Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 " In pure being consciousness arises; in consciousness the world appears and disappears. All there *is* is me, all there *is* is mine. Before all beginnings, after all endings -- I am. All has its being in me, in the `I am', that shines in every living being. Even not-being is unthinkable without me. " -- Nisargadatta, " I Am That " Smiles to Werner... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Thanks Tim, > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: Does the presence of the colon above mean you're about to offer some? ;-). No thanks. I prefer to trust him, he's never led me astray. Now, Werner, OTOH... ;-). Sweet hugs & kisses :-*. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > " In pure being consciousness arises; in consciousness the world appears and disappears. All there *is* is me, all there *is* is mine. Before all beginnings, after all endings -- I am. All has its being in me, in the `I am', that shines in every living being. Even not-being is unthinkable without me. " -- Nisargadatta, " I Am That " > > Smiles to Werner... > Thanks Tim, As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: 1) There is no 'pure being' because there also is no pure consciousness. The idea of pure consciousness or pure awareness is based on that belief that is passed down since millennia that consciousness is like a mirror which is pure itself. 2) The world does not arise in consciousness but consciousness IS the world. Consciousness exists not separate from its content, it IS the content - without content no consciousness. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Thanks Tim, > > > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > Does the presence of the colon above mean you're about to offer some? ;-). No thanks. I prefer to trust him, he's never led me astray. Now, Werner, OTOH... ;-). > > Sweet hugs & kisses :-*. > You were to fast, Tim. I deleted that post you refered to and rewrote it. Because it was not clear enought. Ok you do trust in Nis which is quite ok and I do trust in myself which hopefully is quite ok too. Werner P.S.: What means 'OTOH' and why the hell 'sweet hugs an kisses' ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Tim, > > > > > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > > > Does the presence of the colon above mean you're about to offer some? ;-). No thanks. I prefer to trust him, he's never led me astray. Now, Werner, OTOH... ;-). > > > > Sweet hugs & kisses :-*. > > > > > You were to fast, Tim. > > I deleted that post you refered to and rewrote it. Because it was not clear enought. > > Ok you do trust in Nis which is quite ok and I do trust in myself > which hopefully is quite ok too. Of course... trusting in oneself is 'what it's all about'. For everyone. > Werner > > P.S.: > > What means 'OTOH' and why the hell 'sweet hugs an kisses' ? " OTOH " = " on the other hand " ... never mind about the other, just joking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Tim, > > > > > > > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > > > > > Does the presence of the colon above mean you're about to offer some? ;-). No thanks. I prefer to trust him, he's never led me astray. Now, Werner, OTOH... ;-). > > > > > > Sweet hugs & kisses :-*. > > > > > > > > > You were to fast, Tim. > > > > I deleted that post you refered to and rewrote it. Because it was not clear enought. > > > > Ok you do trust in Nis which is quite ok and I do trust in myself > > which hopefully is quite ok too. > > Of course... trusting in oneself is 'what it's all about'. For > everyone. P.S. dunno if it needs saying again, but Nisargadatta is 'myself', i.e. reflects myself. I understand him from 'my own level', whatever level my own understanding is at. This is really true everywhere. For example, I can go to a lecture on quantum mechanics, not understand a word, then go home and tell everyone how stupid the teacher is, how he was talking gibberish and nonsense, etc. Obviously it seemed so, because I didn't understand, not because he didn't. Nonduality is a little different of course, because most are probably ignorant and only a few 'know'... so there's no body of supporting public to know if someone is speaking nonsense, or speaking the truth. One can trust only oneself here, look into it and see if what the teacher is saying has any relation to one's own life, i.e. try to make out on one's own level. That's about all the teaching is useful for, IMO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Tim, > > > > > > > > > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > > > > > > > Does the presence of the colon above mean you're about to offer some? ;-). No thanks. I prefer to trust him, he's never led me astray. Now, Werner, OTOH... ;-). > > > > > > > > Sweet hugs & kisses :-*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You were to fast, Tim. > > > > > > I deleted that post you refered to and rewrote it. Because it was not clear enought. > > > > > > Ok you do trust in Nis which is quite ok and I do trust in myself > > > which hopefully is quite ok too. > > > > Of course... trusting in oneself is 'what it's all about'. For > > everyone. > > P.S. dunno if it needs saying again, but Nisargadatta is 'myself', i.e. reflects myself. I understand him from 'my own level', whatever level my own understanding is at. > > This is really true everywhere. For example, I can go to a lecture on quantum mechanics, not understand a word, then go home and tell everyone how stupid the teacher is, how he was talking gibberish and nonsense, etc. Obviously it seemed so, because I didn't understand, not because he didn't. > Smile, Tim, Well, if you didn't understand quantum mechanics does not mean that I have not understood Nis > Nonduality is a little different of course, because most are probably ignorant and only a few 'know'... so there's no body of supporting public to know if someone is speaking nonsense, or speaking the truth. One can trust only oneself here, look into it and see if what the teacher is saying has any relation to one's own life, i.e. try to make out on one's own level. That's about all the teaching is useful for, IMO. Ok, Tim, but you are not the 'other' because first of all 'you' don't exist and second the 'other' is just a category of thought. Werner > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Smile, Tim, > > Well, if you didn't understand quantum mechanics does not mean that > I have not understood Nis Yes, I really have no clue if you've understood Nis or not. That's between you and you ;-). Really it's none of my business... either I take your word for it, don't care, accuse you of misunderstanding, whatever... from here, my own understanding (or lack thereof) is all that matters. > Ok, Tim, but you are not the 'other' because first of all 'you' > don't exist and second the 'other' is just a category of thought. Yes, that's the whole point. If I perceive an actually existing, separate 'other', that is my own perception. In other words, 'other' is 'self'. If no 'other' is perceived, that is nobody's perception, because the perception didn't happen. But if it did happen, the 'other' (in terms of the otherness, the feeling there is an other) is an aspect of myself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > If no 'other' is perceived, that is nobody's perception, because the > perception didn't happen. But if it did happen, the 'other' (in > terms of the otherness, the feeling there is an other) is an aspect > of myself. Another way to put this is that " other " and " self " arise together, never alone... they are aspects of each other. For example, maybe I feel alone in a crowd... because there's too much " otherness " , which creates too much " self-ness " , and so I feel alone, isolated. Or maybe I'm with a loved one, whom I trust, and so there is no 'otherness' created with them around, and thus no 'self-ness'... and so I don't feel alone. The two are really one... self and other, other and self, both happening 'here'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Thanks Tim, > > > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > Does the presence of the colon above mean you're about to offer some? ;-). No thanks. I prefer to trust him, he's never led me astray. Now, Werner, OTOH... ;-). > > Sweet hugs & kisses :-*. what about in the presence of a semicolon? you always put one before the -). like this: ;-) semi shit worthy. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > " In pure being consciousness arises; in consciousness the world appears and disappears. All there *is* is me, all there *is* is mine. Before all beginnings, after all endings -- I am. All has its being in me, in the `I am', that shines in every living being. Even not-being is unthinkable without me. " -- Nisargadatta, " I Am That " > > > > Smiles to Werner... > > > > > Thanks Tim, > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > 1) There is no 'pure being' because there also is no pure consciousness. The idea of pure consciousness or pure awareness is based on that belief that is passed down since millennia that consciousness is like a mirror which is pure itself. > > 2) The world does not arise in consciousness but consciousness IS the world. Consciousness exists not separate from its content, it IS the content - without content no consciousness. > > Werner a hell wernie poo.. pablum excites you. eat'er up baby. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Tim, > > > > > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > > > Does the presence of the colon above mean you're about to offer some? ;-). No thanks. I prefer to trust him, he's never led me astray. Now, Werner, OTOH... ;-). > > > > Sweet hugs & kisses :-*. > > > > > You were to fast, Tim. > > I deleted that post you refered to and rewrote it. Because it was not clear enought. > > Ok you do trust in Nis which is quite ok and I do trust in myself which hopefully is quite ok too. > > Werner > > P.S.: > > What means 'OTOH' and why the hell 'sweet hugs an kisses' ? otoh means " on the other hand " .. or.. it also means: Du bist ein Arschloch. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Tim, > > > > > > > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > > > > > Does the presence of the colon above mean you're about to offer some? ;-). No thanks. I prefer to trust him, he's never led me astray. Now, Werner, OTOH... ;-). > > > > > > Sweet hugs & kisses :-*. > > > > > > > > > You were to fast, Tim. > > > > I deleted that post you refered to and rewrote it. Because it was not clear enought. > > > > Ok you do trust in Nis which is quite ok and I do trust in myself > > which hopefully is quite ok too. > > Of course... trusting in oneself is 'what it's all about'. For everyone. > > > Werner > > > > P.S.: > > > > What means 'OTOH' and why the hell 'sweet hugs an kisses' ? > > " OTOH " = " on the other hand " ... never mind about the other, just joking. don't ever attempt to be a comedian. your jokes stink. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > > > > > > > > > Does the presence of the colon above mean you're about to offer some? ;-). No thanks. I prefer to trust him, he's never led me astray. Now, Werner, OTOH... ;-). > > > > > > > > > > Sweet hugs & kisses :-*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You were to fast, Tim. > > > > > > > > I deleted that post you refered to and rewrote it. Because it was not clear enought. > > > > > > > > Ok you do trust in Nis which is quite ok and I do trust in myself > > > > which hopefully is quite ok too. > > > > > > Of course... trusting in oneself is 'what it's all about'. For > > > everyone. > > > > P.S. dunno if it needs saying again, but Nisargadatta is 'myself', i.e. reflects myself. I understand him from 'my own level', whatever level my own understanding is at. > > > > This is really true everywhere. For example, I can go to a lecture on quantum mechanics, not understand a word, then go home and tell everyone how stupid the teacher is, how he was talking gibberish and nonsense, etc. Obviously it seemed so, because I didn't understand, not because he didn't. > > > > > Smile, Tim, > > Well, if you didn't understand quantum mechanics does not mean that I have not understood Nis > > > > Nonduality is a little different of course, because most are probably ignorant and only a few 'know'... so there's no body of supporting public to know if someone is speaking nonsense, or speaking the truth. One can trust only oneself here, look into it and see if what the teacher is saying has any relation to one's own life, i.e. try to make out on one's own level. That's about all the teaching is useful for, IMO. > > Ok, Tim, but you are not the 'other' because first of all 'you' don't exist and second the 'other' is just a category of thought. > > Werner wernie.. erzaehle mir nicht so einen mist. for christ sake.. " Nonduality is a little different of course.. because most are probably ignorant and only a few 'know' " ???? nonduality means there is no " most " nor " few " . and there can be no " differences " within nor without it. Geh' und krabbel in das stinkende Loch zurück, aus dem Du kommst. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 - Werner Woehr Nisargadatta Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:04 AM Re: Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > " In pure being consciousness arises; in consciousness the world appears > and disappears. All there *is* is me, all there *is* is mine. Before all > beginnings, after all endings -- I am. All has its being in me, in the `I > am', that shines in every living being. Even not-being is unthinkable > without me. " -- Nisargadatta, " I Am That " > > Smiles to Werner... > Thanks Tim, As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: There is no pure being because there also is no pure consciousness. The world does not arise in consciousness but consciousness IS the world. Consciousness exists not separate from its content, it IS the content - without content no consciousness. Werner Werner, your problem with consciouness is that you did not see that K and Nis used the word with different meanings. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 9/7/2009 08:34:52 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Thursday, July 09, 2009 6:12 AM Re: Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > If no 'other' is perceived, that is nobody's perception, because the > > perception didn't happen. But if it did happen, the 'other' (in > terms of the otherness, the feeling there is an other) is an aspect > of myself. Another way to put this is that " other " and " self " arise together, never alone... they are aspects of each other. For example, maybe I feel alone in a crowd... because there's too much " otherness " , which creates too much " self-ness " , and so I feel alone, isolated. Or maybe I'm with a loved one, whom I trust, and so there is no 'otherness' created with them around, and thus no 'self-ness'... and so I don't feel alone. The two are really one... self and other, other and self, both happening 'here'. -tim- And what about: I have no idea about what is going on in that other organism's brain? No separate entities, no entities at all... -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 9/7/2009 08:34:53 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nonduality is a little different of course, because most are probably ignorant and only a few 'know'... -tim- Nonetheless you spent some 37 threads tyring to convince geo that it is not possible to categorize people. "...the dan said only ego sees ego stuff, remember?" -ego- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:52 AM Re: Re: Nisargadatta Nonduality is a little different of course, because most are probably ignorant and only a few 'know'... -tim- Nonetheless you spent some 37 threads tyring to convince geo that it is not possible to categorize people. "...the dan said only ego sees ego stuff, remember?" And I said that what one sees is that the other miond is cought in conceptual thinking....and you said: impossible....only ego sees ego. All that is gone now? Now you can see - there are - people who dont "know" about nonduality? -ego- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Werner Woehr > Nisargadatta > Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:04 AM > Re: Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > " In pure being consciousness arises; in consciousness the world appears > > and disappears. All there *is* is me, all there *is* is mine. Before all > > beginnings, after all endings -- I am. All has its being in me, in the `I > > am', that shines in every living being. Even not-being is unthinkable > > without me. " -- Nisargadatta, " I Am That " > > > > Smiles to Werner... > > > > Thanks Tim, > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > There is no pure being because there also is no pure consciousness. > > The world does not arise in consciousness but consciousness IS the world. > Consciousness exists not separate from its content, it IS the content - > without content no consciousness. > > Werner > > Werner, your problem with consciouness is that you did not see that K and > Nis used the word with different meanings. > -geo- > Ah, Geo, Could you please explain what you think how Niz was seeing or using consciousness ? Werner > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 > Tested on: 9/7/2009 08:34:52 > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 - Werner Woehr Nisargadatta Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:59 AM Re: Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Werner Woehr > Nisargadatta > Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:04 AM > Re: Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > " In pure being consciousness arises; in consciousness the world appears > > and disappears. All there *is* is me, all there *is* is mine. Before all > > beginnings, after all endings -- I am. All has its being in me, in the > > `I > > am', that shines in every living being. Even not-being is unthinkable > > without me. " -- Nisargadatta, " I Am That " > > > > Smiles to Werner... > > > > Thanks Tim, > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > There is no pure being because there also is no pure consciousness. > > The world does not arise in consciousness but consciousness IS the world. > Consciousness exists not separate from its content, it IS the content - > without content no consciousness. > > Werner > > Werner, your problem with consciouness is that you did not see that K and > Nis used the word with different meanings. > -geo- > Ah, Geo, Could you please explain what you think how Niz was seeing or using consciousness ? Werner It is my pleasure - for the 87th time :>) To Nis consciousness is the first next manifestation, right bellow the ultimate (I must use words, friend...) Within that consciousness worlds are born and die. To K, consciousness is the part of the human mind intangled with the sense of centered observer - and the periphery related to it: me/you, inside/outside, my inner world/society. To K consc. is a much narrower definition. So to K there is the ultimate (he called it ground), then the universal mind (that Nis called consciousness), then the Mind of Mankind and - only then - consciusness. So according to K nomeclature consc. is its content (me/you, center...) and when consc is emptied(is not) what you have is the ground seeing the mind of mankind. I am using fast words. -geo- > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 > Tested on: 9/7/2009 08:34:52 > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 9/7/2009 09:02:38 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Werner Woehr > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:04 AM > > Re: Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > " In pure being consciousness arises; in consciousness the world appears > > > and disappears. All there *is* is me, all there *is* is mine. Before all > > > beginnings, after all endings -- I am. All has its being in me, in the `I > > > am', that shines in every living being. Even not-being is unthinkable > > > without me. " -- Nisargadatta, " I Am That " > > > > > > Smiles to Werner... > > > > > > > Thanks Tim, > > > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > > > There is no pure being because there also is no pure consciousness. > > > > The world does not arise in consciousness but consciousness IS the world. > > Consciousness exists not separate from its content, it IS the content - > > without content no consciousness. > > > > Werner > > > > Werner, your problem with consciouness is that you did not see that K and > > Nis used the word with different meanings. > > -geo- > > > > > Ah, Geo, > > Could you please explain what you think how Niz was seeing or using consciousness ? > > Werner wernie.. In deinem Kopf sind Staudämme aus Scheiße.. und die Pisse rinnt in Strömen. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Werner Woehr > Nisargadatta > Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:59 AM > Re: Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Werner Woehr > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:04 AM > > Re: Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > " In pure being consciousness arises; in consciousness the world appears > > > and disappears. All there *is* is me, all there *is* is mine. Before all > > > beginnings, after all endings -- I am. All has its being in me, in the > > > `I > > > am', that shines in every living being. Even not-being is unthinkable > > > without me. " -- Nisargadatta, " I Am That " > > > > > > Smiles to Werner... > > > > > > > Thanks Tim, > > > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > > > There is no pure being because there also is no pure consciousness. > > > > The world does not arise in consciousness but consciousness IS the world. > > Consciousness exists not separate from its content, it IS the content - > > without content no consciousness. > > > > Werner > > > > Werner, your problem with consciouness is that you did not see that K and > > Nis used the word with different meanings. > > -geo- > > > > Ah, Geo, > > Could you please explain what you think how Niz was seeing or using > consciousness ? > > Werner > > It is my pleasure - for the 87th time :>) > > To Nis consciousness is the first next manifestation, right bellow the > ultimate (I must use words, friend...) > Within that consciousness worlds are born and die. > > To K, consciousness is the part of the human mind intangled with the sense > of centered observer - and the periphery related to it: me/you, > inside/outside, my inner world/society. To K consc. is a much narrower > definition. So to K there is the ultimate (he called it ground), then the > universal mind (that Nis called consciousness), then the Mind of Mankind > and - only then - consciusness. So according to K nomeclature consc. is its > content (me/you, center...) and when consc is emptied(is not) what you have > is the ground seeing the mind of mankind. I am using fast words. > -geo- > Thanks, Geo, for your effort. But I didn't understand a word. Much to nebulous, using terms like 'Absolute' or 'emanation' or 'ground' and so on which don't mean anything. Just fishing in foggy darkness and finding stale beer. Nothing concrete I could present to my grandma when she is celebrating her birthday. I must leave her disappointed with empty hands. Sorry, if that is how Nis or K were seeing or understanding consciousness I would say they both have been babblers without brains. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Werner Woehr To: Nisargadatta Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:59 AM Re: Nisargadatta Ah, Geo, Could you please explain what you think how Niz was seeing or using consciousness ? Werner Geo wrote: It is my pleasure - for the 87th time :>) To Nis consciousness is the first next manifestation, right bellow the ultimate (I must use words, friend...) Within that consciousness worlds are born and die. To K, consciousness is the part of the human mind intangled with the sense of centered observer - and the periphery related to it: me/you, inside/outside, my inner world/society. If there are no thoughts and no awareness, that's deep sleep -- deep sleep is a pretense of silence. The closest a mind can get to having the Absolute in its grasp is deep sleep, but it is merely one mode of operation of the brain -- dreaming and waking the other modes. But though the deep sleep process is relatively silent compared to the other modes, it is not a state of perfect quiescence, and a sufficiently adroit mind can grab that sucker.....probably takes 50 years of meditation in the deep woods to culture such a mind, but that mind, though almost cosmic, is still a mind with content abuzz. Transcending the three modes, a fourth mode can be wordified into existence as a concept: amness is the mother-mode of all modes -- the home of all modes, the godhead. But amness is pure mind, OM unmodulated, a dial tone waiting for a phone number to be entered, and since ego is now attached to amness instead of a projection of amness, the ego shuts up and no longer is found buzzing about its selfhood. While one is in samadhi, amness, there is no ego to pretend it is the observer, and instead, ego can be said to be a " person in waiting. " -- waiting for it's next incarnation as a projection of amness. The deep sleeping mind is wide awake, ya see? It entertains its version of " chemicals processing in a brain " that serve the brain as a metaphor for -- symbol of -- " nothing, nothingness, no thing just space/time waiting for a thing " and on and on we can throw words around like this. The mind is not there unless there is an object of consciousness present -- they're a yin/yang pair -- so the mind puts its radar on some poor unsuspecting process of the brain and says, " You....from now on, when I put my attention on you, you're the Absolute. And I don't want to hear anything from you about your buzziness -- I'm going to be ignoring that on purpose, and ignoring your buzz is easy because my mind hasn't practiced subtlety enough to see the state of deep sleep as a variant of the sound OM. " Talk about your tautologies. Real silence the brain cannot know. No matter how fine a net the intellect creates, there is no thing/butterfly to catch. There is no grasping of the ungraspable, the unburnable, the unwetable, the uncutable. To K consc. is a much narrower definition. So to K there is the ultimate (he called it ground), The absolute then the universal mind (that Nis called consciousness), amness - soul - cosmic ego - awareness -- pure being - all things organism-ish then the Mind of Mankind the ritam level -- the first emerging of a projection -- space and time separate -- the gunas begin to dance out of synch with each other but they keep one foot standing in samadhi -- they're still aware of the primal buzz of OM. This is where the gods reside. and - only then - consciusness. individuality is peppered throughout space/time like Spring stacattoing flowers in April. That is: thoughts begin to flow -- each an incarnation that the ego attaches to instantly and says, " Yup, that's my-me-mine. " So according to K nomeclature consc. is its content (me/you, center...) and when consc is emptied(is not) what you have is the ground seeing the mind of mankind. I am using fast words. Dang hard to control them thar words when they's spewing out yer chute. Bullriding time. I hate it when that bucker tosses me and there I am with a sentence that I don't want to admit to having authored. Your last sentence is a powerful vision, eh? The Absolute + Amness unsullied by projection. Only after the individuality of amness is projected as a non-unity -- a specific state of the three gunas now out of unity -- is personhood restored. When one exits a state of samadhi/amness it becomes three-ish. Then, the person now incarnate, the mind entertains " other sounds " that remind it of that state of samadhi for this " person's " pleasure, but during samadhi there is only one thought: the sound OM. After samadhi the mind can pretend it had an observer of that samadhi during that samadhi, but this is merely slipping back into egoic projection - a lie told so that the ego can pretend it is eternal when it HAD JUST BEEN turned off for a bit. Denial R us. When the Absolute is symbolized by its projection of amness, there is no sin in equating the two. The Absolute cannot be caught red-handed in the act of doingness. Yet there it is with a chocolate ring around it's mouth and telling Mom that it didn't eat the fudge brownies. A human mind cannot tell the two apart -- the reflection in the mirror seems identical to its observer -- it cannot conceptually note any differences between the two. Of each it can be said: there's no ego, there's no sound because there's no ego to hear it, no thing is buzzing because there's no ego to take credit for it -- the Absolute is stuck with the bar tab, ya see? If amness is buzzing OM, the only Identity that could take credit for it is the Absolute, but the damned ego butts in and asserts a falsity -- that it is the buzzer of the buzz. That's like an audience roaring with approval and calling " Author, Author, Author " and the ego is some jerk who steps on stage and lets the audience worship it. What a twit, eh? And, 87th? Geo -- that's a world class lie. It is obvious that you've written about this more than that. For me, this is about the 2,343,587th time I've written words about the above, and I'm still not bored. That's the trap, ya see? Mother Divine has an infinity of baubles that can be delved into by the intellect ENDLESSLY, and one is orgasmed -- that is, hypnotized by bliss. That's amness' trump card. Bliss -- the ultimate drug that amness sells to every passerby. Mother Divine the dealer. Gotta love the picture, eh? Edg -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Werner Woehr > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:59 AM > > Re: Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Werner Woehr > > > Nisargadatta > > > Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:04 AM > > > Re: Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > " In pure being consciousness arises; in consciousness the world appears > > > > and disappears. All there *is* is me, all there *is* is mine. Before all > > > > beginnings, after all endings -- I am. All has its being in me, in the > > > > `I > > > > am', that shines in every living being. Even not-being is unthinkable > > > > without me. " -- Nisargadatta, " I Am That " > > > > > > > > Smiles to Werner... > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Tim, > > > > > > As usual Nis said exciting things but also nonsense: > > > > > > There is no pure being because there also is no pure consciousness. > > > > > > The world does not arise in consciousness but consciousness IS the world. > > > Consciousness exists not separate from its content, it IS the content - > > > without content no consciousness. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Werner, your problem with consciouness is that you did not see that K and > > > Nis used the word with different meanings. > > > -geo- > > > > > > > Ah, Geo, > > > > Could you please explain what you think how Niz was seeing or using > > consciousness ? > > > > Werner > > > > It is my pleasure - for the 87th time :>) > > > > To Nis consciousness is the first next manifestation, right bellow the > > ultimate (I must use words, friend...) > > Within that consciousness worlds are born and die. > > > > To K, consciousness is the part of the human mind intangled with the sense > > of centered observer - and the periphery related to it: me/you, > > inside/outside, my inner world/society. To K consc. is a much narrower > > definition. So to K there is the ultimate (he called it ground), then the > > universal mind (that Nis called consciousness), then the Mind of Mankind > > and - only then - consciusness. So according to K nomeclature consc. is its > > content (me/you, center...) and when consc is emptied(is not) what you have > > is the ground seeing the mind of mankind. I am using fast words. > > -geo- > > > > > Thanks, Geo, > > for your effort. But I didn't understand a word. Much to nebulous, using terms like 'Absolute' or 'emanation' or 'ground' and so on which don't mean anything. Just fishing in foggy darkness and finding stale beer. > > Nothing concrete I could present to my grandma when she is celebrating her birthday. I must leave her disappointed with empty hands. > > Sorry, if that is how Nis or K were seeing or understanding consciousness I would say they both have been babblers without brains. > > Werner Dir hat wohl einer in's Hirn geschissen und vergessen zu ziehen. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Re: Re: Nisargadatta > Werner Woehr > Nisargadatta > Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:59 AM > Re: Nisargadatta > > Ah, Geo, > > Could you please explain what you think how Niz was seeing or using > consciousness ? > > Werner Geo wrote: > It is my pleasure - for the 87th time :>) > > To Nis consciousness is the first next manifestation, right bellow the > ultimate (I must use words, friend...) > Within that consciousness worlds are born and die. > > To K, consciousness is the part of the human mind intangled with the sense > of centered observer - and the periphery related to it: me/you, > inside/outside, my inner world/society. If there are no thoughts and no awareness, that's deep sleep -- deep sleep is a pretense of silence. The closest a mind can get to having the Absolute in its grasp is deep sleep, but it is merely one mode of operation of the brain -- dreaming and waking the other modes. But though the deep sleep process is relatively silent compared to the other modes, it is not a state of perfect quiescence, and a sufficiently adroit mind can grab that sucker.....probably takes 50 years of meditation in the deep woods to culture such a mind, but that mind, though almost cosmic, is still a mind with content abuzz. Transcending the three modes, a fourth mode can be wordified into existence as a concept: amness is the mother-mode of all modes -- the home of all modes, the godhead. But amness is pure mind, OM unmodulated, a dial tone waiting for a phone number to be entered, and since ego is now attached to amness instead of a projection of amness, the ego shuts up and no longer is found buzzing about its selfhood. While one is in samadhi, amness, there is no ego to pretend it is the observer, and instead, ego can be said to be a " person in waiting. " -- waiting for it's next incarnation as a projection of amness. The deep sleeping mind is wide awake, ya see? It entertains its version of " chemicals processing in a brain " that serve the brain as a metaphor for -- symbol of -- " nothing, nothingness, no thing just space/time waiting for a thing " and on and on we can throw words around like this. The mind is not there unless there is an object of consciousness present -- they're a yin/yang pair -- so the mind puts its radar on some poor unsuspecting process of the brain and says, " You....from now on, when I put my attention on you, you're the Absolute. And I don't want to hear anything from you about your buzziness -- I'm going to be ignoring that on purpose, and ignoring your buzz is easy because my mind hasn't practiced subtlety enough to see the state of deep sleep as a variant of the sound OM. " Talk about your tautologies. Real silence the brain cannot know. No matter how fine a net the intellect creates, there is no thing/butterfly to catch. There is no grasping of the ungraspable, the unburnable, the unwetable, the uncutable. > To K consc. is a much narrower > definition. So to K there is the ultimate (he called it ground), The absolute > then the > universal mind (that Nis called consciousness), amness - soul - cosmic ego - awareness -- pure being - all things organism-ish > then the Mind of Mankind the ritam level -- the first emerging of a projection -- space and time separate -- the gunas begin to dance out of synch with each other but they keep one foot standing in samadhi -- they're still aware of the primal buzz of OM. This is where the gods reside. > and - only then - consciusness. individuality is peppered throughout space/time like Spring stacattoing flowers in April. That is: thoughts begin to flow -- each an incarnation that the ego attaches to instantly and says, " Yup, that's my-me-mine. " > So according to K nomeclature consc. is its > content (me/you, center...) and when consc is emptied(is not) what you have > is the ground seeing the mind of mankind. I am using fast words. Dang hard to control them thar words when they's spewing out yer chute. Bullriding time. I hate it when that bucker tosses me and there I am with a sentence that I don't want to admit to having authored. Your last sentence is a powerful vision, eh? The Absolute + Amness unsullied by projection. Only after the individuality of amness is projected as a non-unity -- a specific state of the three gunas now out of unity -- is personhood restored. When one exits a state of samadhi/amness it becomes three-ish. Then, the person now incarnate, the mind entertains " other sounds " that remind it of that state of samadhi for this " person's " pleasure, but during samadhi there is only one thought: the sound OM. After samadhi the mind can pretend it had an observer of that samadhi during that samadhi, but this is merely slipping back into egoic projection - a lie told so that the ego can pretend it is eternal when it HAD JUST BEEN turned off for a bit. Denial R us. When the Absolute is symbolized by its projection of amness, there is no sin in equating the two. The Absolute cannot be caught red-handed in the act of doingness. Yet there it is with a chocolate ring around it's mouth and telling Mom that it didn't eat the fudge brownies. A human mind cannot tell the two apart -- the reflection in the mirror seems identical to its observer -- it cannot conceptually note any differences between the two. Of each it can be said: there's no ego, there's no sound because there's no ego to hear it, no thing is buzzing because there's no ego to take credit for it -- the Absolute is stuck with the bar tab, ya see? If amness is buzzing OM, the only Identity that could take credit for it is the Absolute, but the damned ego butts in and asserts a falsity -- that it is the buzzer of the buzz. That's like an audience roaring with approval and calling " Author, Author, Author " and the ego is some jerk who steps on stage and lets the audience worship it. What a twit, eh? And, 87th? Geo -- that's a world class lie. It is obvious that you've written about this more than that. For me, this is about the 2,343,587th time I've written words about the above, and I'm still not bored. That's the trap, ya see? Mother Divine has an infinity of baubles that can be delved into by the intellect ENDLESSLY, and one is orgasmed -- that is, hypnotized by bliss. That's amness' trump card. Bliss -- the ultimate drug that amness sells to every passerby. Mother Divine the dealer. Gotta love the picture, eh? Edg too fucking wordy. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
