Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > 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. > ....toombaru......wildly glancing around the room like a cat locked up in a room with a ten year old boy with a lazer pointer................ 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- 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. geo> I know... 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: > > > > > > 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. > ...toombaru......wildly glancing around the room like a cat locked up in a room with a ten year old boy with a lazer pointer................ no..it's a laser gun. ..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. > > > > 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 " . > > geo> LOL. A selfless person will not feel pain, warm, cold? He will not be > aware of his burning fingers > while holding a hot cup of coffe? > == > 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 " > bbb > > geo> Agreed. I would say the same. > > > 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.. > > geo> Photons are aprehended through which instrument? chemical reactions > are aprehended through which instrument? the structure of the brain > aprehended > through which instrument? - if not through the very senses you are trying to > explain. > > 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. > > geo> Certainly not. All is its expression. All doesn't express anything. that's just an impression. but " who " has the " impression " .. that there is an 'expression " .. nobody knows. and nobody's the only one that does. Neither the " who " of the impressions.. nor the All of no expressions.. can be discussed. but it is funny. ..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. > > geo> I know... gee geo..i don't. ..b b.b. 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. > 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. geo> But that IS the whole point. Once it sees itself as everything.... for it is looking at all this without distinction of inside and outside, looking without the onlooker, seeing without the seer....it is alll there is. Only then the next step is possible. What is the nature of " THAT " which is even wider, deeper, thinner, beyond all and any possible past present and future manifestation? == 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 geo> Aaahhh.... you started off nicely, meaning that you don't know what consciousness is, or that perhaps we should clear the terminology, but ended up stating the opposite: you know the whole truth about it. In fact it doesnt make much difference what language you use to refer to it - I think niz is quite clear about what it is. 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. > > that's not true. > > no-self abides no " self " or any other distinction. > > no-self has no " sensations " . > > geo> LOL. A selfless person will not feel pain, warm, cold? He will not be > aware of his burning fingers > while holding a hot cup of coffe? > == > 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 " > bbb > > geo> Agreed. I would say the same. > > > 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.. > > geo> Photons are aprehended through which instrument? chemical reactions > are aprehended through which instrument? the structure of the brain > aprehended > through which instrument? - if not through the very senses you are trying > to > explain. > > 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. > > geo> Certainly not. All is its expression. All doesn't express anything. that's just an impression. but " who " has the " impression " .. that there is an 'expression " .. nobody knows. and nobody's the only one that does. Neither the " who " of the impressions.. nor the All of no expressions.. can be discussed. but it is funny. ..b b.b. geo> Then for f..k sake lets drop all we said and dicussed cos I mean the same. 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- > > 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. > > geo> I know... gee geo..i don't. ..b b.b. geo> have the burger your way then... 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: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > thank all that is or is not for that. > > > > if it was ever a matter of understanding... > > > > it would be totally f***ed up. > > > > .b b.b. > I don't want a Got that I can understand. toombaru Got don't care... vee get too soon oldt und too late schmart. ..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. > > > > > > 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 " . > > > > geo> LOL. A selfless person will not feel pain, warm, cold? He will not be > > aware of his burning fingers > > while holding a hot cup of coffe? > > == > > 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 " > > bbb > > > > geo> Agreed. I would say the same. > > > > > 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.. > > > > geo> Photons are aprehended through which instrument? chemical reactions > > are aprehended through which instrument? the structure of the brain > > aprehended > > through which instrument? - if not through the very senses you are trying > > to > > explain. > > > > 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. > > > > geo> Certainly not. All is its expression. > > All doesn't express anything. > > that's just an impression. > > but " who " has the " impression " .. > > that there is an 'expression " .. > > nobody knows. > > and nobody's the only one that does. > > Neither the " who " of the impressions.. > > nor the All of no expressions.. > > can be discussed. > > but it is funny. > > .b b.b. > > geo> Then for f..k sake lets drop all we said and dicussed cos I mean the > same. it has no meaning. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 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. > > > > geo> I know... > > gee geo..i don't. > > .b b.b. > > geo> have the burger your way then... i follow no way or path. when i find myself at the drive-through window at Mickey D's... i ask for fresh suchi with no pickles... and a diet water. i then specify that i want it " to go " . they tell me where to go and what path to take. i smile. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2009 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. geo> No way. It doesnt matter what language niz used, or what was the expression either. It might have been hoolabaloo. After several thousund pages talking about it one should have a pretty good idea of what hoolabaloo means - be it english, marathi, zulu, armenian or whatever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 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- > > > > 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. > > > > geo> I know... > > gee geo..i don't. > > .b b.b. > > geo> have the burger your way then... i follow no way or path. when i find myself at the drive-through window at Mickey D's... i ask for fresh suchi with no pickles... and a diet water. i then specify that i want it " to go " . they tell me where to go and what path to take. i smile. ..b b.b. geo> I know who you are!! Didnt you make easy rider? ...or was it hair? LOL LOL LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 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. > > geo> But that IS the whole point. Once it sees itself as everything.... for > it is looking at all this without > distinction of inside and outside, looking without the onlooker, seeing > without the seer....it is alll there is. > Only then the next step is possible. What is the nature of " THAT " which is > even wider, deeper, thinner, > beyond all and any possible past present and future manifestation? > == > 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 > > geo> Aaahhh.... you started off nicely, meaning that you don't know what > consciousness is, or > that perhaps we should clear the terminology, but ended up stating the > opposite: you know the whole truth about it. > In fact it doesnt make much difference what language you use to refer to > it - I think niz is quite clear about what it is. > Any mentation about he nature of consciousness is wrong. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 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 > > > > > > 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. > > > > geo> But that IS the whole point. Once it sees itself as everything.... for > > it is looking at all this without > > distinction of inside and outside, looking without the onlooker, seeing > > without the seer....it is alll there is. > > Only then the next step is possible. What is the nature of " THAT " which is > > even wider, deeper, thinner, > > beyond all and any possible past present and future manifestation? > > == > > 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 > > > > geo> Aaahhh.... you started off nicely, meaning that you don't know what > > consciousness is, or > > that perhaps we should clear the terminology, but ended up stating the > > opposite: you know the whole truth about it. > > In fact it doesnt make much difference what language you use to refer to > > it - I think niz is quite clear about what it is. > > > > > > > Any mentation about he nature of consciousness is wrong. > > > > toombaru for consciousness it's neither right nor wrong. it's irrelevant. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 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. > > geo> But that IS the whole point. Once it sees itself as everything.... > for > it is looking at all this without > distinction of inside and outside, looking without the onlooker, seeing > without the seer....it is alll there is. > Only then the next step is possible. What is the nature of " THAT " which is > even wider, deeper, thinner, > beyond all and any possible past present and future manifestation? > == > 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 > > geo> Aaahhh.... you started off nicely, meaning that you don't know what > consciousness is, or > that perhaps we should clear the terminology, but ended up stating the > opposite: you know the whole truth about it. > In fact it doesnt make much difference what language you use to refer to > it - I think niz is quite clear about what it is. > Any mentation about he nature of consciousness is wrong. toombaru geo>Considering that one can not talk about the " real " nature of anything - not even a pencil, consciousness is all there is. It is manifestation - in contrast to the non-manifested active ground. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor 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 > > > > > > 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. > > > > geo> But that IS the whole point. Once it sees itself as everything.... > > for > > it is looking at all this without > > distinction of inside and outside, looking without the onlooker, seeing > > without the seer....it is alll there is. > > Only then the next step is possible. What is the nature of " THAT " which is > > even wider, deeper, thinner, > > beyond all and any possible past present and future manifestation? > > == > > 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 > > > > geo> Aaahhh.... you started off nicely, meaning that you don't know what > > consciousness is, or > > that perhaps we should clear the terminology, but ended up stating the > > opposite: you know the whole truth about it. > > In fact it doesnt make much difference what language you use to refer to > > it - I think niz is quite clear about what it is. > > > > Any mentation about he nature of consciousness is wrong. > > toombaru > > geo>Considering that one can not talk about the " real " nature of anything - > not even a pencil, > consciousness is all there is. It is manifestation - in contrast to the > non-manifested active ground. say again? there's nothing active in the non-manifest. that's manifestly clear. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Monday, April 27, 2009 7:51 PM Re: An Almost Virtual World Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor 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 > > > > > > 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. > > > > geo> But that IS the whole point. Once it sees itself as everything.... > > for > > it is looking at all this without > > distinction of inside and outside, looking without the onlooker, seeing > > without the seer....it is alll there is. > > Only then the next step is possible. What is the nature of " THAT " which > > is > > even wider, deeper, thinner, > > beyond all and any possible past present and future manifestation? > > == > > 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 > > > > geo> Aaahhh.... you started off nicely, meaning that you don't know what > > consciousness is, or > > that perhaps we should clear the terminology, but ended up stating the > > opposite: you know the whole truth about it. > > In fact it doesnt make much difference what language you use to refer to > > it - I think niz is quite clear about what it is. > > > > Any mentation about he nature of consciousness is wrong. > > toombaru > > geo>Considering that one can not talk about the " real " nature of > anything - > not even a pencil, > consciousness is all there is. It is manifestation - in contrast to the > non-manifested active ground. say again? there's nothing active in the non-manifest. that's manifestly clear. ..b b.b. geo> Now, then, I lost you. " Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form. Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound. Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible. These three are indefinable; Therefore they are joined in one - the TAO... " Messages in this topic (45) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. MARKETPLACE I'm happy I lost my Job. Now I make $12,000/mo online! See how I do it: WealthResource.org. Mom Power: Discover the community of moms doing more for their families, for the world and for each other Change settings via the Web ( ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Terms of Use | Un Recent Activity 1New Members Visit Your Group Group Charity Loans that change lives Kiva.org Ads on Learn more now. Reach customers searching for you. Support Group Lose lbs together Share your weight- loss successes.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, April 27, 2009 7:51 PM > Re: An Almost Virtual World > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> 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 > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > geo> But that IS the whole point. Once it sees itself as everything.... > > > for > > > it is looking at all this without > > > distinction of inside and outside, looking without the onlooker, seeing > > > without the seer....it is alll there is. > > > Only then the next step is possible. What is the nature of " THAT " which > > > is > > > even wider, deeper, thinner, > > > beyond all and any possible past present and future manifestation? > > > == > > > 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 > > > > > > geo> Aaahhh.... you started off nicely, meaning that you don't know what > > > consciousness is, or > > > that perhaps we should clear the terminology, but ended up stating the > > > opposite: you know the whole truth about it. > > > In fact it doesnt make much difference what language you use to refer to > > > it - I think niz is quite clear about what it is. > > > > > > > Any mentation about he nature of consciousness is wrong. > > > > toombaru > > > > geo>Considering that one can not talk about the " real " nature of > > anything - > > not even a pencil, > > consciousness is all there is. It is manifestation - in contrast to the > > non-manifested active ground. > > say again? > > there's nothing active in the non-manifest. > > that's manifestly clear. > > .b b.b. > > geo> Now, then, I lost you. > > " Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form. > Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound. > Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible. > These three are indefinable; > Therefore they are joined in one - the TAO... " it's not i who you lost. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, April 27, 2009 7:51 PM > > Re: An Almost Virtual World > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> 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 > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > geo> But that IS the whole point. Once it sees itself as everything.... > > > > for > > > > it is looking at all this without > > > > distinction of inside and outside, looking without the onlooker, seeing > > > > without the seer....it is alll there is. > > > > Only then the next step is possible. What is the nature of " THAT " which > > > > is > > > > even wider, deeper, thinner, > > > > beyond all and any possible past present and future manifestation? > > > > == > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > geo> Aaahhh.... you started off nicely, meaning that you don't know what > > > > consciousness is, or > > > > that perhaps we should clear the terminology, but ended up stating the > > > > opposite: you know the whole truth about it. > > > > In fact it doesnt make much difference what language you use to refer to > > > > it - I think niz is quite clear about what it is. > > > > > > > > > > Any mentation about he nature of consciousness is wrong. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > geo>Considering that one can not talk about the " real " nature of > > > anything - > > > not even a pencil, > > > consciousness is all there is. It is manifestation - in contrast to the > > > non-manifested active ground. > > > > say again? > > > > there's nothing active in the non-manifest. > > > > that's manifestly clear. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > geo> Now, then, I lost you. > > > > " Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form. > > Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound. > > Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible. > > These three are indefinable; > > Therefore they are joined in one - the TAO... " > > > it's not i who you lost. > > .b b.b. if you will allow a question... where in the above talk of the Tao.. do you reckon " action " or " activity " is taking place? if it cannot be seen..heard..held.. where is this non-manifest " active " ground? ..b b.b. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2009 Any mentation about the nature of consciousness is wrong. toombaru -------------------- An example of the liar's paradox? Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Any mentation about the nature of consciousness is wrong. > > toombaru > -------------------- > > An example of the liar's paradox? > > Bill > :-) A double layered liar's paradox Can you think of anything true that consciousness can say about consciousness? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 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 > > > > > > 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. > > > > geo> But that IS the whole point. Once it sees itself as everything.... for > > it is looking at all this without > > distinction of inside and outside, looking without the onlooker, seeing > > without the seer....it is alll there is. > > Only then the next step is possible. What is the nature of " THAT " which is > > even wider, deeper, thinner, > > beyond all and any possible past present and future manifestation? > > == > > 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 > > > > geo> Aaahhh.... you started off nicely, meaning that you don't know what > > consciousness is, or > > that perhaps we should clear the terminology, but ended up stating the > > opposite: you know the whole truth about it. > > In fact it doesnt make much difference what language you use to refer to > > it - I think niz is quite clear about what it is. > > > > > > > Any mentation about he nature of consciousness is wrong. > > > > toombaru > And also any mentation about any mentation about the nature of consciousnes is wrong. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Any mentation about the nature of consciousness is wrong. > > > > toombaru > > -------------------- > > > > An example of the liar's paradox? > > > > Bill > > > > > > :-) > > A double layered liar's paradox > > > > Can you think of anything true that consciousness can say about > consciousness? > > > > > toombaru it's not a paradox or a double whammy paradox. Consciousness is without " terms " or " contradictions " . logic is futile.. logical statements that contradict themselves are toys.. for phantoms of Consciousness but not in It. when phantoms dissolve.. so ends all: logistics..reasoning...paradox..world containing space. Consciousness says nothing. i think those who think.. think that thinking is a big deal. as for Consciousness: it says nothing at all.. who's it going to say anything to? what's true or what's not true.. is false preeminence. it doesn't matter. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > geo> But that IS the whole point. Once it sees itself as everything.... for > > > it is looking at all this without > > > distinction of inside and outside, looking without the onlooker, seeing > > > without the seer....it is alll there is. > > > Only then the next step is possible. What is the nature of " THAT " which is > > > even wider, deeper, thinner, > > > beyond all and any possible past present and future manifestation? > > > == > > > 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 > > > > > > geo> Aaahhh.... you started off nicely, meaning that you don't know what > > > consciousness is, or > > > that perhaps we should clear the terminology, but ended up stating the > > > opposite: you know the whole truth about it. > > > In fact it doesnt make much difference what language you use to refer to > > > it - I think niz is quite clear about what it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any mentation about he nature of consciousness is wrong. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > And also any mentation about any mentation about the nature of consciousnes is wrong. > > Werner so then werner.. what you've said above is wrong too. what's new huh? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
