Prior to consciousness

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Agreed that there is no center anywhere. But one person acts and feels and

> > > lives as if he had it and the other understood the illusion and lives

> > > differently.

> > > The one that understood sees the others confusion and may help him - just

> > > like your guru did to you.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > He didn't really do that. I say so because folks like to hear that kind of

stuff, because they are then willing to give a little attention instead of

arguing and fighting.

> >

> > What happened here was that I was dying of substance abuse. I was spending

24-hour stretches in front of the computer, using stimulants and doing the same

meaningless, repeated activities.

> >

> > My personal horizons dissolved, disappeared. I didn't care about anything

anymore, not even the drug.

> >

> > And everything got very simple, very easy somehow.

> >

> > The drugs were given up in mid 2008. They had served their purpose. They

killed me.

> >

> > Is Geo happy now? ;-).

> >

> > peace...

>

>

> so the cheap 9% solution is a better way to go huh?

>

> or were you lying about that.

>

> or are you lying now?

>

> do you know which is the case?

>

> .b b.b.

 

Didn't say I don't swig a brewski from time to time. Something wrong with that?

Any sissies around here? ;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Agreed that there is no center anywhere. But one person acts and feels

and

> > > > lives as if he had it and the other understood the illusion and lives

> > > > differently.

> > > > The one that understood sees the others confusion and may help him -

just

> > > > like your guru did to you.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > He didn't really do that. I say so because folks like to hear that kind

of stuff, because they are then willing to give a little attention instead of

arguing and fighting.

> > >

> > > What happened here was that I was dying of substance abuse. I was

spending 24-hour stretches in front of the computer, using stimulants and doing

the same meaningless, repeated activities.

> > >

> > > My personal horizons dissolved, disappeared. I didn't care about anything

anymore, not even the drug.

> > >

> > > And everything got very simple, very easy somehow.

> > >

> > > The drugs were given up in mid 2008. They had served their purpose. They

killed me.

> > >

> > > Is Geo happy now? ;-).

> > >

> > > peace...

> >

> >

> > so the cheap 9% solution is a better way to go huh?

> >

> > or were you lying about that.

> >

> > or are you lying now?

> >

> > do you know which is the case?

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> Didn't say I don't swig a brewski from time to time. Something wrong with

that? Any sissies around here? ;-).

 

 

nothing is either right or wrong.

 

alcohol is a drug.

 

one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs..

 

know to the species.

 

check it out... don't believe me.

 

i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again.

 

thanks for the admission.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> nothing is either right or wrong.

>

> alcohol is a drug.

>

> one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs..

 

So what? Life is a drug. It kills ya. Big .

 

" complex and addictive and debilitating " ...blahblah nonsense. Some folks like

to be indoctrinated by society.

 

Do what ya like. Life happens once. There are no rules.

 

> i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again.

>

> thanks for the admission.

 

Nobody admitted to anything, but lots of folks imagine 'admissions' from

imaginary persons they've never met, and probably never will. Nor do they want

to, only to imagine them so they can draw a pretend line around themselves and

have a pretend center.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Agreed that there is no center anywhere. But one person acts and feels

and

> > > > > lives as if he had it and the other understood the illusion and lives

> > > > > differently.

> > > > > The one that understood sees the others confusion and may help him -

just

> > > > > like your guru did to you.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > > He didn't really do that. I say so because folks like to hear that kind

of stuff, because they are then willing to give a little attention instead of

arguing and fighting.

> > > >

> > > > What happened here was that I was dying of substance abuse. I was

spending 24-hour stretches in front of the computer, using stimulants and doing

the same meaningless, repeated activities.

> > > >

> > > > My personal horizons dissolved, disappeared. I didn't care about

anything anymore, not even the drug.

> > > >

> > > > And everything got very simple, very easy somehow.

> > > >

> > > > The drugs were given up in mid 2008. They had served their purpose.

They killed me.

> > > >

> > > > Is Geo happy now? ;-).

> > > >

> > > > peace...

> > >

> > >

> > > so the cheap 9% solution is a better way to go huh?

> > >

> > > or were you lying about that.

> > >

> > > or are you lying now?

> > >

> > > do you know which is the case?

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > Didn't say I don't swig a brewski from time to time. Something wrong with

that? Any sissies around here? ;-).

>

>

> nothing is either right or wrong.

>

> alcohol is a drug.

>

> one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs..

>

> know to the species.

>

> check it out... don't believe me.

>

> i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again.

>

> thanks for the admission.

>

> .b b.b.

>

 

 

 

The mind is a drug... and a pharmaceutical company...

 

Remember the commercial of the egg frying? " This is your

mind on drugs. "

 

~A

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > nothing is either right or wrong.

> >

> > alcohol is a drug.

> >

> > one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs..

>

> So what? Life is a drug. It kills ya. Big .

>

> " complex and addictive and debilitating " ...blahblah nonsense. Some folks like

to be indoctrinated by society.

>

> Do what ya like. Life happens once. There are no rules.

>

> > i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again.

> >

> > thanks for the admission.

>

> Nobody admitted to anything, but lots of folks imagine 'admissions' from

imaginary persons they've never met, and probably never will. Nor do they want

to, only to imagine them so they can draw a pretend line around themselves and

have a pretend center.

 

 

i understand your defensiveness.

 

it's called denial.

 

everyone is familiar with it..

 

and does it themselves or has an addicted friend or relative..

 

who utilize it to defend their right to be addicted.

 

usually..in severe cases such as yours..

 

not only is the addiction denied..

 

but the addicted self is denied as well..

 

and it's destructive behavior is falsely considered..

 

an extention of everyone else.

 

" Everyone does it " is the usual refrain.

 

and as you think you see yourself in everyone..

 

you give perfect display of this typical self defense mechanism.

 

drink up!

 

i don't care.

 

but don't try to bullshit me like you're doing with yourself.

 

talk is even cheaper than the rotgut you're in love with.

 

enjoy timmy.

 

tough love son.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

--- In

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

<douglasmitch1963 cut and pasted:

Nisargadatta: " This

consciousness, which depends on the food body which is born, is

time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, and

when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the

Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent dependence

is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this sentience which

enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have but even then I

existed. I was there before this consciousness

appeared. "

Edg: The above is soooooo clearly

stated. As a writer, I don't think this knowledge can be compacted

by me into fewer words without being, say, my being Shakespeare

reincarnated. To put it into fewer words would probably require the

reader to be jiggy with the knowledge beforehand in order to recognize it

in a more abstract form. As it stands now, the above, if a newbie

found it in a floating bottle while beached on a desert island and if

that was all the " scripture " he had to be guided by, there'd be

little room for doubts or questions. It is a most excellent blob of

words. An instruction manual.

Yet, here at the equivalent an ashram run entirely by Hell's Angels, we

can find those who paradoxically present themselves as knowers of REALITY

who -- get this -- are comfortable with crushing egos conceptually like

each one was but a kernel of popcorn gulped in the dark of Plato's Cave

while the film The Wild Bunch was seen as flickering shadows of

themselves on the wall.

Turn around, turn around you hogtied starers at the absences caused by

your own bodies now casting shadows on a wall that should be ALL WHITE

LIGHT. Face the light, face the light -- or at least get out of the

way and let the cave be fully lit.

I studied Nisargadatta and Ramana for years -- hours per day -- YEAH,

HOURS PER DAY -- years and hours of marking up their books with yellow

highlighter and writing about the concepts. Writing, writing,

writing. And, no one here could find any mistakes in what I've

written -- even my early attempts, but I was, again, YEARS into

study before the above quote was understood by me. Oh, I'm a

spiritual short bus kinda guy, but finally something clicked -- call it a

peace that descended upon my intellect when all the pieces suddenly

formed an image.

I challenge all you good hearted folks here to dump the mockery, trash

the haughtiness, toss the sneering glares, and for once here, ONCE, one

fucking time, I'd like to see all of you try to translate Nisargadatta's

quote into your own words in order to justify wearing those tee shirts

you all are so proud of that say, " I am that. "

Try translating Nisargadatta's quote. If you can't, why, you're

nothing but a city slicker in a spotlessly clean ten gallon hat on

your first horsey ride at a dude ranch.

Look, I'm not trying to crush the pretenders to Nisargadatta's

throne. That's a way to Rome too, fake it, pretend it, strut upon

the stage you brief candles, have your funzies, but call it -- the

translation task -- a merit badge that must be earned before one is

allowed to make a fire at Cub Scout camp. Can you get the

badge? I can hear it now -- a chorus of " We don't need no

stinking badges. "

So many here think they've got it down cold, but the above quote goes

through their nervous systems like a Pachinko ball -- all rattling and

bingy-bongingness without any sense of destiny.

Okay, I'll translate the quote to start off the contest that only I can

expect the likes of me to enter.

Here goes:

Nisargadatta:

Firstly, I bow to the entirety that the word,

Nisargadatta, is symbolizing. May purity be found all around as I

bow again and again with images of bouquets handed to him, incense lit to

him, fruit and purifying water given to him, and a seat in my heart

offered to him. May my flowing tears never stop as I sing of

him. I bow. I bow. I bow.

" This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is

born, is time-bound.

--- " This "

obviously must be an object of consciousness. A pointer.

Something examined like a fractal being entered.

--- " consciousness " gives a name to

" this "

--- " which depends on the food body which is born "

Consciousness is shown to be relative, dependent,

illusory, ephemeral, having a starting point (and thus an ending point --

and " ending " means utter annihilation.) And " food

body " points to the earthy milch kind physicality of consciousness'

embodiment. A food body must necessarily be a processing plant that

ceases functioning if the raw commodities stop coming to the plant.

Stop eating, and you'll stop consciousness-ing. If consciousness

ends, there cannot be any objects of consciousness: thoughts. All

objects of consciousness are thoughts -- mental processing parsed -- all

of them -- every one of them -- symbols all. Each a shadow on a

cave wall; each one shaped by the hands of bound prisoners held up

between the source of the light and the wall to cast the shadows.

 

--- " is time-bound. " The body

occupies space, obviously, so time is also brought into the mix for

completion's sake in this jargon of modern physics era.

Space/time is something " of the body. " Without the body,

there is no space/time in which the thought " space/time " can be

presented. If the factory is not given food commodities, space/time

cannot be born. Space/time has no independent existence of brain

processing -- if the brain dies, the universe dies --

" universe " is ALL CONCEPTS. That which does not cease

when the brain dies for lack of food is THAT -- and " it " is

beyond space/time. THAT, if sought, cannot be embodied in any sort

of " found it-ness " -- that is, cannot be framed as

consciousness; however, consciousness, if present, can entertain an

endless flowing of concepts that are each and all " parts " of

the infinity that can be found in consciousness' larder/pantry of food

spawned concepts. Each a peer of the other concepts. A

peer. Each a product of food processing.

If you wake from a dream and say to me, " in my dream I sat on a

chair, " I will ask you, " So, which was more real: the chair or

the dream body that sat in it? " Obviously, each dream

construct is a peer of the other -- each an object of consciousness, each

without a higher order of realness to be haughty about towards the

other. Each a creation of Mother Consciousness, each a cherished

child.

--- " That which is prior to consciousness is the

Absolute, " Before food is processed and

consciousness born, THAT which is symbolized by concepts in consciousness

IS. Not " is " as a concept " is, " but

IS. IS as THAT -- the potency of which is magnificently beyond

conceptuality/consciousness such that " existing " is too small a

concept to fully symbolize THAT. Existence is less than half the

story of THAT -- which embraces every iota of non-existingness too -- and

more: even the resolutions of paradox reside in the potency of THAT --

logic itself cannot throttle THAT. THAT, the Absolute, is never

affected by the flowing symbols of consciousness. No matter if the

brain is Brahma's, even His consciousness cannot grasp THAT fully.

If Brahma dies, THAT is not even sent an intra-office memo about His

passing. THAT is beyond space-time, so anything borne of food

processing cannot be THAT. Thus all thoughts are false in that they

are grossly incomplete and merely dumb, blunt, fuzzy pointers.

 

--- " and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of

itself, it is the Absolute. " Note the word,

" when. " " When " underlines that consciousness is time

bound always/all-times. Now note that consciousness can

" be " without " being something. " That is:

consciousness can be empty of concepts while yet retaining the quality

" awareness. " That's known as samadhi. Then, take it

another step: the quality of consciousness -- awareness -- is now seen as

a functionality, and this " awareness " can be present or

absent. When this relative " awareness " of

consciousness resides as a potency -- unexpressed -- unseen -- of the

Absolute, it can be said that consciousness is unconscious. When

consciousness becomes conscious, the relative functionality, awareness,

is born. One can call the Absolute, " Fred, " or

" consciousness, " and both " names " will be partially

correct. If you take a stick and point it anywhere, you are

pointing at everything just exactly as a fish can point anywhere and be

bulleye perfect in directing one to water. Any statement's opposite

is as true as anything else can be. Saying " Hitler was a nice

guy " is as true to say as, " God is love. " The dream chair

is as real as the dream body sitting in it. Each points to the

potency of the Absolute. Like the side of a barn, throw anything in

its general direction and you'll hit it. And you can hit that barn

every time for all of time and never know the barn, the whole barn and

nothing but the barn. The map can never be the territory.

50,000 blind scientists cannot grasp elephantness no matter how many

" test samples " they take. Deep sleep is a state of

consciousness in which relative awareness is absent while AWARENESS, the

Absolute, is undiminished, untouched and able to even be the witness of

consciousness lacking awareness. Deep sleep is an experience, a

state of consciousness in which nothingness is the sole object.

 

--- " We are nothing but this consciousness. "

We are not objects of consciousness but, rather,

the whole of consciousness itself, all four of its states. Amness,

pure being, pure consciousness is unsullied by any parsing of OM.

This is the true basis of our isness, the simplest state of our being

manifest. Our " I am-ness " is the home of all

qualities. Any object of consciousness is yet another " example

of me. " Any object of consciousness is yet another piece of my

everythingness that springs from the potential of amness. This is

the primal ego, the first act of identification, the first delusion

falsely validated. As a divine tool, we are unable to manifest

nothings and must perforce only juggle somethings, yet the divine

attempts the impossible: symbolizing the Absolute with a palette that

only has half the colors needed. We are one-armed jugglers of half

truths.

--- " My apparent dependence is on this consciousness

which says,'I am'. Only by surrendering to my

being less than everything and to my less than being every non-thing,

only by stepping out of my divinity's potency, can I say " I

am. " Brahma steps down from purity by manifesting all the ways

that purity can be partial. This tautologicality is the best that

can be presented as " knowledge. "

 

--- " It is this sentience which enables me to perceive

you. " This falsity, this illusion of

mind, this space-time bound " me-ness " must be boot-strapped

into a semblance of sentience such that -- if I am assumed to exist, then

all others can be assumed to exist also, and in that assumptioning,

conversation becomes possible. In order for the Absolute to be

symbolized more perfectly, imperfection itself is created for

completion's sake, so that the Grand Ventriloquist is able to have two

dummies talking to each other about the Ventriloquist who's lips never

move. There they are sitting in the lap of the Absolute and being

the voices of a silent person. Gotta laugh at that, eh?

--- " This concept I did not have but even then I

existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. "

Here I declare that amness is merely a

manifestation from THAT, and that I know it to be an image of myself

instead of MY ACTUAL SELF. If consciousness never was, if

consciousness never could be, if no person ever existed, yet would the

Absolute be the only reality. It is that beyondness that is itself

without having to manifest a partiality to symbolize it. When I use

the word, " before, " I'm underlining that language forces one to

assume that space-time is real in order for the illusion of a

conversation to be compelling. I surrender to the unreal's axioms

in order to invalidate them. A thorn to remove a thorn.

 

There's my attempt. Yours would be studied by me like a PhD scoring

someone's responses to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory. Let's have your best shot. I'm braced. I'm ready.

I'm willing.

Edg

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > nothing is either right or wrong.

> > > >

> > > > alcohol is a drug.

> > > >

> > > > one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs..

> > >

> > > So what? Life is a drug. It kills ya. Big .

> > >

> > > " complex and addictive and debilitating " ...blahblah nonsense. Some folks

like to be indoctrinated by society.

> > >

> > > Do what ya like. Life happens once. There are no rules.

> > >

> > > > i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again.

> > > >

> > > > thanks for the admission.

> > >

> > > Nobody admitted to anything, but lots of folks imagine 'admissions' from

imaginary persons they've never met, and probably never will. Nor do they want

to, only to imagine them so they can draw a pretend line around themselves and

have a pretend center.

> >

> >

> > i understand your defensiveness.

> >

> > it's called denial.

> >

> > everyone is familiar with it..

>

> Now, nod yer head and say " keep coming back, it works " .

>

> Never mind statistics show that something like 2% of all attendees 'remain

clean'.

>

> The ultimate cure for 'life addiction' is death.

>

> And the body don't even have to die.

 

 

sure timmy.

 

you see this as the way it is for you.

 

and so it is.

 

too bad.

 

dream on.

 

it's comfy there isn't it.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Re: Prior to consciousness

 

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

cut and pasted:

 

> Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is

born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, and

when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the

Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent dependence is on

this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this sentience which enables me to

perceive you. This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there

before this consciousness appeared. "

 

Edg: The above is soooooo clearly stated. As a writer, I don't think this

knowledge can be compacted by me into fewer words without being, say, my being

Shakespeare reincarnated. To put it into fewer words would probably require the

reader to be jiggy with the knowledge beforehand in order to recognize it in a

more abstract form. As it stands now, the above, if a newbie found it in a

floating bottle while beached on a desert island and if that was all the

" scripture " he had to be guided by, there'd be little room for doubts or

questions. It is a most excellent blob of words. An instruction manual.

 

Yet, here at the equivalent an ashram run entirely by Hell's Angels, we can find

those who paradoxically present themselves as knowers of REALITY who -- get this

-- are comfortable with crushing egos conceptually like each one was but a

kernel of popcorn gulped in the dark of Plato's Cave while the film The Wild

Bunch was seen as flickering shadows of themselves on the wall.

 

Turn around, turn around you hogtied starers at the absences caused by your own

bodies now casting shadows on a wall that should be ALL WHITE LIGHT. Face the

light, face the light -- or at least get out of the way and let the cave be

fully lit.

 

I studied Nisargadatta and Ramana for years -- hours per day -- YEAH, HOURS PER

DAY -- years and hours of marking up their books with yellow highlighter and

writing about the concepts. Writing, writing, writing. And, no one here could

find any mistakes in what I've written -- even my early attempts, but I was,

again, YEARS into study before the above quote was understood by me. Oh, I'm a

spiritual short bus kinda guy, but finally something clicked -- call it a peace

that descended upon my intellect when all the pieces suddenly formed an image.

 

I challenge all you good hearted folks here to dump the mockery, trash the

haughtiness, toss the sneering glares, and for once here, ONCE, one fucking

time, I'd like to see all of you try to translate Nisargadatta's quote into your

own words in order to justify wearing those tee shirts you all are so proud of

that say, " I am that. "

 

Try translating Nisargadatta's quote. If you can't, why, you're nothing but a

city slicker in a spotlessly clean ten gallon hat on your first horsey ride at

a dude ranch.

 

Look, I'm not trying to crush the pretenders to Nisargadatta's throne. That's a

way to Rome too, fake it, pretend it, strut upon the stage you brief candles,

have your funzies, but call it -- the translation task -- a merit badge that

must be earned before one is allowed to make a fire at Cub Scout camp. Can you

get the badge? I can hear it now -- a chorus of " We don't need no stinking

badges. "

 

So many here think they've got it down cold, but the above quote goes through

their nervous systems like a Pachinko ball -- all rattling and bingy-bongingness

without any sense of destiny.

 

Okay, I'll translate the quote to start off the contest that only I can expect

the likes of me to enter.

 

Here goes:

 

Nisargadatta:

 

Firstly, I bow to the entirety that the word, Nisargadatta, is symbolizing. May

purity be found all around as I bow again and again with images of bouquets

handed to him, incense lit to him, fruit and purifying water given to him, and a

seat in my heart offered to him. May my flowing tears never stop as I sing of

him. I bow. I bow. I bow.

 

" This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is born, is

time-bound.

 

--- " This " obviously must be an object of consciousness. A pointer. Something

examined like a fractal being entered.

 

--- " consciousness " gives a name to " this "

 

--- " which depends on the food body which is born " Consciousness is shown to be

relative, dependent, illusory, ephemeral, having a starting point (and thus an

ending point -- and " ending " means utter annihilation.) And " food body " points

to the earthy milch kind physicality of consciousness' embodiment. A food body

must necessarily be a processing plant that ceases functioning if the raw

commodities stop coming to the plant. Stop eating, and you'll stop

consciousness-ing. If consciousness ends, there cannot be any objects of

consciousness: thoughts. All objects of consciousness are thoughts -- mental

processing parsed -- all of them -- every one of them -- symbols all. Each a

shadow on a cave wall; each one shaped by the hands of bound prisoners held up

between the source of the light and the wall to cast the shadows.

 

--- " is time-bound. " The body occupies space, obviously, so time is also brought

into the mix for completion's sake in this jargon of modern physics era.

Space/time is something " of the body. " Without the body, there is no space/time

in which the thought " space/time " can be presented. If the factory is not given

food commodities, space/time cannot be born. Space/time has no independent

existence of brain processing -- if the brain dies, the universe dies --

" universe " is ALL CONCEPTS. That which does not cease when the brain dies for

lack of food is THAT -- and " it " is beyond space/time. THAT, if sought, cannot

be embodied in any sort of " found it-ness " -- that is, cannot be framed as

consciousness; however, consciousness, if present, can entertain an endless

flowing of concepts that are each and all " parts " of the infinity that can be

found in consciousness' larder/pantry of food spawned concepts. Each a peer of

the other concepts. A peer. Each a product of food processing.

 

If you wake from a dream and say to me, " in my dream I sat on a chair, " I will

ask you, " So, which was more real: the chair or the dream body that sat in it? "

Obviously, each dream construct is a peer of the other -- each an object of

consciousness, each without a higher order of realness to be haughty about

towards the other. Each a creation of Mother Consciousness, each a cherished

child.

 

--- " That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, " Before food is

processed and consciousness born, THAT which is symbolized by concepts in

consciousness IS. Not " is " as a concept " is, " but IS. IS as THAT -- the

potency of which is magnificently beyond conceptuality/consciousness such that

" existing " is too small a concept to fully symbolize THAT. Existence is less

than half the story of THAT -- which embraces every iota of non-existingness too

-- and more: even the resolutions of paradox reside in the potency of THAT --

logic itself cannot throttle THAT. THAT, the Absolute, is never affected by the

flowing symbols of consciousness. No matter if the brain is Brahma's, even His

consciousness cannot grasp THAT fully. If Brahma dies, THAT is not even sent an

intra-office memo about His passing. THAT is beyond space-time, so anything

borne of food processing cannot be THAT. Thus all thoughts are false in that

they are grossly incomplete and merely dumb, blunt, fuzzy pointers.

 

--- " and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the

Absolute. " Note the word, " when. " " When " underlines that consciousness is time

bound always/all-times. Now note that consciousness can " be " without " being

something. " That is: consciousness can be empty of concepts while yet

retaining the quality " awareness. " That's known as samadhi. Then, take it

another step: the quality of consciousness -- awareness -- is now seen as a

functionality, and this " awareness " can be present or absent. When this

relative " awareness " of consciousness resides as a potency -- unexpressed --

unseen -- of the Absolute, it can be said that consciousness is unconscious.

When consciousness becomes conscious, the relative functionality, awareness, is

born. One can call the Absolute, " Fred, " or " consciousness, " and both " names "

will be partially correct. If you take a stick and point it anywhere, you are

pointing at everything just exactly as a fish can point anywhere and be bulleye

perfect in directing one to water. Any statement's opposite is as true as

anything else can be. Saying " Hitler was a nice guy " is as true to say as, " God

is love. " The dream chair is as real as the dream body sitting in it. Each

points to the potency of the Absolute. Like the side of a barn, throw anything

in its general direction and you'll hit it. And you can hit that barn every

time for all of time and never know the barn, the whole barn and nothing but the

barn. The map can never be the territory. 50,000 blind scientists cannot grasp

elephantness no matter how many " test samples " they take. Deep sleep is a state

of consciousness in which relative awareness is absent while AWARENESS, the

Absolute, is undiminished, untouched and able to even be the witness of

consciousness lacking awareness. Deep sleep is an experience, a state of

consciousness in which nothingness is the sole object.

 

--- " We are nothing but this consciousness. " We are not objects of consciousness

but, rather, the whole of consciousness itself, all four of its states. Amness,

pure being, pure consciousness is unsullied by any parsing of OM. This is the

true basis of our isness, the simplest state of our being manifest. Our " I

am-ness " is the home of all qualities. Any object of consciousness is yet

another " example of me. " Any object of consciousness is yet another piece of my

everythingness that springs from the potential of amness. This is the primal

ego, the first act of identification, the first delusion falsely validated. As

a divine tool, we are unable to manifest nothings and must perforce only juggle

somethings, yet the divine attempts the impossible: symbolizing the Absolute

with a palette that only has half the colors needed. We are one-armed jugglers

of half truths.

 

--- " My apparent dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. Only by

surrendering to my being less than everything and to my less than being every

non-thing, only by stepping out of my divinity's potency, can I say " I am. "

Brahma steps down from purity by manifesting all the ways that purity can be

partial. This tautologicality is the best that can be presented as " knowledge. "

 

--- " It is this sentience which enables me to perceive you. " This falsity, this

illusion of mind, this space-time bound " me-ness " must be boot-strapped into a

semblance of sentience such that -- if I am assumed to exist, then all others

can be assumed to exist also, and in that assumptioning, conversation becomes

possible. In order for the Absolute to be symbolized more perfectly,

imperfection itself is created for completion's sake, so that the Grand

Ventriloquist is able to have two dummies talking to each other about the

Ventriloquist who's lips never move. There they are sitting in the lap of the

Absolute and being the voices of a silent person. Gotta laugh at that, eh?

 

--- " This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there before

this consciousness appeared. " Here I declare that amness is merely a

manifestation from THAT, and that I know it to be an image of myself instead of

MY ACTUAL SELF. If consciousness never was, if consciousness never could be, if

no person ever existed, yet would the Absolute be the only reality. It is that

beyondness that is itself without having to manifest a partiality to symbolize

it. When I use the word, " before, " I'm underlining that language forces one to

assume that space-time is real in order for the illusion of a conversation to be

compelling. I surrender to the unreal's axioms in order to invalidate them. A

thorn to remove a thorn.

 

There's my attempt. Yours would be studied by me like a PhD scoring someone's

responses to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Let's have your

best shot. I'm braced. I'm ready. I'm willing.

 

Edg

 

 

isn't that special.

 

i'm happy for you.

 

i think.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:27 PM

Re: Prior to consciousness

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Yes...nis is all and the man in front of him thinks he is limited to a

> body

> and nis speaks about the confusion. But you say nis needs the illusion of

> a

> center himself in order to recognise a man in front of him as having such

> illusion. Makes sense?

> -geo-

 

Nis. didn't see a man in front of him.

 

He saw himself in front of him, and himself behind him, and himself within

him.

 

The other was himself, the words heard from the other were himself, and the

words uttered in response were himself.

 

With only 'himself', no periphery, thus no center.

-tim-

 

So nis saw himself as identified with his own body and told himself so!!! OK

tim.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:49 PM

Re: Prior to consciousness

 

 

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111

wrote:

>

> nothing is either right or wrong.

>

> alcohol is a drug.

>

> one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs..

 

So what? Life is a drug. It kills ya. Big .

 

" complex and addictive and debilitating " ...blahblah nonsense. Some folks

like to be indoctrinated by society.

 

Do what ya like. Life happens once. There are no rules.

 

> i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again.

>

> thanks for the admission.

 

Nobody admitted to anything, but lots of folks imagine 'admissions' from

imaginary persons they've never met, and probably never will. Nor do they

want to, only to imagine them so they can draw a pretend line around

themselves and have a pretend center.

-tim-

 

You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per your

own words.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:59 PM

Re: Prior to consciousness

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > nothing is either right or wrong.

> >

> > alcohol is a drug.

> >

> > one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs..

>

> So what? Life is a drug. It kills ya. Big .

>

> " complex and addictive and debilitating " ...blahblah nonsense. Some folks

> like to be indoctrinated by society.

>

> Do what ya like. Life happens once. There are no rules.

>

> > i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again.

> >

> > thanks for the admission.

>

> Nobody admitted to anything, but lots of folks imagine 'admissions' from

> imaginary persons they've never met, and probably never will. Nor do they

> want to, only to imagine them so they can draw a pretend line around

> themselves and have a pretend center.

 

i understand your defensiveness.

 

it's called denial.

 

everyone is familiar with it..

 

and does it themselves or has an addicted friend or relative..

 

who utilize it to defend their right to be addicted.

 

usually..in severe cases such as yours..

 

not only is the addiction denied..

 

but the addicted self is denied as well..

 

and it's destructive behavior is falsely considered..

 

an extention of everyone else.

 

" Everyone does it " is the usual refrain.

 

and as you think you see yourself in everyone..

 

you give perfect display of this typical self defense mechanism.

 

drink up!

 

i don't care.

 

but don't try to bullshit me like you're doing with yourself.

 

talk is even cheaper than the rotgut you're in love with.

 

enjoy timmy.

 

tough love son.

 

..b b.b.

 

And...what about grass?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> With only 'himself', no periphery, thus no center.

> -tim-

>

> So nis saw himself as identified with his own body and told himself

> so!!! OK

> tim.

> -geo-

 

Isn't it Geo taking Tim to mean " the body " when he says " himself " , and then

saying " OK, Tim " after he takes his own imagination to be reality? ;-).

 

The body is not oneself. This was never suggested, anywhere, but Geo

immediately jumped to the conclusion.

 

Do such conclusions bind anyone but the imaginer?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per > your

> own words.

> -geo-

 

Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:59 PM

> Re: Prior to consciousness

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > nothing is either right or wrong.

> > >

> > > alcohol is a drug.

> > >

> > > one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs..

> >

> > So what? Life is a drug. It kills ya. Big .

> >

> > " complex and addictive and debilitating " ...blahblah nonsense. Some folks

> > like to be indoctrinated by society.

> >

> > Do what ya like. Life happens once. There are no rules.

> >

> > > i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again.

> > >

> > > thanks for the admission.

> >

> > Nobody admitted to anything, but lots of folks imagine 'admissions' from

> > imaginary persons they've never met, and probably never will. Nor do they

> > want to, only to imagine them so they can draw a pretend line around

> > themselves and have a pretend center.

>

> i understand your defensiveness.

>

> it's called denial.

>

> everyone is familiar with it..

>

> and does it themselves or has an addicted friend or relative..

>

> who utilize it to defend their right to be addicted.

>

> usually..in severe cases such as yours..

>

> not only is the addiction denied..

>

> but the addicted self is denied as well..

>

> and it's destructive behavior is falsely considered..

>

> an extention of everyone else.

>

> " Everyone does it " is the usual refrain.

>

> and as you think you see yourself in everyone..

>

> you give perfect display of this typical self defense mechanism.

>

> drink up!

>

> i don't care.

>

> but don't try to bullshit me like you're doing with yourself.

>

> talk is even cheaper than the rotgut you're in love with.

>

> enjoy timmy.

>

> tough love son.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> And...what about grass?

> -geo-

 

 

i mow it.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:23 PM

Re: Prior to consciousness

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per >

> your

> own words.

> -geo-

 

Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self?

-geo-

 

You mean you are a tape-recorder? So that you can say it without a self?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:23 PM

> Re: Prior to consciousness

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per >

> > your

> > own words.

> > -geo-

>

> Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self?

> -geo-

>

> You mean you are a tape-recorder? So that you can say it without a > self?

> -geo-

 

Everything is said without a self. What Geo says is said without a self, too.

 

The words " I " and " you " just arise, now, from nowhere, and get posted. Just

like a tape recorder spitting back words, yes.

 

Has Geo ever planned on having a particular thought, and then carried his plans

out? ;-). He's a dictation machine, spitting out words.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per > your

> > own words.

> > -geo-

>

> Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self?

 

 

it can only say anything if:

 

a self invented it and manufactured it.

 

someone recorded something on the tape that it decodes.

 

it says nothing whatsoever about nor to the inventor nor recorder.

 

only a self could do that.

 

every now and then..

 

like " every now and then " having a brewski eh?

 

even though it's all HERE and NOW..

 

if all those 9%ers were goin' down the ol' hatch NOW..

 

WOW!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> So you are not your body. So no self. So you can not say geo is

> making

> imagination as reallity (a per tims words)

> -geo-

 

The self is not a body. Never has been.

 

The self is a sense as if there is " me " here, this sense appearing as the notion

that one is a body, or is in a body.

 

This is very obvious, as folks talk all the time about " the soul " , and life

after death, being a 'ghost'.

 

So forget about the body. It's only an anchor for the sense of 'me', it is not

itself the 'me'.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per >

your

> > > own words.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self?

>

>

> it can only say anything if:

>

> a self invented it and manufactured it.

 

I'm not interested in arguing about this, or anything. Not interested in

one-upping someone.

 

Or rather, you're not interested. You being (who I imagine as) Tim.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > So you are not your body. So no self. So you can not say geo is

> > making

> > imagination as reallity (a per tims words)

> > -geo-

>

> The self is not a body. Never has been.

>

> The self is a sense as if there is " me " here, this sense appearing as the

notion that one is a body, or is in a body.

>

> This is very obvious, as folks talk all the time about " the soul " , and life

after death, being a 'ghost'.

>

> So forget about the body. It's only an anchor for the sense of 'me', it is

not itself the 'me'.

 

 

who is?

 

there is no self.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per >

your

> > > > own words.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self?

> >

> >

> > it can only say anything if:

> >

> > a self invented it and manufactured it.

>

> I'm not interested in arguing about this, or anything. Not interested in

one-upping someone.

>

> Or rather, you're not interested. You being (who I imagine as) Tim.

 

 

 

i really don't care what you're interested in or not.

 

do you need to run out because you ran out?

 

s'okay by me.

 

get a few health bars with those brew refills.

 

good advice.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:30 PM

Re: Prior to consciousness

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:23 PM

> Re: Prior to consciousness

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per >

> > your

> > own words.

> > -geo-

>

> Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self?

> -geo-

>

> You mean you are a tape-recorder? So that you can say it without a > self?

> -geo-

 

Everything is said without a self. What Geo says is said without a self,

too.

 

The words " I " and " you " just arise, now, from nowhere, and get posted. Just

like a tape recorder spitting back words, yes.

 

Has Geo ever planned on having a particular thought, and then carried his

plans out? ;-). He's a dictation machine, spitting out words.

-geo-

 

Has awareness anything to do with words?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is

born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, and

when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the

Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent dependence is on

this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this sentience which enables me to

perceive you. This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there

before this consciousness appeared. "

 

Thanks for posting this.

 

Nice quote.

 

If you follow this scenario carefully as depicted, the observer (a sentient

entity) and the observed (the consciousness of the body sustained by food) is

the same.

 

The observer is the observed.

 

There is no space apart.

 

If there is no distance apart, there is no way for a " true definition " to be

made.

 

Therefore, this so-called consciousness can't define what it really is.

 

The attempt to define results in a body-consciousness and an assumed location

for the awareness (associated with and as the consciousness).

 

But that never really happened, was assumed by never actually could be defined.

 

So, there is, indeed, simply " this awareness " being, without ever knowing itself

(as an object or as something named).

 

There is an attempt to define, an intent to exist, an intent to know forms and

be formed ... but never an actuality to it.

 

" This consciousness appeared " ...

 

But did it really?

 

If the appearance and the one it appears to has no distance apart, has something

appeared, has something happened?

 

Happening and not-happening are the same.

 

Awareness and that which happens to awareness are the same.

 

Being and non-being are one.

 

Hence the teaching offered by Nisargadatta somewhere else: I am neither

existence nor non-existence.

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is

born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, and

when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the

Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent dependence is on

this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this sentience which enables me to

perceive you. This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there

before this consciousness appeared. "

> >

>

>

> I am, therefore no need to think that I am.

 

 

Neither " am " nor " am not. "

 

Neither " I " nor something else, other than " I. "

 

-- Dan --

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > Werner Woehr

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM

> > > > > Re: Prior to consciousness

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body

which is

> > > > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the

Absolute,

> > > > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it

is

> > > > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent

> > > > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this

> > > > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not

have

> > > > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness

appeared. "

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing

as

> > > > > the 'Absolute'.

> > > > >

> > > > > Werner

> > > > >

> > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > > How can somebody be a word?

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Tim, if he is stupid enough, he can. 'At the beginning there was the

WORD'.

> > >

> > > Btw, the I-structure is not words but memories, conditioned

> > > reflexes and responses amd manifests in reactions and emotions. But > when

this I-structure is expressing itself and communicating with

> > > other I-structures it is using words. And some very stupid people

> > > who had put there noses a bit into Advaita books eventually will

> > > state such a nonsense like 'how can somebody be a word ?.

> >

> > No need for insults, Word-ner ;-). No need to put folks down in order to

talk with them.

> >

> > In fact, as far as 'normal conversing' (very far from what typically happens

on this list) goes, calling someone " stupid " will end the conversation

immediately. But, of course, one knows this already, and is taking advantage of

the mailing list format in order to be purposely separative.

> >

> > That's OK... it's understood here that Word-ner feels a very strong need to

separate himself from 'others' -- to say " I am ME, and you are YOU " . " I am

smart and YOU are stupid " . Etc.

> >

> > It's all good.

> >

>

>

>

> Hey, my 2 cents, we've all been down the *Stupid Road*... if we hadn't we

certainly wouldn't be talking about nothing all the time.

>

> lol.

>

> ~A

 

 

That's assuming there is any time involved.

 

- D -