Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 The mind in man is essentially a model maker. From the onset of conceptualization, it gradually builds a consensus model of its perceptual input into a facsimile of the world. Into which it interjects a model of itself. The result is an apparent duality that appears quite substantial. A few of the self models wander through their world model searching for their own ultimate reality. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > The mind in man is essentially a model maker. > From the onset of conceptualization, it gradually builds a consensus model of its perceptual input into a facsimile of the world. > Into which it interjects a model of itself. > The result is an apparent duality that appears quite substantial. > > A few of the self models wander through their world model searching for their own ultimate reality. > toombaru what is this facsimile world a facsimile of? surely not the perceptual input. that's no more real than the model...or the modeler. waves....electromagnetic or photoelectric " events " .. fields...quantum fluctuations...participatory universes.. a bunch of bullshit all. not one is separate from another. the distinction of input/output is... treacherously fictional. mere assumption. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The mind in man is essentially a model maker. > > From the onset of conceptualization, it gradually builds a consensus model of its perceptual input into a facsimile of the world. > > Into which it interjects a model of itself. > > The result is an apparent duality that appears quite substantial. > > > > A few of the self models wander through their world model searching for their own ultimate reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > what is this facsimile world a facsimile of? > What is a photograph of? What is a memory of? What is a thought of? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The mind in man is essentially a model maker. > > From the onset of conceptualization, it gradually builds a consensus model of its perceptual input into a facsimile of the world. > > Into which it interjects a model of itself. > > The result is an apparent duality that appears quite substantial. > > > > A few of the self models wander through their world model searching for their own ultimate reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > what is this facsimile world a facsimile of? > Hey......you're not supposed to end a sentence in a supposition! toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 > > The mind in man is essentially a model maker. > > From the onset of conceptualization, it gradually builds a consensus > > model of its perceptual input into a facsimile of the world. > > Into which it interjects a model of itself. > > The result is an apparent duality that appears quite substantial. > > > > A few of the self models wander through their world model searching for > > their own ultimate reality. > > > > toombaru Yes, this is the memory-aspect of the mind. It is amazing how, as one is looking at a sunset, suddenly looses contact with the senses and start to react to memory. It is a sudden and apparently non-perceivable shift. How can such a thing happen? Such an immense difference between the nature of the inputs and we confuse them. bbb seems to be referring to another aspect of the mind: the actual translation of energetic patterns and fields and the such to an intelligible human world. .. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 what is this facsimile world a facsimile of?surely not the perceptual input.that's no more real than the model...or the modeler.waves....electromagnetic or photoelectric "events"..fields...quantum fluctuations...participatory universes.. == True...except that waves....electromagnetic or photoelectric "events"..fields...quantum fluctuations..are all already concepts, meaning that they have been "manipulated" by the senses. We can not say a word about the nature of what is imprinting the senses. The very notion of a "mind" is made up by the mind. the very notion of some senses is totally sensual. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 the distinction of input/output is...treacherously fictional.mere assumption..b b.b. Yes. What we usually call "inside" is also captured by the senses from "outside"!! One sees the "outside world", but under anesthesia you could see the "inside" of your body, your brain, your heart. Now this leaves us in an interesting spot. The entrance door to nonduality. There is no such thing as an outside world against an inside world - not even physically. What makes the body "feel" to be a subject is just the sensation of pain, of touch, heat, cold.... you know tactile sensations So as I stand here looking out the window I am facing something that has no insides, no outsides...it just is. Are we able to look at this thing? Are we able to look at this human consciousness as this one movement of all there is - here? Please leave your contribuitions in the sack next to the door - cash please... mastercard accepted -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > the distinction of input/output is... > > treacherously fictional. > > mere assumption. > > .b b.b. > > > Yes. What we usually call " inside " is also captured by the senses from " outside " !! > > One sees the " outside world " , but under anesthesia you could see the " inside " of your body, > > your brain, your heart. > > > > Now this leaves us in an interesting spot. The entrance door to nonduality. There is no > > such thing as an outside world against an inside world - not even physically. What makes > > the body " feel " to be a subject is just the sensation of pain, of touch, heat, cold.... you know tactile > > sensations > > > > So as I stand here looking out the window I am facing something that has no insides, > > no outsides...it just is. Are we able to look at this thing? Are we able to look at this human > > consciousness as this one movement of all there is - here? > > > Which " here " are you talking about? :-0 toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 > the distinction of input/output is... > > treacherously fictional. > > mere assumption. > > .b b.b. > > > Yes. What we usually call " inside " is also captured by the senses from > " outside " !! > > One sees the " outside world " , but under anesthesia you could see the > " inside " of your body, > > your brain, your heart. > > > > Now this leaves us in an interesting spot. The entrance door to > nonduality. There is no > > such thing as an outside world against an inside world - not even > physically. What makes > > the body " feel " to be a subject is just the sensation of pain, of touch, > heat, cold.... you know tactile > > sensations > > > > So as I stand here looking out the window I am facing something that has > no insides, > > no outsides...it just is. Are we able to look at this thing? Are we able > to look at this human > > consciousness as this one movement of all there is - here? > > > Which " here " are you talking about? :-0 geo> Agreed. No need to use that word at all. A here implies a there - as if some " there " could belong to another universe but this one... toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > the distinction of input/output is... > > > > treacherously fictional. > > > > mere assumption. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Yes. What we usually call " inside " is also captured by the senses from > > " outside " !! > > > > One sees the " outside world " , but under anesthesia you could see the > > " inside " of your body, > > > > your brain, your heart. > > > > > > > > Now this leaves us in an interesting spot. The entrance door to > > nonduality. There is no > > > > such thing as an outside world against an inside world - not even > > physically. What makes > > > > the body " feel " to be a subject is just the sensation of pain, of touch, > > heat, cold.... you know tactile > > > > sensations > > > > > > > > So as I stand here looking out the window I am facing something that has > > no insides, > > > > no outsides...it just is. Are we able to look at this thing? Are we able > > to look at this human > > > > consciousness as this one movement of all there is - here? > > > > > > > > Which " here " are you talking about? > > :-0 > > geo> Agreed. No need to use that word at all. A here implies a there - as if > some " there " could belong to another universe but this one... > > toombaru > Once the essential emptiness of the perceiver is apprehended that which is perceived no longer is an issue. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 > > the distinction of input/output is... > > > > treacherously fictional. > > > > mere assumption. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Yes. What we usually call " inside " is also captured by the senses from > > " outside " !! > > > > One sees the " outside world " , but under anesthesia you could see the > > " inside " of your body, > > > > your brain, your heart. > > > > > > > > Now this leaves us in an interesting spot. The entrance door to > > nonduality. There is no > > > > such thing as an outside world against an inside world - not even > > physically. What makes > > > > the body " feel " to be a subject is just the sensation of pain, of touch, > > heat, cold.... you know tactile > > > > sensations > > > > > > > > So as I stand here looking out the window I am facing something that has > > no insides, > > > > no outsides...it just is. Are we able to look at this thing? Are we able > > to look at this human > > > > consciousness as this one movement of all there is - here? > > > > > > > > Which " here " are you talking about? > > :-0 > > geo> Agreed. No need to use that word at all. A here implies a there - as > if > some " there " could belong to another universe but this one... > > toombaru > Once the essential emptiness of the perceiver is apprehended that which is perceived no longer is an issue. toombaru geo> I think yes. To say that " there is no separate perceiver " and " inside and outside is the same movement " amounts to the same. Would you agree that this one movement we are looking at - without the onlooker - is what niz. calls consciousness? Not that the name itself means anything, but...just to use the same terminology. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > The mind in man is essentially a model maker. > From the onset of conceptualization, it gradually builds a consensus model of its perceptual input into a facsimile of the world. > Into which it interjects a model of itself. > The result is an apparent duality that appears quite substantial. > > A few of the self models wander through their world model searching for their own ultimate reality. > toombaru > yes but maybe there aren't a " few ones " ..... this mentionned " few ones " are part of the mind model... it's the (own) ultimate presense of reality which all the time make the difference to the mind-model... such difference is of duality .... where there is no mind-model.... there is just ultimate reality... like ever before... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind in man is essentially a model maker. > > > From the onset of conceptualization, it gradually builds a consensus model of its perceptual input into a facsimile of the world. > > > Into which it interjects a model of itself. > > > The result is an apparent duality that appears quite substantial. > > > > > > A few of the self models wander through their world model searching for their own ultimate reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > what is this facsimile world a facsimile of? > > > > > What is a photograph of? > What is a memory of? > What is a thought of? > > > > toombaru what are those questions of? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind in man is essentially a model maker. > > > From the onset of conceptualization, it gradually builds a consensus model of its perceptual input into a facsimile of the world. > > > Into which it interjects a model of itself. > > > The result is an apparent duality that appears quite substantial. > > > > > > A few of the self models wander through their world model searching for their own ultimate reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > what is this facsimile world a facsimile of? > Hey......you're not supposed to end a sentence in a supposition! > > > > toombaru :-) of is a preposition not a supposition. something there is that dislikes sentences. that's a proposition. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > The mind in man is essentially a model maker. > > > From the onset of conceptualization, it gradually builds a consensus > > > model of its perceptual input into a facsimile of the world. > > > Into which it interjects a model of itself. > > > The result is an apparent duality that appears quite substantial. > > > > > > A few of the self models wander through their world model searching for > > > their own ultimate reality. > > > > > > toombaru > > Yes, this is the memory-aspect of the mind. It is amazing how, as one is > looking at a sunset, suddenly > > looses contact with the senses and start to react to memory. It is a sudden > and apparently non-perceivable > > shift. How can such a thing happen? Such an immense difference between the > nature of the inputs and we confuse them. > > > > bbb seems to be referring to another aspect of the mind: the actual > translation of energetic patterns and fields and > > the such to an intelligible human world. > > . > > > > -geo- no...not a referent. ..b b.b. is saying that there are no such things as referents... nor referrers. " THAT " is non referable and gives no references. and in fact..It is mindless. what need of aspects? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > what is this facsimile world a facsimile of? > > surely not the perceptual input. > > that's no more real than the model...or the modeler. > > waves....electromagnetic or photoelectric " events " .. > > fields...quantum fluctuations...participatory universes.. > > == > True...except that waves....electromagnetic or photoelectric " events " .. > fields...quantum fluctuations..are all already concepts, meaning that they have been > " manipulated " by the senses. We can not say a word about the nature of what > is imprinting the senses. The very notion of a " mind " is made up by the mind. > the very notion of some senses is totally sensual. > -geo- sensual to whom? " who's " notions? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > the distinction of input/output is... > > treacherously fictional. > > mere assumption. > > .b b.b. > > > Yes. What we usually call " inside " is also captured by the senses from " outside " !! > > One sees the " outside world " , but under anesthesia you could see the " inside " of your body, > > your brain, your heart. " your " body..brain..heart? > Now this leaves us in an interesting spot. The entrance door to nonduality. There is no > > such thing as an outside world against an inside world - not even physically. What makes > > the body " feel " to be a subject is just the sensation of pain, of touch, heat, cold.... you know tactile > > sensations the sensations are real. but there is no one to whom they belong or pertain. the " person " is the pain. > So as I stand here looking out the window I am facing something that has no insides, > > no outsides...it just is. Are we able to look at this thing? Are we able to look at this human > > consciousness as this one movement of all there is - here? > > > > Please leave your contribuitions in the sack next to the door - cash please... > > mastercard accepted > > -geo- if all there is is " here " ... what door? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > the distinction of input/output is... > > > > treacherously fictional. > > > > mere assumption. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Yes. What we usually call " inside " is also captured by the senses from " outside " !! > > > > One sees the " outside world " , but under anesthesia you could see the " inside " of your body, > > > > your brain, your heart. > > > > > > > > Now this leaves us in an interesting spot. The entrance door to nonduality. There is no > > > > such thing as an outside world against an inside world - not even physically. What makes > > > > the body " feel " to be a subject is just the sensation of pain, of touch, heat, cold.... you know tactile > > > > sensations > > > > > > > > So as I stand here looking out the window I am facing something that has no insides, > > > > no outsides...it just is. Are we able to look at this thing? Are we able to look at this human > > > > consciousness as this one movement of all there is - here? > > > > > > > > > > Which " here " are you talking about? > > > > :-0 > > > > toombaru i think he's talking about that here over there. hear ye! hear ye! there you go. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > the distinction of input/output is... > > > > treacherously fictional. > > > > mere assumption. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Yes. What we usually call " inside " is also captured by the senses from > > " outside " !! > > > > One sees the " outside world " , but under anesthesia you could see the > > " inside " of your body, > > > > your brain, your heart. > > > > > > > > Now this leaves us in an interesting spot. The entrance door to > > nonduality. There is no > > > > such thing as an outside world against an inside world - not even > > physically. What makes > > > > the body " feel " to be a subject is just the sensation of pain, of touch, > > heat, cold.... you know tactile > > > > sensations > > > > > > > > So as I stand here looking out the window I am facing something that has > > no insides, > > > > no outsides...it just is. Are we able to look at this thing? Are we able > > to look at this human > > > > consciousness as this one movement of all there is - here? > > > > > > > > Which " here " are you talking about? > > :-0 > > geo> Agreed. No need to use that word at all. A here implies a there - as if > some " there " could belong to another universe but this one... > > toombaru is this universal for all universes? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > the distinction of input/output is... > > > > > > treacherously fictional. > > > > > > mere assumption. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > Yes. What we usually call " inside " is also captured by the senses from > > > " outside " !! > > > > > > One sees the " outside world " , but under anesthesia you could see the > > > " inside " of your body, > > > > > > your brain, your heart. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now this leaves us in an interesting spot. The entrance door to > > > nonduality. There is no > > > > > > such thing as an outside world against an inside world - not even > > > physically. What makes > > > > > > the body " feel " to be a subject is just the sensation of pain, of touch, > > > heat, cold.... you know tactile > > > > > > sensations > > > > > > > > > > > > So as I stand here looking out the window I am facing something that has > > > no insides, > > > > > > no outsides...it just is. Are we able to look at this thing? Are we able > > > to look at this human > > > > > > consciousness as this one movement of all there is - here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which " here " are you talking about? > > > > :-0 > > > > geo> Agreed. No need to use that word at all. A here implies a there - as if > > some " there " could belong to another universe but this one... > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Once the essential emptiness of the perceiver is apprehended that which is perceived no longer is an issue. > > > > > > toombaru oh my! no longer and issue? i need a tissue. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 > what is this facsimile world a facsimile of? > > surely not the perceptual input. > > that's no more real than the model...or the modeler. > > waves....electromagnetic or photoelectric " events " .. > > fields...quantum fluctuations...participatory universes.. > > == > True...except that waves....electromagnetic or photoelectric " events " .. > fields...quantum fluctuations..are all already concepts, meaning that they > have been > " manipulated " by the senses. We can not say a word about the nature of > what > is imprinting the senses. The very notion of a " mind " is made up by the > mind. > the very notion of some senses is totally sensual. > -geo- sensual to whom? " who's " notions? ..b b.b. Who has the notions? The organism - the conditioned organism living the duality self-noself. When one says that he has eyes that see - the very eyes that see must be seen trough the eyes itself. Now if you are questioning who or what is the ultimate ground of existence, if your ongoing question " who " is pointing to that, then I am not sure I can express it... Is that the case? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 > > the distinction of input/output is... > > > > treacherously fictional. > > > > mere assumption. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Yes. What we usually call " inside " is also captured by the senses from > > " outside " !! > > > > One sees the " outside world " , but under anesthesia you could see the > > " inside " of your body, > > > > your brain, your heart. > > > > > > > > Now this leaves us in an interesting spot. The entrance door to > > nonduality. There is no > > > > such thing as an outside world against an inside world - not even > > physically. What makes > > > > the body " feel " to be a subject is just the sensation of pain, of touch, > > heat, cold.... you know tactile > > > > sensations > > > > > > > > So as I stand here looking out the window I am facing something that has > > no insides, > > > > no outsides...it just is. Are we able to look at this thing? Are we able > > to look at this human > > > > consciousness as this one movement of all there is - here? > > > > > > > > Which " here " are you talking about? > > :-0 > > geo> Agreed. No need to use that word at all. A here implies a there - as > if > some " there " could belong to another universe but this one... > > toombaru is this universal for all universes? ..b b.b. All universes? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > what is this facsimile world a facsimile of? > > > > surely not the perceptual input. > > > > that's no more real than the model...or the modeler. > > > > waves....electromagnetic or photoelectric " events " .. > > > > fields...quantum fluctuations...participatory universes.. > > > > == > > True...except that waves....electromagnetic or photoelectric " events " .. > > fields...quantum fluctuations..are all already concepts, meaning that they > > have been > > " manipulated " by the senses. We can not say a word about the nature of > > what > > is imprinting the senses. The very notion of a " mind " is made up by the > > mind. > > the very notion of some senses is totally sensual. > > -geo- > > sensual to whom? > > " who's " notions? > > .b b.b. > > Who has the notions? The organism - the conditioned organism living the > duality self-noself. that's not true. no-self abides no " self " or any other distinction. no-self has no " sensations " . only with " self " is there duality. and you can't tell me what " self " is. that's strange because i can't tell you.. what no-self is except to say.. IT is all and everything... and nothing whatsoever that can make sense to a " self " > When one says that he has eyes that see - the very eyes that see must be > seen trough the eyes itself. the eyes from my understanding of the science.. do not " see " anything. they are receptors which transmute photoelectric energy.. into chemical reactions.. that in conjunction with the structure of the brain.. establish a picture that is believed to be " seen " . no such 'seeing " occurs in truth. and those globs of white goo centered with an iris.. are not separate from anything. it means nothing to say that you need eyes to see eyes. " you " don't " need " anything. All is a given from the first. > Now if you are questioning who or what is the ultimate ground of existence, > if your ongoing question " who " > is pointing to that, then I am not sure I can express it... Is that the > case? > -geo- Yes that's the case: you can't express it. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > the distinction of input/output is... > > > > > > treacherously fictional. > > > > > > mere assumption. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > Yes. What we usually call " inside " is also captured by the senses from > > > " outside " !! > > > > > > One sees the " outside world " , but under anesthesia you could see the > > > " inside " of your body, > > > > > > your brain, your heart. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now this leaves us in an interesting spot. The entrance door to > > > nonduality. There is no > > > > > > such thing as an outside world against an inside world - not even > > > physically. What makes > > > > > > the body " feel " to be a subject is just the sensation of pain, of touch, > > > heat, cold.... you know tactile > > > > > > sensations > > > > > > > > > > > > So as I stand here looking out the window I am facing something that has > > > no insides, > > > > > > no outsides...it just is. Are we able to look at this thing? Are we able > > > to look at this human > > > > > > consciousness as this one movement of all there is - here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which " here " are you talking about? > > > > :-0 > > > > geo> Agreed. No need to use that word at all. A here implies a there - as > > if > > some " there " could belong to another universe but this one... > > > > toombaru > > is this universal for all universes? > > .b b.b. > > All universes? > -geo- you have an actual count then? only one? don't try that on a physicist or mathematician... or for that matter on most guys who think themselves guru. if you do they will smile condescendingly and say " of course.. have it your way just like a McDonald's burger. " . ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > the distinction of input/output is... > > > > > > treacherously fictional. > > > > > > mere assumption. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > Yes. What we usually call " inside " is also captured by the senses from > > > " outside " !! > > > > > > One sees the " outside world " , but under anesthesia you could see the > > > " inside " of your body, > > > > > > your brain, your heart. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now this leaves us in an interesting spot. The entrance door to > > > nonduality. There is no > > > > > > such thing as an outside world against an inside world - not even > > > physically. What makes > > > > > > the body " feel " to be a subject is just the sensation of pain, of touch, > > > heat, cold.... you know tactile > > > > > > sensations > > > > > > > > > > > > So as I stand here looking out the window I am facing something that has > > > no insides, > > > > > > no outsides...it just is. Are we able to look at this thing? Are we able > > > to look at this human > > > > > > consciousness as this one movement of all there is - here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which " here " are you talking about? > > > > :-0 > > > > geo> Agreed. No need to use that word at all. A here implies a there - as > > if > > some " there " could belong to another universe but this one... > > > > toombaru > > > > Once the essential emptiness of the perceiver is apprehended that which is > perceived no longer is an issue. > > toombaru > > geo> I think yes. To say that " there is no separate perceiver " and " inside > and outside is the same movement " > amounts to the same. Would you agree that this one movement we are looking > at - without the onlooker - > is what niz. calls consciousness? Not that the name itself means anything, > but...just to use the same terminology. > It is difficult for one English speaker to grasp what another English speaker means by " consciousness " and when an English speaker speculates on what a speaker of Marathi means by the term.....the confusion grows deeper. Consciousness is trying to understand its own reality. Most of those who study consciousness speculate that that simply is not possible and that it can understand anything.......but itself. Mind is a creator of conceptual things. It names the thought stream " consciousness " and then tries to figure out what this consciousness thing is. When in truth consciousness is not thing. You ARE consciousness. And that is as close as you can get ever to " understanding " what it is. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
