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. > > > > 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. geo> For god's sake bbb (...I like that)!!!! Where or what is creation??? Can anything but the tao create anything in the true sense of the word? Obviously only the ground is creating all there is - the tao. What or who else? That is what I call active!! All the rest is just gunas shaking, shifting, rumbling, pulling, pushing, beating the meat, and the such lol Good morning. 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 > > > > > > > > > > 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 geo> In fact this is true. Both share the same root, come from the same place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:56 AM Re: An Almost Virtual World 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. geo> Sh.t....this is also right. When will I be able to rest my head like a little bird in the nest??!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:55 AM Re: An Almost Virtual World 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. You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, unthinkable...that one can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, what it can, what it can not... You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know what it is. I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the ultimate ground ? ....or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? -geo- 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. > > > > > > 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. > > geo> For god's sake bbb (...I like that)!!!! Where or what is creation??? > Can anything but the tao create anything in the true sense of the word? > Obviously only the ground is creating all there is - the tao. > What or who else? > That is what I call active!! All the rest is just gunas shaking, shifting, > rumbling, > pulling, pushing, beating the meat, and the such lol > > Good morning. good mornin'. maybe " beating the meat " seems active. the Tao is Absolutely inactive... if not.. it's not the " real " Tao. ..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: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:56 AM > Re: An Almost Virtual World > > > > > > 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. > > geo> Sh.t....this is also right. When will I be able to rest my head like a > little bird in the nest??!! from a dude almost as sharp as me: " The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests... but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head. " . be a " Man " geo. :-) ..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: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:55 AM > Re: An Almost Virtual World > > > > > > 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. > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > unthinkable...that one > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, what > it can, what it can not... > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know what > it is. > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the > ultimate ground ? > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > -geo- forget " consciousness " . it's no big deal. it is what it is and that's all that it is. hell i don't know what i am let alone consciousness. however..if i may dare to speak " further " .. there is no " ultimate ground " . there IS what IS and if it's not " THAT " it isn't at all. and neither you nor i nor god-men can say anything about THAT. yet... " we " can die to those notions and assumptions.. that we may " BE " (as if we never were)... but are the All and All which truly AM. it's not a " gift'.. not a " grace " .. not a result of prayer..meditation..hope..faith...thought. you might say... from this angle.. it's a bitch.. but that's nothing to bitch about. there is no choice. all and every of this realm are in fact none other than THAT. Bliss..Joy..Satisfaction...Understanding.. are no longer needed nor desired. it's hard to believe and impossible to tell.. but 'tis true 'tis true..* ..b b.b. *we have to sink to a false " level " .. of what's true and what's not true.. what's wrong and what's right. THAT which IS Actual is Highly Indifferent to those distinctions. i would say that in relative 'terms " .. it's not only not capable of being talked about.. it's unthinkable. so there you are here i am... and it's really funny when you try to think about it. ..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 > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > 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. > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > unthinkable...that one > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, > what > it can, what it can not... > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know > what > it is. > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the > ultimate ground ? > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > -geo- forget " consciousness " . it's no big deal. it is what it is and that's all that it is. hell i don't know what i am let alone consciousness. however..if i may dare to speak " further " .. there is no " ultimate ground " . there IS what IS and if it's not " THAT " it isn't at all. and neither you nor i nor god-men can say anything about THAT. yet... " we " can die to those notions and assumptions.. that we may " BE " (as if we never were)... but are the All and All which truly AM. it's not a " gift'.. not a " grace " .. not a result of prayer..meditation..hope..faith...thought. you might say... from this angle.. it's a bitch.. but that's nothing to bitch about. there is no choice. all and every of this realm are in fact none other than THAT. Bliss..Joy..Satisfaction...Understanding.. are no longer needed nor desired. it's hard to believe and impossible to tell.. but 'tis true 'tis true..* ..b b.b. *we have to sink to a false " level " .. of what's true and what's not true.. what's wrong and what's right. THAT which IS Actual is Highly Indifferent to those distinctions. i would say that in relative 'terms " .. it's not only not capable of being talked about.. it's unthinkable. so there you are here i am... and it's really funny when you try to think about it. ..b b.b. Yes. There is only that. Never ever any symbol could " show " it. It is always receding because it is never manifest - yet it is manifestation itself. The most impossible of all possibilities ....an it is amazingly true...although it cant help it and be otherwise.... Try to follow me for the time being... Now... and I am NOT challenging...I will ask another question then in order to clarify the meaning of " active " . If consciousness (here it is again) does not say a thing (to what I agree), who says it? In other words: is there (any name here) saying anything? I would say yes. THAT. And this is why I call it the only one active. NO words will ever fit here. Active, potent, able, IS-ness, IS-able....name it. /Without this " active " something nothing is. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor 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. > > > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > > unthinkable...that one > > > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, > > what > > it can, what it can not... > > > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know > > what > > it is. > > > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the > > ultimate ground ? > > > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > > > -geo- > > forget " consciousness " . > > it's no big deal. > > it is what it is and that's all that it is. > > hell i don't know what i am let alone consciousness. > > however..if i may dare to speak " further " .. > > there is no " ultimate ground " . > > there IS what IS and if it's not " THAT " it isn't at all. > > and neither you nor i nor god-men can say anything about THAT. > > yet... " we " can die to those notions and assumptions.. > > that we may " BE " (as if we never were)... > > but are the All and All which truly AM. > > it's not a " gift'.. > > not a " grace " .. > > not a result of prayer..meditation..hope..faith...thought. > > you might say... from this angle.. > > it's a bitch.. > > but that's nothing to bitch about. > > there is no choice. > > all and every of this realm are in fact none other than THAT. > > Bliss..Joy..Satisfaction...Understanding.. > > are no longer needed nor desired. > > it's hard to believe and impossible to tell.. > > but 'tis true 'tis true..* > > .b b.b. > > *we have to sink to a false " level " .. > > of what's true and what's not true.. > > what's wrong and what's right. > > THAT which IS Actual is Highly Indifferent to those distinctions. > > i would say that in relative 'terms " .. > > it's not only not capable of being talked about.. > > it's unthinkable. > > so there you are here i am... > > and it's really funny when you try to think about it. > > .b b.b. > > Yes. There is only that. Never ever any symbol could " show " it. It is always > receding > > because it is never manifest - yet it is manifestation itself. The most > impossible of all possibilities > > ...an it is amazingly true...although it cant help it and be otherwise.... > > > > Try to follow me for the time being... > > Now... and I am NOT challenging...I will ask another question then in order > to clarify > > the meaning of " active " . > > If consciousness (here it is again) does not say a thing (to what I agree), > who says it? > > In other words: is there (any name here) saying anything? > > I would say yes. THAT. And this is why I call it the only one active. NO > words will > > ever fit here. Active, potent, able, IS-ness, IS-able....name it. /Without > this " active " > > something nothing is. > > > > -geo- okey-dokey :-) ..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: > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > > > unthinkable...that one > > > > > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, > > > what > > > it can, what it can not... > > > > > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know > > > what > > > it is. > > > > > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the > > > ultimate ground ? > > > > > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > forget " consciousness " . > > > > it's no big deal. > > > > it is what it is and that's all that it is. > > > > hell i don't know what i am let alone consciousness. > > > > however..if i may dare to speak " further " .. > > > > there is no " ultimate ground " . > > > > there IS what IS and if it's not " THAT " it isn't at all. > > > > and neither you nor i nor god-men can say anything about THAT. > > > > yet... " we " can die to those notions and assumptions.. > > > > that we may " BE " (as if we never were)... > > > > but are the All and All which truly AM. > > > > it's not a " gift'.. > > > > not a " grace " .. > > > > not a result of prayer..meditation..hope..faith...thought. > > > > you might say... from this angle.. > > > > it's a bitch.. > > > > but that's nothing to bitch about. > > > > there is no choice. > > > > all and every of this realm are in fact none other than THAT. > > > > Bliss..Joy..Satisfaction...Understanding.. > > > > are no longer needed nor desired. > > > > it's hard to believe and impossible to tell.. > > > > but 'tis true 'tis true..* > > > > .b b.b. > > > > *we have to sink to a false " level " .. > > > > of what's true and what's not true.. > > > > what's wrong and what's right. > > > > THAT which IS Actual is Highly Indifferent to those distinctions. > > > > i would say that in relative 'terms " .. > > > > it's not only not capable of being talked about.. > > > > it's unthinkable. > > > > so there you are here i am... > > > > and it's really funny when you try to think about it. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Yes. There is only that. Never ever any symbol could " show " it. It is always > > receding > > > > because it is never manifest - yet it is manifestation itself. The most > > impossible of all possibilities > > > > ...an it is amazingly true...although it cant help it and be otherwise.... > > > > > > > > Try to follow me for the time being... > > > > Now... and I am NOT challenging...I will ask another question then in order > > to clarify > > > > the meaning of " active " . > > > > If consciousness (here it is again) does not say a thing (to what I agree), > > who says it? > > > > In other words: is there (any name here) saying anything? > > > > I would say yes. THAT. And this is why I call it the only one active. NO > > words will > > > > ever fit here. Active, potent, able, IS-ness, IS-able....name it. /Without > > this " active " > > > > something nothing is. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > okey-dokey > > :-) > > .b b.b. that OK is for the last two words... " nothing is " . it's the one and only is that it is. isn't that something? actually.. NO! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:46 AM Re: An Almost Virtual World Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> 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. > > > > > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > > > unthinkable...that one > > > > > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, > > > what > > > it can, what it can not... > > > > > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't > > > know > > > what > > > it is. > > > > > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to > > > the > > > ultimate ground ? > > > > > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > forget " consciousness " . > > > > it's no big deal. > > > > it is what it is and that's all that it is. > > > > hell i don't know what i am let alone consciousness. > > > > however..if i may dare to speak " further " .. > > > > there is no " ultimate ground " . > > > > there IS what IS and if it's not " THAT " it isn't at all. > > > > and neither you nor i nor god-men can say anything about THAT. > > > > yet... " we " can die to those notions and assumptions.. > > > > that we may " BE " (as if we never were)... > > > > but are the All and All which truly AM. > > > > it's not a " gift'.. > > > > not a " grace " .. > > > > not a result of prayer..meditation..hope..faith...thought. > > > > you might say... from this angle.. > > > > it's a bitch.. > > > > but that's nothing to bitch about. > > > > there is no choice. > > > > all and every of this realm are in fact none other than THAT. > > > > Bliss..Joy..Satisfaction...Understanding.. > > > > are no longer needed nor desired. > > > > it's hard to believe and impossible to tell.. > > > > but 'tis true 'tis true..* > > > > .b b.b. > > > > *we have to sink to a false " level " .. > > > > of what's true and what's not true.. > > > > what's wrong and what's right. > > > > THAT which IS Actual is Highly Indifferent to those distinctions. > > > > i would say that in relative 'terms " .. > > > > it's not only not capable of being talked about.. > > > > it's unthinkable. > > > > so there you are here i am... > > > > and it's really funny when you try to think about it. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Yes. There is only that. Never ever any symbol could " show " it. It is > > always > > receding > > > > because it is never manifest - yet it is manifestation itself. The most > > impossible of all possibilities > > > > ...an it is amazingly true...although it cant help it and be > > otherwise.... > > > > > > > > Try to follow me for the time being... > > > > Now... and I am NOT challenging...I will ask another question then in > > order > > to clarify > > > > the meaning of " active " . > > > > If consciousness (here it is again) does not say a thing (to what I > > agree), > > who says it? > > > > In other words: is there (any name here) saying anything? > > > > I would say yes. THAT. And this is why I call it the only one active. NO > > words will > > > > ever fit here. Active, potent, able, IS-ness, IS-able....name it. > > /Without > > this " active " > > > > something nothing is. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > okey-dokey > > :-) > > .b b.b. that OK is for the last two words... " nothing is " . it's the one and only is that it is. isn't that something? actually.. NO! ..b b.b. Yes it is always receeding...just like the cat from the babys hands No thing is. -geo- 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 > Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:55 AM > Re: An Almost Virtual World > > > > > > 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. > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > unthinkable...that one > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, what > it can, what it can not... > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know what > it is. > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the > ultimate ground ? > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > -geo- > Consciousness is in the ultimate ground. The ultimate ground is in consciousness. Watts, volts and amps are in electricity. Electricity is in watts, volts and amps. I am in the city. The city is in me. The cat is in me. I am in the cat. toombaru 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 > > Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:56 AM > > Re: An Almost Virtual World > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > geo> Sh.t....this is also right. When will I be able to rest my head like a > > little bird in the nest??!! from a dude almost as sharp as me: > > " The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests... > > but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head. " . > > be a " Man " geo. > > :-) > > .b b.b. > That's because it's not his head. :-0 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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:56 AM > > > Re: An Almost Virtual World > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > geo> Sh.t....this is also right. When will I be able to rest my head like a > > > little bird in the nest??!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from a dude almost as sharp as me: > > > > " The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests... > > > > but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head. " . > > > > be a " Man " geo. > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > That's because it's not his head. > > > :-0 > > > > toombaru what " it " is " not in his head " ? ..b b.b. 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: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:55 AM > > Re: An Almost Virtual World > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > > unthinkable...that one > > > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, what > > it can, what it can not... > > > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know what > > it is. > > > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the > > ultimate ground ? > > > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > > > -geo- > > > Consciousness is in the ultimate ground. > The ultimate ground is in consciousness. > > Watts, volts and amps are in electricity. > Electricity is in watts, volts and amps. > > I am in the city. > The city is in me. > > The cat is in me. > I am in the cat. > > > > > toombaru there is nothing " ultimate " in any of that. there is no such suchness. ..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: > > > > 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. > > > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > > unthinkable...that one > > > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, > > what > > it can, what it can not... > > > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know > > what > > it is. > > > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the > > ultimate ground ? > > > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > > > -geo- > > > > Consciousness is in the ultimate ground. > The ultimate ground is in consciousness. > > Watts, volts and amps are in electricity. > Electricity is in watts, volts and amps. > > I am in the city. > The city is in me. > > The cat is in me. > I am in the cat. > > toombaru > > geo> If you take watts away there is no eletricity. > Take volts away - no eletricity. > Take consciusness away... what about the ultimate? > -geo- nothing IS. nothing is NOT ultimate. nothing doesn't " mean " nothing. nothing more can be said. ..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: > > > > 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. > > > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > > unthinkable...that one > > > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, > > what > > it can, what it can not... > > > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know > > what > > it is. > > > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the > > ultimate ground ? > > > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > > > -geo- > > > > Consciousness is in the ultimate ground. > The ultimate ground is in consciousness. > > Watts, volts and amps are in electricity. > Electricity is in watts, volts and amps. > > I am in the city. > The city is in me. > > The cat is in me. > I am in the cat. > > toombaru > > geo> If you take watts away there is no eletricity. > Take volts away - no eletricity. > Take consciusness away... what about the ultimate? > -geo- > How do you take the watts away from electricity? 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: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > > > unthinkable...that one > > > > > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, > > > what > > > it can, what it can not... > > > > > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know > > > what > > > it is. > > > > > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the > > > ultimate ground ? > > > > > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > Consciousness is in the ultimate ground. > > The ultimate ground is in consciousness. > > > > Watts, volts and amps are in electricity. > > Electricity is in watts, volts and amps. > > > > I am in the city. > > The city is in me. > > > > The cat is in me. > > I am in the cat. > > > > toombaru > > > > geo> If you take watts away there is no eletricity. > > Take volts away - no eletricity. > > Take consciusness away... what about the ultimate? > > -geo- > > > > > > > How do you take the watts away from electricity? > > > > > toombaru that's where the ultimate comes in. ultimately you can't do that. ..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 , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> 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. > > > > > > > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > > > > unthinkable...that one > > > > > > > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, > > > > what > > > > it can, what it can not... > > > > > > > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know > > > > what > > > > it is. > > > > > > > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the > > > > ultimate ground ? > > > > > > > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is in the ultimate ground. > > > The ultimate ground is in consciousness. > > > > > > Watts, volts and amps are in electricity. > > > Electricity is in watts, volts and amps. > > > > > > I am in the city. > > > The city is in me. > > > > > > The cat is in me. > > > I am in the cat. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > geo> If you take watts away there is no eletricity. > > > Take volts away - no eletricity. > > > Take consciusness away... what about the ultimate? > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you take the watts away from electricity? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > that's where the ultimate comes in. > > ultimately you can't do that. > > .b b.b. > WATT? 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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> 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. > > > > > > > > > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > > > > > unthinkable...that one > > > > > > > > > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, > > > > > what > > > > > it can, what it can not... > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know > > > > > what > > > > > it is. > > > > > > > > > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the > > > > > ultimate ground ? > > > > > > > > > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is in the ultimate ground. > > > > The ultimate ground is in consciousness. > > > > > > > > Watts, volts and amps are in electricity. > > > > Electricity is in watts, volts and amps. > > > > > > > > I am in the city. > > > > The city is in me. > > > > > > > > The cat is in me. > > > > I am in the cat. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > geo> If you take watts away there is no eletricity. > > > > Take volts away - no eletricity. > > > > Take consciusness away... what about the ultimate? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you take the watts away from electricity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > that's where the ultimate comes in. > > > > ultimately you can't do that. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > WATT? > > > > > > toombaru no Watt's my neighbor. ..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 , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > > > > > > unthinkable...that one > > > > > > > > > > > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, > > > > > > what > > > > > > it can, what it can not... > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know > > > > > > what > > > > > > it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the > > > > > > ultimate ground ? > > > > > > > > > > > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is in the ultimate ground. > > > > > The ultimate ground is in consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > Watts, volts and amps are in electricity. > > > > > Electricity is in watts, volts and amps. > > > > > > > > > > I am in the city. > > > > > The city is in me. > > > > > > > > > > The cat is in me. > > > > > I am in the cat. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > geo> If you take watts away there is no eletricity. > > > > > Take volts away - no eletricity. > > > > > Take consciusness away... what about the ultimate? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you take the watts away from electricity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > that's where the ultimate comes in. > > > > > > ultimately you can't do that. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > WATT? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > no Watt's my neighbor. > > .b b.b. he's on second base... when i'm home. i don't know who's at third. i know who's on first... well if you want to know why... he's in left field. ..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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to say that consciousness is indefinable, untouchable, > > > > > > > unthinkable...that one > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can not know what it is... but then you give it attributes, qualities, > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > it can, what it can not... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be talking about the attributes of something you don't know > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will ask you again then: is your usage of consciousness pointing to the > > > > > > > ultimate ground ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...or the ultimate is beyond consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is in the ultimate ground. > > > > > > The ultimate ground is in consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Watts, volts and amps are in electricity. > > > > > > Electricity is in watts, volts and amps. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am in the city. > > > > > > The city is in me. > > > > > > > > > > > > The cat is in me. > > > > > > I am in the cat. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> If you take watts away there is no eletricity. > > > > > > Take volts away - no eletricity. > > > > > > Take consciusness away... what about the ultimate? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you take the watts away from electricity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > that's where the ultimate comes in. > > > > > > > > ultimately you can't do that. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WATT? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > no Watt's my neighbor. > > > > .b b.b. > > You know what? I know Watt. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
