Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > 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 > > True... the 'point' (if any) is to release attachments, release our interest and investment in the self-image, not try and strengthen it on these lists, eh? Can something that has no existence be strengthened? - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > 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- > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited framework > the absolute is nonexitent. > -geo- Only a relative (illusory) sentient being manufactures two words used together like " the Absolute. " One being this mis-named " absolute " involves no self-naming, no self-reflection, and no other to proclaim any self-nature to. Hence, neither " relative " nor " absolute " apply, neither " one " nor " none " ... - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > 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- > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > framework > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > -geo- > > Yes, folks are too busy with 'other things'. > > With others, in general. > > With separating themselves as firmly as possible, so as to imagine oneself as an individual " me " . > > It's an incredibly flimsy non-foundation for living an imaginary life in a dream world. > > And folks are doing it all the time. What folks? Those " others " who don't exist? They are doing something? I see the activity you are referring to. It is an " attempt " - made by no one. I'm not fooled by it, anymore than I'm fooled by any second-rate horror movie. When I was young, those kind of horror movies seemed real scary. So, they fooled me temporarily. " As a child, I saw as I child. Then, I put away childish things. " " I saw as through a glass darkly, now I see face to face. " - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:58 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > 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- > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > framework > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > -geo- > > Yes, folks are too busy with 'other things'. > > With others, in general. > > With separating themselves as firmly as possible, so as to imagine oneself > as an individual " me " . > > It's an incredibly flimsy non-foundation for living an imaginary life in a > dream world. > > And folks are doing it all the time. > -tim- > > How would you " show " another that the center is an illusion? > -geo- There is only one " way. " And that way is no way. It is being. Being without any center added in or attempted as an attaching point. It is over before it is begun. And to whom will it be shown? To a contradictory activity? Thus, the metaphor has been used, of a dream: Upon awakening from a dream, does one want to return back to the dream and show all the dream characters from the night before that it is possible to be awake? - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > anabebe57 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:56 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > True... the 'point' (if any) is to release attachments, release our > > interest and investment in the self-image, not try and strengthen it on > > these lists, eh? > > > > I have a theory... and mind you it's only a theory... (as most everything > under heaven hell and earth are) human beings --other than > emerging in the bodies of male and female--(except those who are > conjoined and/or hermaphroditic) evolve from two soures.. > > One is from earth---up the animal kingdom. to see through the > consciousness of human.. the other *kind* is from the etheric realms > and those *come down* to the consciousness of human... > > The same thing with egos... Most have a giant ego to break down, to > deconstruct...and some have a small ego to re-construct... Both the result > of destiny and experience.... > > Trouble is we never know who is who. > > And if you don't like my theories, so what... it's just time I wasted > writing and you reading... > > ;-) > > Hugs of love to all, > Anna > > The problem with your theory is that ego is the observer, me. There is no > such thing as a big observer or a small one. There is the illusion of one or > there is not. > -geo- Yes, there is the holding to the belief in the illusion of beings who have selves, or who are selves, or there is not that holding to the belief in an illusion. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:33 PM 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. " 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. -dan- Now this is interesting. When we say the observer is the observed are we referring to consciousness or awareness - the absolute? -geo- 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. -dan- It is not really a matter of definition - which is just thought - but the seeing clearly of consciousness in its limited " space " . The moment seeing happens something changes. It is not consciousness seeing itself anymore. -geo- 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). -dan- Just awareness being would be totaly unaware of any-thing. Are we in deep sleep? -geo- 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? -geo- As waves in awareness. Empty patternings of awareness. -geo- 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. -dan- Here you are considering awarenes as the absolute? But...yes they are the same. Awareness is aware of its waves. NOthing apart. -geo- Being and non-being are one. Hence the teaching offered by Nisargadatta somewhere else: I am neither existence nor non-existence. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > 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- > > > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > > framework > > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > > -geo- > > > > Yes, folks are too busy with 'other things'. > > > > With others, in general. > > > > With separating themselves as firmly as possible, so as to imagine oneself as an individual " me " . > > > > It's an incredibly flimsy non-foundation for living an imaginary life in a dream world. > > > > And folks are doing it all the time. > > > " folks " ? > > timmy.. > > listen kid.. > > you are not outside the phantom herd son. > > get over yourself. > > .b b.b. The phantom herd? Yes. I hear their hooves. In fact, it may be a stampede. I don't know about you, but I'm staying out of their way. I wonder who it is that rounded them up, scared them, and sent them my way? Damn his eyes, whoever he is. - Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:39 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > 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- > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > framework > the absolute is nonexitent. > -geo- Only a relative (illusory) sentient being manufactures two words used together like " the Absolute. " One being this mis-named " absolute " involves no self-naming, no self-reflection, and no other to proclaim any self-nature to. Hence, neither " relative " nor " absolute " apply, neither " one " nor " none " ... - Dan - Of course there is no refference to it. Or do yout think geo has invented some name identical to it? Just like dan who used the expression " this mis-named " absolute " " to try to reffer to something non-referrable. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:43 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > 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- > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > framework > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > -geo- > > Yes, folks are too busy with 'other things'. > > With others, in general. > > With separating themselves as firmly as possible, so as to imagine oneself > as an individual " me " . > > It's an incredibly flimsy non-foundation for living an imaginary life in a > dream world. > > And folks are doing it all the time. What folks? Those " others " who don't exist? They are doing something? I see the activity you are referring to. It is an " attempt " - made by no one. I'm not fooled by it, anymore than I'm fooled by any second-rate horror movie. When I was young, those kind of horror movies seemed real scary. So, they fooled me temporarily. " As a child, I saw as I child. Then, I put away childish things. " " I saw as through a glass darkly, now I see face to face. " - Dan - Yes..it is the nature of consciousness. No entities envolved - in this entity-filled-movie - amazing! -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:46 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:58 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > 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- > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > framework > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > -geo- > > Yes, folks are too busy with 'other things'. > > With others, in general. > > With separating themselves as firmly as possible, so as to imagine oneself > as an individual " me " . > > It's an incredibly flimsy non-foundation for living an imaginary life in a > dream world. > > And folks are doing it all the time. > -tim- > > How would you " show " another that the center is an illusion? > -geo- There is only one " way. " And that way is no way. It is being. Being without any center added in or attempted as an attaching point. It is over before it is begun. And to whom will it be shown? To a contradictory activity? Thus, the metaphor has been used, of a dream: Upon awakening from a dream, does one want to return back to the dream and show all the dream characters from the night before that it is possible to be awake? - Dan - Yes, that is what you(we) are doing. There is a heart - it seems - a very rarely considered poor heart...It is beating. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:21 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > A question. Would you say Nis. had the illusion of a center when he > > addressed people in the room, telling one or another tha the was > > identified > > with his body? > > -geo- > > Based on impressions here from his words, there's no impression that there > was any illusion of a center. But he had to talk this way... how else can > folks talk to each other? One speaks as though through a " lens " or > " telescope " , knowing that this is what most folks are limited to... there's > no other way to talk. > > Nor is there really any point at all to the talking... which Nisargadatta > knew as well, saying it was all " mental entertainment to pass the time " , or > something like that. > -tim- > > Sorry, no...the question I am raising is: did Nis recognized/saw those in > the room who where identified with the body? Not asking about the > " motives/reasons " of his taliking to them or not. > -geo- This isn't really a question about Nisargadatta. He's a fictional character. He's whatever you make up about him, based on words that you never heard, translated into a language you're familiar with. This is a question of x (the one imagined to be reading or writing). When I address people about being identified with the body, am I seeing people identified with the body? Is there such a thing as a person identified with the body? How do you answer your own question?? I know how I answer this, but is that important (to you, the one who writes " over there " )? Or, is the one writing over there, the one reading over here? If so, then " my " answer is the same as " your " answer, is the same as " Nisargadatta's " answer. If this is nondual, this awareness, then you know the answer. To the question you ask. Who are you addressing? When you see an animate object, that produces language and expresses ideas - who are you seeing? What is it that you see? To whom are you speaking about their " identification? " What is it " to identify as ... " or " identify with ... " What is going on with that activity? Is there a central location that is making that activity happen? *You know* Not by your words and ideas. Not by knowing something about someone else or something else. You know without any reliance on words, ideas, or someone else. So, you know, but not by what is commonly understood as knowing. You know by being. By being this, which has no name to it. The twistedness by which " identification " involves obsessions, compulsions, attacks against others to defend self, attacks against self to appease others -- this twisted activity, call it what you will, is not being done by some located agency. When you address this, you are what you are addressing. The observer is the observed. That which is being addressed, is the one addressing it. The appearance of separation in time and space, the distance that there seems to be between someone addressing something seen in an other, and that other who hears what is being said about his or her activity -- that appearance is understood. It is understood indivisibly. As you have said, reflecting Krishnamurti's words: it is one, undivided, movement. And it is not even that. Not even " one, " not even a " movement " ... You know this first-hand, by being this, without knowing anything. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:35 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > 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- > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > framework > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > -geo- > > maybe the better question would be: > > how can " someone " " be " ? > > geo> Well...there is being as a person and there is just being per-se > > why try and qualify the fundamental mystery with comparisons... > > or try and make the inexplicable a defined " thing " ? > > what is unknown is..has always been..will always be.. > > UNKNOWN. > > it's not within the realm of discussion. > > that's silly boys. > > .b b.b. > > geo> The " person " feels he knows who he is as the observer, limiting itself. That's just it. Who is this person who hears, observes, responds? Is one willing to be ripped apart in order to know? To lose everything? Otherwise, it's not worth asking the question. And if you lose everything, and know the emptiness of personhood, when you address persons, you know who and what you're addressing. You know the emptiness of the situation (meaning the emptiness of any grounding, of any center to it). - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:21 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > A question. Would you say Nis. had the illusion of a center when he > > > addressed people in the room, telling one or another tha the was > > > identified > > > with his body? > > > -geo- > > > > Based on impressions here from his words, there's no impression that there > > was any illusion of a center. But he had to talk this way... how else can > > folks talk to each other? One speaks as though through a " lens " or > > " telescope " , knowing that this is what most folks are limited to... there's > > no other way to talk. > > > > Nor is there really any point at all to the talking... which Nisargadatta > > knew as well, saying it was all " mental entertainment to pass the time " , or > > something like that. > > -tim- > > > > Sorry, no...the question I am raising is: did Nis recognized/saw those in > > the room who where identified with the body? Not asking about the > > " motives/reasons " of his taliking to them or not. > > -geo- > > > well tim should know.. > > he says he is you and you is me and we is he and he is Nisargadatta. > > go timmy go! > > keep us in the know.. > > about what you know and we don't.. > > even though us is you. > > hey!.. > > " Us R YOU " .. > > a new playground for children and their childish thoughts! > > LOL! > > .b b.b. There is one who has never said anything about this. One who never had anyone to address about any of it. Who is this one? Is it Bob, is it Dan, is it Tim, is it Anna, is it Geo, is it someone else? Who is the ale man, he could be you ... a man with a thirst for a manlier brew .... .... and the wind, cries, Mary ... -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:35 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > 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- > > > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > > framework > > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > > -geo- > > > > maybe the better question would be: > > > > how can " someone " " be " ? > > > > geo> Well...there is being as a person and there is just being per-se > > > > why try and qualify the fundamental mystery with comparisons... > > > > or try and make the inexplicable a defined " thing " ? > > > > what is unknown is..has always been..will always be.. > > > > UNKNOWN. > > > > it's not within the realm of discussion. > > > > that's silly boys. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > geo> The " person " feels he knows who he is as the observer, limiting itself. > > > " person " ? > > oh c'mon now. > > by the way.. > > what does " feels " mean? > > does the foot feel the ground or does it feel itself? > > .b b.b. What does feeling feeling itself, feel like, Bob? - Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:52 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Sorry, no...the question I am raising is: did Nis recognized/saw > > those in > > the room who where identified with the body? Not asking about the > > " motives/reasons " of his taliking to them or not. > > -geo- > > Sorry, I can't speak for Nis., nor can he any more speak for 'himself'. > -tim- > > C'mon tim. He would ask a few questions and immediatly know wether the > person was or not idetified with his body. In other words..for a person who > has transcended the illusion of a center it is not difficult to recognize > those who have not. The other way around is not possible of course. > -geo- Geo - By saying this, you are placing a center for awareness in a person. You are imagining a person who knows what is going on with another person, and that both persons don't have a center, and that lots of other persons do have centers. How important is this imagined scenario to Geo? Is it important that Geo be a person, and be able to recognize what is going on with and in another person, and that Geo has no center, and knows someone else who has no center, but knows other people who have centers and can tell them about it? How or why would this construction be important, and to whom? If it is not important, then clarifying it isn't necessary. If it is important, one would then be able to say why, and to whom? For example, is it important for people, who really have their own self-existence, to have a teacher apart from them, who really has his own self-existence, so he (or she) can tell them what they are doing wrong to manufacture their centers? Or is this scenario itself a misunderstanding, requiring the belief in persons that have and don't have centers, which itself requires that a center be projected as if having an existence? - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:07 PM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > What you sense is that conflict is getting near. Contradiction. But > > you are > > too sure of yourself to admit it - so lets blame geo. > > -geo- > > OK, fine, I'll say it again. > > There's no center " here " , > > and there's no center " there " . > > Yes, it's possible that a center is actively generated through imagination > in one place, and not actively generated through imagination in another. > > I don't know where those places might be. > > Nor do I care. > > Since Geo apparently cares, he can dream up what he wants. > > Or not. > -tim- > > 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- Given what you just said above, Geo, the clearest way to help is not to help. The most compassionate action is to take no action. Any attempt to " help " the other just feeds into the belief that there is someone apart needing help, who will benefit from getting something from someone else who knows more, or better, or doesn't rely on a center unlike the someone existing apart who does rely on a center. The question here isn't " what did someone else's guru do for them. " The question is, " what is it to truly do nothing? " Because what people usually misunderstand as doing nothing, is actually doing something (i.e., behaving passively, going away somewhere, ignoring someone else). - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > 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- Geo - Who is this " himself " that Nis. saw, that you're talking about? And where is it located in order to " be identified with a body " ? When he was " speaking to himself " ... where was he located?? - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Tim G. > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > 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- > > > > > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > > > framework > > > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Yes, folks are too busy with 'other things'. > > > > > > With others, in general. > > > > > > With separating themselves as firmly as possible, so as to imagine oneself as an individual " me " . > > > > > > It's an incredibly flimsy non-foundation for living an imaginary life in a dream world. > > > > > > And folks are doing it all the time. > > > > > > " folks " ? > > > > timmy.. > > > > listen kid.. > > > > you are not outside the phantom herd son. > > > > get over yourself. > > > > .b b.b. > > > The phantom herd? > > Yes. > > I hear their hooves. > > In fact, it may be a stampede. > > I don't know about you, but I'm staying out of their way. > > I wonder who it is that rounded them up, scared them, and sent them my way? > > Damn his eyes, whoever he is. > > - Dan do you know what the relationship is between your two eyes? they blink together..move together..they cry together. they see things together and they sleep together. BUT THEY NEVER SEE EACH OTHER.... that's what their true and obvious functionality is. life is lonely without that peering... into the eyes of an other... whoever s/he is. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:21 AM > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > A question. Would you say Nis. had the illusion of a center when he > > > > addressed people in the room, telling one or another tha the was > > > > identified > > > > with his body? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Based on impressions here from his words, there's no impression that there > > > was any illusion of a center. But he had to talk this way... how else can > > > folks talk to each other? One speaks as though through a " lens " or > > > " telescope " , knowing that this is what most folks are limited to... there's > > > no other way to talk. > > > > > > Nor is there really any point at all to the talking... which Nisargadatta > > > knew as well, saying it was all " mental entertainment to pass the time " , or > > > something like that. > > > -tim- > > > > > > Sorry, no...the question I am raising is: did Nis recognized/saw those in > > > the room who where identified with the body? Not asking about the > > > " motives/reasons " of his taliking to them or not. > > > -geo- > > > > > > well tim should know.. > > > > he says he is you and you is me and we is he and he is Nisargadatta. > > > > go timmy go! > > > > keep us in the know.. > > > > about what you know and we don't.. > > > > even though us is you. > > > > hey!.. > > > > " Us R YOU " .. > > > > a new playground for children and their childish thoughts! > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > > There is one who has never said anything about this. > > One who never had anyone to address about any of it. > > Who is this one? > > Is it Bob, is it Dan, is it Tim, is it Anna, is it Geo, is it someone else? > > Who is the ale man, he could be you ... a man with a thirst for a manlier brew .... > > ... and the wind, cries, Mary ... > > > -- Dan away out here they got a name.. for rain and wind and fire. the rain is Tess..the fire Joe.. and they call the wind.... whatever they call the wind. i don't know those people above. least of all the one named Bob. he's the greatest of all mysteries for me. and i call him by a thousand names... as i paint my wagon. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 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. The arguments and discussions can go back and forth ad infinitum. Any time a specific self is posited, it can be negated. Any time a negation of existing beings is posited, a specific being or self can be used as a counter. The absolute can be used to negate the relative. The relative can be used to negate the absolute. All can be used to negate the partial. The partial can be used to negate the whole. Affirmations can counter negations. Negations can counter affirmations. Negations affirm. Affirmations negate. Round and round we go. There is nowhere to get off. So, this is where I get off. And where do I get off saying what I just said? I don't. Or do I? Yesno, Noyes, Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:35 AM > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Tim G. > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > 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- > > > > > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > > > framework > > > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > maybe the better question would be: > > > > > > how can " someone " " be " ? > > > > > > geo> Well...there is being as a person and there is just being per-se > > > > > > why try and qualify the fundamental mystery with comparisons... > > > > > > or try and make the inexplicable a defined " thing " ? > > > > > > what is unknown is..has always been..will always be.. > > > > > > UNKNOWN. > > > > > > it's not within the realm of discussion. > > > > > > that's silly boys. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > geo> The " person " feels he knows who he is as the observer, limiting itself. > > > > > > " person " ? > > > > oh c'mon now. > > > > by the way.. > > > > what does " feels " mean? > > > > does the foot feel the ground or does it feel itself? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > What does feeling feeling itself, feel like, Bob? > > - Dan beats me. what is asking, asking asking, really asking, dan? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:33 PM > 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. " > > 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. > -dan- > > Now this is interesting. When we say the observer is the observed are we > referring to consciousness or awareness - the absolute? > -geo- D: At the point that the observer is the observed with no distance apart, awareness is clear as awareness. With the assumption of distance apart, all kinds of things can " materialize " as if existing. In order to be experienced as having their own existence apart, a " consciousness " is postulated to " encounter " them. Thus, the imagining of a situated " consciousness. " And the so-called food body or meat body - that is a contradiction, a thing experienced as an object that also assumes " consciousness " for the experiencing of itself as object. The observer is always the observed. Even when there are " manifestations " seemingly occurring. Even when objects are encountered, perceptions taking place, and even when there are strangely twisted actions seeming to indicate an addiction to a center. The observer is never not the observed. Which is to say, there is nothing that is not awareness. > 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. > -dan- > > It is not really a matter of definition - which is just thought - but the > seeing clearly of consciousness in its limited " space " . The moment seeing > happens something changes. It is not consciousness seeing itself anymore. D: When you say something changes - has something really changed? To me, this is a key point involved in this discussion. Because of something has really changed, something can and should be done about it. But if nothing has really changed, it makes sense, clearly, to do nothing. I would ask you to say how awareness changes itself into something else? > 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). > -dan- > > Just awareness being would be totaly unaware of any-thing. Are we in deep > sleep? D: Deep sleep is something you're aware of. You conceptualize it in contrast to being awake, as different states of your " consciousness. " Awareness as is, neither is aware of something, nor is it lacking in any awareness (since it is awareness). Thus, one is not " unaware. " One is aware. There is no " of " .. there is no something else. There is no sense of being aware. Nor is there any lack of awareness. > 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? > As waves in awareness. Empty patternings of awareness. > -geo- D: What is the extent of the " emptiness " - because if the emptiness is empty of being empty (as any kind of quality or condition), then the waves can't be said to be or not to be. They neither appear nor fail to appear. > 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. > -dan- > > Here you are considering awarenes as the absolute? But...yes they are the > same. Awareness is aware of its waves. NOthing apart. > -geo- Do you see that awareness neither is aware of its waves, nor is lacking awareness of waves? There is no distance apart, as you noted. So there is no wave-characteristics. To have a characteristics, to be experience-able, there is some kind of form or quality. And how is there the sense of sensing, of qualities, of form? When I see and hold an apple - how am I giving it its apple-ness? I am removing from that imagined location in space, everything that is not-an-apple. What remains, imaginarily, is a located apple. If I am clear on this, as I perceive, there neither is nor is not any perception occurring. The reason for communicating this is not to try to be right, to win a point in a debate. The reason for communicating this is that there is great delight in the being aware. Being aware is the ultimate fulfillment, I guess you could say. So, there are all kinds of communications about it, throughout the centuries, in all kinds of cultural contexts. But it is the being of this that counts, not the words said about it. So, when I'm sharing concepts about something that involves no conceptualization and can't be conceptualized, I'm well aware that no point can be scored, nothing can be won, there is no way to be right. And in winning nothing, one is " all this. " How big is all this? Does anyone know? How small is this? How come I can fit it in my pocket and walk down the street with it, and no one knows?? Smiles, -- Dan > Being and non-being are one. > > Hence the teaching offered by Nisargadatta somewhere else: I am neither > existence nor non-existence. > > - Dan - > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:39 PM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > 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- > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > framework > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > -geo- > > Only a relative (illusory) sentient being manufactures two words used > together like " the Absolute. " > > One being this mis-named " absolute " involves no self-naming, no > self-reflection, and no other to proclaim any self-nature to. > > Hence, neither " relative " nor " absolute " apply, neither " one " nor " none " ... > > - Dan - > > Of course there is no refference to it. Or do yout think geo has invented > some name identical to it? Just like dan who used the expression " this > mis-named " absolute " " to try to reffer to something non-referrable. > -geo- Yes, exactly so. - Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 "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.-dan- Ahh...but there is the need of seeing. This light...no need to define it...is "floating" in the sea of darkness. Certainly it was not here and now it is. Something happened indeed. Nothing was created, but these patterns as consciousness were not here before this body was born. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:20 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:07 PM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > What you sense is that conflict is getting near. Contradiction. But > > you are > > too sure of yourself to admit it - so lets blame geo. > > -geo- > > OK, fine, I'll say it again. > > There's no center " here " , > > and there's no center " there " . > > Yes, it's possible that a center is actively generated through imagination > in one place, and not actively generated through imagination in another. > > I don't know where those places might be. > > Nor do I care. > > Since Geo apparently cares, he can dream up what he wants. > > Or not. > -tim- > > 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- Given what you just said above, Geo, the clearest way to help is not to help. The most compassionate action is to take no action. Any attempt to " help " the other just feeds into the belief that there is someone apart needing help, who will benefit from getting something from someone else who knows more, or better, or doesn't rely on a center unlike the someone existing apart who does rely on a center. -dan- This is not the issue at hand. I dont want to help anyone. We are not discussing how to help or not help people or even how to act or not towards another. -geo- The question here isn't " what did someone else's guru do for them. " The question is, " what is it to truly do nothing? " Because what people usually misunderstand as doing nothing, is actually doing something (i.e., behaving passively, going away somewhere, ignoring someone else). - Dan - But as you raised another issue...yes, there is nothing to do. The guru thing is something that I found at tims site....that is all. Now, as it seems to diturb him, or seems inapropriate, then he should remove the statement from his own site. I dont have, never had, any guru. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
