Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 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? > Where is awareness? Then...is it not just a theory? What happened to it? > -geo- It's a great question, well worth asking because it's coming down all around us as we speak. Nothing happened to awareness. Awareness " naturally " manifests apparent opposites. There is no conflict " in " awareness - because nothing is in awareness, there is only awareness. One moment of clarity, and there is only clarity. As for the wars, jealousies, killing, deceit, manipulations, all based on a misunderstanding. There are different ways to explain this. However, one must ask: is there any such thing as " explaining? " Not really. If you look into what explaining is, it is bringing to bear a formula where there is no formula, for the sake of an entity who demands security in the known, where there is neither such an existence possible, nor any real security for a situated being. Nonetheless, if you push me to explain what happened to awareness, I'd say: a misunderstanding involving the tendency to attach to a situation. Once reality is constructed around a situation, that situation tends to have a " strange attraction " as a point to try to stay at. A point of seeming " self-existence " you could say. Awareness at once it totality-movement, synchronicity, and utter stillness. If it attempt to situate, to locate, it tries to keep itself from itself, by keeping itself to itself. It is in contradiction. Then, you get all these calamities. But has awareness ever really situated? Has anything ever really located? Or is it " just thought saying so? " And are explanations " by thought, for thought, and to accomplish goals of thought? " If so, the explanations will be as fragmented as what they are attempting to explain. So, what is there to do but laugh (or maybe cry) ... -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > 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. not induced. from nothing, by nothing, for nothing. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > 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. Shhhhhhh ..... it. -- D -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > 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. I suppose. so. - D - 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 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- If you are never born ... what do you know about " consciousness " ... and what do you know about something that is " not consciousness " ?? - D - 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 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- Nothing happens to awareness. There is no place outside of awareness for something to be situated that would happen to it, or do something to it. Simply be clear. Simply. be. Clear? Clear. One instant of clarity = eternity of clarity. Clarity that is not " of " anything, or happening " to " anything or anyone. One unborn has no concerns about what happens after you are born. One unborn has no intent to fix things for creatures who began and will end, no intention to confront them with their stupidity and distortion. One unborn is the moving of the stillness, and the stillness of the moving. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Once reality is constructed around a situation, that situation > tends to have a " strange attraction " as a point to try to stay at. > A point of seeming " self-existence " you could say. > > Awareness at once it totality-movement, synchronicity, and utter > stillness. > > If it attempt to situate, to locate, it tries to keep itself from > itself, by keeping itself to itself. It is in contradiction. It's as though the 'charge' of 'face to face' --> * <-- Results in the opposite 'configuration': <-- * --> We now have a " some " body, a " some " where... partialized. The stress of which (loneliness, boredom, depression), relieved only by socializing, by applying the 'opposite charge' again. 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 , " 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. > > > not induced. > > from nothing, by nothing, for nothing. > > - D - wow. that's really something. and that's easy to say. in and by and for itself. but it's nothing to talk about. what induces you to say anything at all. the question? there are no answers. beginning and end of story. just had to say that. though that too doesn't mean a damn thing. ..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 , " 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. > > > Shhhhhhh ..... > > > > it. > > > -- D -- let's wipe that out then. all of the old and most of the new. ..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 , " 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. > > > > I suppose. > > > so. > > > - D - ya think? huh! i don't. ..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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > 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- > > > Nothing happens to awareness. > > There is no place outside of awareness for something to be situated that would happen to it, or do something to it. > > Simply be clear. > > Simply. > > be. > > Clear? > > Clear. > > One instant of clarity = eternity of clarity. > > Clarity that is not " of " anything, or happening " to " anything or anyone. > > One unborn has no concerns about what happens after you are born. > > One unborn has no intent to fix things for creatures who began and will end, no intention to confront them with their stupidity and distortion. > > One unborn is the moving of the stillness, and the stillness of the moving. > > - D - nothing moves? no! it most certainly does not move. still... and All.. nobody knows. and nobody's the only that does know the unknown. without moving or staying still. it's indifferent to either notion or motion. ..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 , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " > > Thanks for posting this. > > Nice quote. > > If you follow this scenario carefully as depicted, the observer (a sentient entity) and the observed (the consciousness of the body sustained by food) is the same. > > The observer is the observed. > > There is no space apart. > > If there is no distance apart, there is no way for a " true definition " to be made. > > Therefore, this so-called consciousness can't define what it really is. > > The attempt to define results in a body-consciousness and an assumed location for the awareness (associated with and as the consciousness). > > But that never really happened, was assumed by never actually could be defined. > > So, there is, indeed, simply " this awareness " being, without ever knowing itself (as an object or as something named). > Yes, Dan, awareness or consciousness never is aware of itself. When you say 'I am aware of' then it is just thought saying that. Thought separating itself from the content of conscious and thus claiming to be the owner of consciousness. Niz himself was fooled by that and believed in an independend awareness prior to consciousness. But consciousness is all there is and such a thing as 'awareness' being the owner of conscioiusness does not exist. It is a delusion caused by thought. > 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? > Consciousness is its content. No content -> no consciousness. Therefore the only which is are appearances, contents appearing and fading away. Waht is called comnsciousness is this is a constant flux of appearances. consciousness itself, being a kind of a mirror in which objects appear does not exist. And now, Dan, is following philosophical splish splash, in short: Nonsens: > If the appearance and the one it appears to has no distance apart, has something appeared, has something happened? > > Happening and not-happening are the same. > > Awareness and that which happens to awareness are the same. > > Being and non-being are one. > Werner > 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 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > Yes, Dan, > > awareness or consciousness never is aware of itself. > > When you say 'I am aware of' then it is just thought saying that. Thought separating itself from the content of conscious and thus claiming to be the owner of consciousness. > > Niz himself was fooled by that and believed in an independend awareness prior to consciousness. But consciousness is all there is and such a thing as 'awareness' being the owner of conscioiusness does not exist. It is a delusion caused by thought. that is the dumbest thought that i am aware of.. that you have ever pretended to have wernie pants. it's content is ridiculous. you are deluded. and to say: " It is a delusion caused by thought " .. is the most preposterous bullshit imaginable. you talk to hear yourself talk. but DO you? for christ sakes wernie you sound stupid. your words taken in the gestalt say not a goddamn thing. it's a jumble of misspelled words that has no meaning. of course you aren't to blame. you're just a numb-skull trying to participate.. in a conversation that you don't understand. every " i " thanks consciousness within awareness.. that you try and dissociate yourself from it's active realm. you are an embarrassment of inept cognitive cogitation.. which evidences itself as the least understanding nitwit possible. > Consciousness is its content. No content -> no consciousness. Therefore the only which is are appearances, contents appearing and fading away. Waht is called comnsciousness is this is a constant flux of appearances. that's the sort of mishmash of words having absolutely no meaning.. that constantly flow from your brainless imagination. saying " constant flux of appearances " .. isn't saying anything different.. than simply employing the word " consciousness " .. you somehow... misguidedly... think you have separated the two.. AND you think.. that your rendition is saying something other and better. it's not and it's foolish. " content " is ONLY a word within consciousness. without that word and it's attendant meaning.. consciousness still is. to say " no content -> no consciousness " is to fundamentally.. misapprehend that consciousness is the capacity for content.. and not the content itself. and the content you try and put out is bullshit supreme. > consciousness itself, being a kind of a mirror in which objects appear does not exist. and obviously not one bit of awareness or sentient consciousness.. exists in the freak like mind of wernie. you sputter on like a misfiring motor. get an oil change. > And now, Dan, is following philosophical splish splash, in short: Nonsens: Werner edited like the above last sentence has been.. your parting bit here makes sense. take care splish splash. take a bath. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Shhhhhhh ..... > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > -- D -- > > > let's wipe that out then. > > all of the old and most of the new. > > .b b.b. btw.. i said that because that's what the old farmers said.. about why corncobs were so good employed as toilet paper. they wiped away all of the old and most of the new. it was in reply to your: " Shhhhhhh ..... it " . of course Star Trek toilet tissue came along later on.. and vast improvements were made. like the Starship Enterprise.. in proper usage it circles Uranus and removes all Klingons. but i thought we might leave some of those older thoughts.. to cling onto as reminders of the fact.. that all thoughts are stinky. :-) ..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 think the key word here, is " ignobler " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > 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 think the key word here, is > > " ignobler " that is not a " key " word there. in fact.. it isn't found there at all. however.. an ignoble pest would see it.. for what isn't there as a self reflection. let's see what the dictionary says.. and why the pest sees himself as such: " ignoble " ... 1.completely lacking nobility in character or quality or purpose. 2. " something cowardly and ignoble in his attitude " .. 3.cowardly, fearful - lacking courage.. 4.ignobly timid and faint-hearted: 5.contemptible - deserving of contempt or scorn 6.dishonorable- lacking honor or integrity. 7.deserving dishonor.. 8.dishonorable in thought and deed. 9.not of the nobility.. 10.of ignoble (or ungentle) birth. 11.untitled civilians 12.lowborn. well hell.. now it makes sense why you saw that word " ~skyzie unwizie " . it fits you to a t. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > Shhhhhhh ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > -- D -- > > > > > > let's wipe that out then. > > > > all of the old and most of the new. > > > > .b b.b. > > > btw.. > > i said that because that's what the old farmers said.. > > about why corncobs were so good employed as toilet paper. > > they wiped away all of the old and most of the new. > > it was in reply to your: > > " Shhhhhhh ..... > > it " . > > of course Star Trek toilet tissue came along later on.. > > and vast improvements were made. > > like the Starship Enterprise.. > > in proper usage it circles Uranus and removes all Klingons. > > but i thought we might leave some of those older thoughts.. > > to cling onto as reminders of the fact.. > > that all thoughts are stinky. > > :-) > > .b b.b. > Hahahaaaaahaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaa. You made me laugh Bob! Thanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Shhhhhhh ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- D -- > > > > > > > > > let's wipe that out then. > > > > > > all of the old and most of the new. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > btw.. > > > > i said that because that's what the old farmers said.. > > > > about why corncobs were so good employed as toilet paper. > > > > they wiped away all of the old and most of the new. > > > > it was in reply to your: > > > > " Shhhhhhh ..... > > > > it " . > > > > of course Star Trek toilet tissue came along later on.. > > > > and vast improvements were made. > > > > like the Starship Enterprise.. > > > > in proper usage it circles Uranus and removes all Klingons. > > > > but i thought we might leave some of those older thoughts.. > > > > to cling onto as reminders of the fact.. > > > > that all thoughts are stinky. > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > Hahahaaaaahaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaa. You made me laugh Bob! Thanks! > Wrong .b b.b., it's not *all thoughts are stinky*...it's the one who is the thinker of the thought that smells like shit. And that's a smelly thought that comes to life through the olfactory gland. ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shhhhhhh ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- D -- > > > > > > > > > > > > let's wipe that out then. > > > > > > > > all of the old and most of the new. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > btw.. > > > > > > i said that because that's what the old farmers said.. > > > > > > about why corncobs were so good employed as toilet paper. > > > > > > they wiped away all of the old and most of the new. > > > > > > it was in reply to your: > > > > > > " Shhhhhhh ..... > > > > > > it " . > > > > > > of course Star Trek toilet tissue came along later on.. > > > > > > and vast improvements were made. > > > > > > like the Starship Enterprise.. > > > > > > in proper usage it circles Uranus and removes all Klingons. > > > > > > but i thought we might leave some of those older thoughts.. > > > > > > to cling onto as reminders of the fact.. > > > > > > that all thoughts are stinky. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > Hahahaaaaahaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaa. You made me laugh Bob! Thanks! > > > > > Wrong .b b.b., it's not *all thoughts are stinky*...it's the one who is the thinker of the thought that smells like shit. > > And that's a smelly thought that comes to life through the olfactory gland. > > ~A well anna it's actually the thinkers that are thought. thought by what or who or which we have no thought or idea. there are no " thinkers of thought " among the phantoms of thought. it's hard to think about don't you think? even though there is no you nor thought of a you who doesn't think. that's the thinking anyway. but when Horton hears a who here.. some of it does stink though. but there is no who which smells the stink. pee-you! oops! i smelled...er..spelled that wrong. but what's right? :-) ..b b.b. 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 7:42 PM Re: Prior to consciousness 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. -tim- I am asking tim -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 30/7/2009 09:45:48 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. 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 8:00 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? > Where is awareness? Then...is it not just a theory? What happened to it? > -geo- It's a great question, well worth asking because it's coming down all around us as we speak. Nothing happened to awareness. Awareness " naturally " manifests apparent opposites. There is no conflict " in " awareness - because nothing is in awareness, there is only awareness. One moment of clarity, and there is only clarity. As for the wars, jealousies, killing, deceit, manipulations, all based on a misunderstanding. There are different ways to explain this. However, one must ask: is there any such thing as " explaining? " Not really. If you look into what explaining is, it is bringing to bear a formula where there is no formula, for the sake of an entity who demands security in the known, where there is neither such an existence possible, nor any real security for a situated being. -dan- Not just that. Not always a formula, no. Sometimes an opinion, a perception, a verbal perspective comming from another helps clear my own wiew of things -geo- Nonetheless, if you push me to explain what happened to awareness, I'd say: a misunderstanding involving the tendency to attach to a situation. Once reality is constructed around a situation, that situation tends to have a " strange attraction " as a point to try to stay at. A point of seeming " self-existence " you could say. Awareness at once it totality-movement, synchronicity, and utter stillness. If it attempt to situate, to locate, it tries to keep itself from itself, by keeping itself to itself. It is in contradiction. Then, you get all these calamities. But has awareness ever really situated? Has anything ever really located? Or is it " just thought saying so? " And are explanations " by thought, for thought, and to accomplish goals of thought? " If so, the explanations will be as fragmented as what they are attempting to explain. So, what is there to do but laugh (or maybe cry) ... -- Dan avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 30/7/2009 09:45:52 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. 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 8:06 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > 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- If you are never born ... what do you know about " consciousness " ... and what do you know about something that is " not consciousness " ?? - D - This is difficult to verbalize. I´ll make an pictorial analogy. I am blackness, nothingness, stillness. Consciousness is light, movement, arisings, death. It is not a matter of knowing with the brain but seeing the obvious. I dont know what non-consciousness is. A bubble of light in a dark room. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 30/7/2009 09:45:53 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. 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 8:10 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > 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- Nothing happens to awareness. There is no place outside of awareness for something to be situated that would happen to it, or do something to it. Simply be clear. Simply. be. Clear? Clear. One instant of clarity = eternity of clarity. Clarity that is not " of " anything, or happening " to " anything or anyone. One unborn has no concerns about what happens after you are born. One unborn has no intent to fix things for creatures who began and will end, no intention to confront them with their stupidity and distortion. One unborn is the moving of the stillness, and the stillness of the moving. - D - This is leading to something...yes. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 30/7/2009 09:45:53 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. 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 7:42 PM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > 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. > -tim- > I am asking tim > -geo- Does Geo just want to 'get to know Tim'? He can Email, if interested, although Tim is not particularly fond of telling stories. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 30, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Thursday, July 30, 2009 12:26 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:42 PM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > 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. > -tim- > I am asking tim > -geo- Does Geo just want to 'get to know Tim'? He can Email, if interested, although Tim is not particularly fond of telling stories. -tim- Good night tim -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 30/7/2009 12:35:15 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
