Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:27 PM Re: Prior to consciousness 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 - Sorry dan...you are not following the context. I am pointing out the contradictions tim is saying and you are picking out senteces out of context. There is no himself as some nis.fellow I am pretty sure of that. He is/was not fragmented. It is obvious if one follows nis words. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > 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 - OK, the attempt can be made ;-). Note above that I said " try and strengthen " , not strengthen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > 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. Of course. Just having fun, talking to people, all that. What's not interesting here is debate over 'points', i.e. trying to be right and/or trying to make someone else wrong. Nothing could be duller, less interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 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. -dan- Jeez dan...now you are imagining waves in an ocean? There is no way to put it in words. Certainly not like that. Consciousness - and I am looking for words as an artist for colors or instruments - is a kind of movement (it is certainly not static) of awareness. I can not say what kind of movement is that. -geo- 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. -dan There is a perception! There is awareness of one single perception. The wholeness of consciousness. But there is nothing as non-perception co-existing with this. -geo- 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, 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 3:43 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- Yes, it is amazing. And amazement is a reaction, and a reaction is only possible as long as there is a distance between observer and observed. Amazing it is, up to the point where nothing can be said. Observing an endless complexity of being, constant change, perception and movement - spontaneous presentation of being on all sides. - Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 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.-dan- This will remain open. If a spend just a second pondering upon it is obvious that all is awareness. But then what is conflict? What is conflicting desires? What is thinking what one does not want to or is absolutely not interested in thinking? What is to be taken by envy, jeoulosy and the kill for it? What is to defent a country with bombs? Where is awareness? Then...is it not just a theory? What happened to it? -geo- 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 3:46 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- That is all .. the heart sound ... ba boom, ba boom, ba baoom ... echoing throughout the dream. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > 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. > -dan- > > This will remain open. If a spend just a second pondering upon it is obvious that all is awareness. But then what is conflict? What is conflicting desires? What is thinking what one does not want to or is absolutely not interested in thinking? What is to be taken by envy, > jeoulosy and the kill for it? What is to defent a country with > bombs? Awareness. Distorted into 'me' and 'you', but awareness nonetheless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > 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. Salud! - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:52 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > 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. > -dan- > > This will remain open. If a spend just a second pondering upon it is > obvious that all is awareness. But then what is conflict? What is > conflicting desires? What is thinking what one does not want to or is > absolutely not interested in thinking? What is to be taken by envy, > jeoulosy and the kill for it? What is to defent a country with > bombs? Awareness. Distorted into 'me' and 'you', but awareness nonetheless. -tim- That is what I mean. There is " straight " awareness and distorted one. Is it sometimes distorted? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:17 PM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > 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 - > > You are missunderstanding. The scenario is not about centers. The scenario > is non-fragmented awareness and fragmented - face to face. Non-fragmented > seems to have a natural inclination to point non-fragmentation. > -geo- Geo - Has awareness ever really been fragmented? - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > Of course. Just having fun, talking to people, all that. > > What's not interesting here is debate over 'points', i.e. trying to be right and/or trying to make someone else wrong. > > Nothing could be duller, less interesting. except for that. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > That is what I mean. There is " straight " awareness and distorted one. Is it > sometimes distorted? > -geo- Awareness can be distorted by thought, as if thought is a lens of sorts for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > " 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- So, you say. But, who are you, and what is your relationship to the something that appeared, and what it appeared in? And how could you possibly know this? -- Dan -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > 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- > > > Yes, it is amazing. And amazement is a reaction, and a reaction is only possible as long as there is a distance between observer and observed. > > Amazing it is, up to the point where nothing can be said. > > Observing an endless complexity of being, constant change, perception and movement - spontaneous presentation of being on all sides. > > - Dan " spontaneous presentation of being on all sides. " ? induced by what? or more precisely.. for what? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > 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. > > -dan- > > > > This will remain open. If a spend just a second pondering upon it is obvious that all is awareness. But then what is conflict? What is conflicting desires? What is thinking what one does not want to or is absolutely not interested in thinking? What is to be taken by envy, > > jeoulosy and the kill for it? What is to defent a country with > > bombs? > > Awareness. Distorted into 'me' and 'you', but awareness nonetheless. a theory that there is a theory that there are no theories... a conspiracy that there is a conspiracy..or maybe not. there's nothing said saying that there's nothing said. it. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > 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. > > it's asking asking whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous asking, or whether to take arms against a sea of questions, and by opposing, continue them... > > > -- D -- i love chocolate mint tea on a cool moonlit summer's eve. there is in the mind here no question about it. an idle enjoyment of woolgathering moment. tonight the lakeside. perchance to dream. inside dreams. unopposed. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:04 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > " 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- So, you say. But, who are you, and what is your relationship to the something that appeared, and what it appeared in? And how could you possibly know this? -- Dan -- There is knowing exactly because there is that which is not born, that never changes, but that is not consciousness. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:00 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:17 PM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > 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 - > > You are missunderstanding. The scenario is not about centers. The scenario > is non-fragmented awareness and fragmented - face to face. Non-fragmented > seems to have a natural inclination to point non-fragmentation. > -geo- Geo - Has awareness ever really been fragmented? - Dan - I am not sure. Waht happened to awareness when the me-others cosnciousness is in operation? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:03 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > That is what I mean. There is " straight " awareness and distorted one. Is > it > sometimes distorted? > -geo- Awareness can be distorted by thought, as if thought is a lens of sorts for it. -geo- Is thougth acting as a lens sometimes? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:27 PM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > 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 - > > Sorry dan...you are not following the context. I am pointing out the > contradictions tim is saying and you are picking out senteces out of > context. > There is no himself as some nis.fellow I am pretty sure of that. He is/was > not fragmented. It is obvious if one follows nis words. > -geo- Hi Geo - Okay, thanks for clarifying. I'm fine with leaving this here. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > 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 - > > OK, the attempt can be made ;-). Note above that I said " try and strengthen " , not strengthen. Yes, " try, " " attempt. " Si senor, Danielito Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:03 PM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > That is what I mean. There is " straight " awareness and distorted one. Is > > it > > sometimes distorted? > > -geo- > > Awareness can be distorted by thought, as if thought is a lens of sorts for > it. > -geo- > > Is thougth acting as a lens sometimes? > -geo- One must ask questions of the one able to answer fully and clearly. Hint: they aren't out there somewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > as you find this key..here it goes sniped > > -- > > geo>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? > > geo> Changes? Yes and no. Yes because when seeing is from within consciousness, meaning that there is the idea of a separte observer inside, all is distorted and limited to the movement pseudo-center/periphery. When the seeing is not from within consciousness there is an unitary seeing/doing/being. And no in the sense that the center, the movement ego-periphery is just thought. D: Okay. So there is nothing to do. All is done. I am done on this side. Turn me over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > 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. > -dan- > > Jeez dan...now you are imagining waves in an ocean? There is no way to put > it in words. Certainly not like that. Consciousness - and I am looking for > words as an artist for colors or instruments - is a kind of movement (it is > certainly not static) of awareness. I can not say what kind of movement is > that. > -geo- D: Okay. That's fine. I'm not looking for words that will make totality make sense. Movement is stillness. Stillness is movement. Movement is everchanging. The everchangingness is constant. Awareness is not in any of it. Awareness isn't behind it. Awareness is all of it and none of it. > 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. > -dan > > There is a perception! There is awareness of one single perception. The > wholeness of consciousness. But there is nothing as non-perception > co-existing with this. > -geo- Then, there is no meaning to " perception " if it has no opposite of it. Some people use the term " apperception " to refer to this. You know, it occurs to me that wars have been fought to determine which language to use, and what to use it for. 'But you and I have been through that, and this is not our fate. So let us not talk falsely now, the hour's getting late.' (From " All Along the Watchtower " ) - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
