can we say, " Obviously no " ? In a sense releasing all entanglement IS a sense of the totality of consciousness, I suppose. But to " see the totality of consciousness " *as such*, I suggest, is itself just more entanglement of the same ilk. So perhaps the crux is your term " see " . One can *sense* that whatever is of the " milky dream " of imagining is not real. And to sense as much is enough, I suggest. Enough that it may fall away as the arresting panorama, the enchanting loom of manifestation. Bill > And you.... where are you from? > > rgds > > -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 > In a sense releasing all entanglement IS a sense > of the totality of consciousness, I suppose. > > But to " see the totality of consciousness " > *as such*, I suggest, is itself just more > entanglement of the same ilk. > > So perhaps the crux is your term " see " . > One can *sense* that whatever is of the > " milky dream " of imagining is not real. > And to sense as much is enough, I suggest. > Enough that it may fall away as the arresting > panorama, the enchanting loom of manifestation. > > > Bill > > Thanks Bill, Another flash in the catacombs. The I am wanders through its personal desert dream.....searching for meaning.....where there is none. A surfer...falling down the emerging-moment....... ....like this........ toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Do you mean " seeing the totality of consciousness " and being able to say, " Ah, *that* is consciousness. " geo> The problem with " Ah, *that* is consciousness. " is the other parameter: - consciousness and *that*... and then imediatly the third as the seer... Consider that consciousness is not a " thing " but a process... geo> yes, a chain: causes, motives, time, space and all that... it started when the universe started within its unborn nature. Consider that the issue is not one of identifying what-is-consciousness, but of dis-identifying with this and that notion, this and that manifest aspect of <un-named>. Consider that the issue is not one of identifying the Root, but rather of disintegration of myriad false roots. > 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. You ask a very good question, Geo (both here and above). But again, consider that any apprehension of what-is-consciousness is pointless and moot, that liberation from false imaginings is where freedom lies. geo> One false image here - clap. Another there - clap. Oh, look at that another one - clap, clap. What if there is complete relaxation and non-concern with any of it? geo> I guess that is alright. After all I sudenlly opened my eyes and the universe was born. I didn't ask for it. I didn't make it. So why would I be concerned with its ending? Re: " In the other hand I feel one MUST be able to see the totallity of consciousness in order not to be entangled in it. " If in this moment one is not entangled, does that mean one must be " seeing the totality of consciousness " ? Can we say, " Obviously no " ? In a sense releasing all entanglement IS a sense of the totality of consciousness, I suppose. But to " see the totality of consciousness " *as such*, I suggest, is itself just more entanglement of the same ilk. So perhaps the crux is your term " see " . One can *sense* that whatever is of the " milky dream " of imagining is not real. And to sense as much is enough, I suggest. Enough that it may fall away as the arresting panorama, the enchanting loom of manifestation. geo> Yes. Something sees that something is dancing and it is so hipnotic, powerfull, futile and dangerous. Then nothing is... except courage. Don Quixote naked... facing a Himalaian wind... Bill > And you.... where are you from? > > rgds > > -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I couldn't help it... so I will paraphrase: "Consciousness is such a weird thing, we need just a litlle bit of it to get along and live, but when we die, we die with the whole of it" - D. Juan Matus - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I couldn't help it... so I will paraphrase: > > " Consciousness is such a weird thing, we need just a litlle bit of it to get along and live, > but when we die, we die with the whole of it " > - D. Juan Matus - > " There is a place of peace and quiet........but nobody lives there. " D. Juan Matus 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.