there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for real.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

wrote:

 

> and again....you talk about consciousness......

>

> there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

>

>

> Marc

 

 

Yes, there isn't any " awareness *of* .... " anything

 

Nor is there any " explanation *of* ... " anything

 

Nor is there any " commentary *about* ... " anything

 

 

Darn!

 

 

Smiles,

 

Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > dennis_travis33

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > > real.

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > geo

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

> > > >

> > > > without awareness:

> > > >

> > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

entity).....percieve

> > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > >

> > > > with awareness:

> > > >

> > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > >

> > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there is the

> > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed entities,

> > > > empty

> > > > waves of illusion.

> > > >

> > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act as if

> > > > they

> > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > >

> > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > >

> > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > -geo-

> > >

> > >

> >

> > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> >

> > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > etc

> > etc

> >

> > ...

> >

> >

> > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> >

> >

> > Marc

> >

> >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

" Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating Nisargadatta's

talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always said that all there is is

consciousness. Ramesh would say that consciousness at rest and consciousness in

motion is the Totality. The original state is consciousness at rest. When the

potential energy of consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in

motion. " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to Ramesh.

 

 

" Ramesh " is an unnecessary and confusing concept, according to awareness.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

wrote:

 

>

> the direct path to real Self....go through yourself...

>

> when there isn't any help ....of whatever kind....necessary to reach/be

yourSelf.......except a simple attention to what Is......to the energy flowing

in & out the body.....that's meditation...

>

> meditation open the path to awareness

>

>

> Marc

 

Yes one goes into and through the body.

 

(and not from an outside position ...)

 

The energy movement is the attention, is the awareness.

 

It is all that is.

 

Meditation is like a door, that once opened and walked through is not needed.

 

Meditation is just the breaking free from a past that was imagined to have a

hold.

 

Energy movement is stillness is what it is - requires and involves no

meditation, no thought, no intentionality.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > geo

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

> > > > >

> > > > > without awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

entity).....percieve

> > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > >

> > > > > with awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > >

> > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there is

the

> > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed entities,

> > > > > empty

> > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act as

if

> > > > > they

> > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > >

> > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > >

> > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > etc

> > > etc

> > >

> > > ...

> > >

> > >

> > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > >

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

" Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating Nisargadatta's

talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always said that all there is is

consciousness. Ramesh would say that consciousness at rest and consciousness in

motion is the Totality. The original state is consciousness at rest. When the

potential energy of consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in

motion. " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to Ramesh.

> >

>

>

> Thank you Douglas.

>

> But I am afraid this awareness bull will go on and on. Since I am on this list

I stressed the same as you did dozends and dozends of times without any success.

>

> Werner

 

 

 

Stamp out awareness.

 

Otherwise it will go on an on.

 

We must stamp out awareness!

 

At least on this list, if nowhere else.

 

 

Signed,

 

A voice of consciousness crying in the wilderness

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > geo

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

> > > > >

> > > > > without awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

entity).....percieve

> > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > >

> > > > > with awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > >

> > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there is

the

> > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed entities,

> > > > > empty

> > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act as

if

> > > > > they

> > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > >

> > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > >

> > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > etc

> > > etc

> > >

> > > ...

> > >

> > >

> > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > >

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

" Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating Nisargadatta's

talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always said that all there is is

consciousness. Ramesh would say that consciousness at rest and consciousness in

motion is the Totality. The original state is consciousness at rest. When the

potential energy of consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in

motion. " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to Ramesh.

> >

> >With reagrd to the subject line of this posting, there is neither seer nor

seen, but there is only seeing happening in the Now.

 

Any attempt at description suffers from the assumption of time, and the

assumption of someone able to attach words to a reality.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > geo

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

> > > > >

> > > > > without awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

entity).....percieve

> > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > >

> > > > > with awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > >

> > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there is

the

> > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed entities,

> > > > > empty

> > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act as

if

> > > > > they

> > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > >

> > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > >

> > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > etc

> > > etc

> > >

> > > ...

> > >

> > >

> > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > >

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

" Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating Nisargadatta's

talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always said that all there is is

consciousness. Ramesh would say that consciousness at rest and consciousness in

motion is the Totality. The original state is consciousness at rest. When the

potential energy of consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in

motion. " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to Ramesh.

> >

>

> interesting....indeed....such " consciousness at rest " ....as being

" awareness " ....

>

> also agree with the description of " the original state is consciousness at

rest "

>

> and yes....it's not realy necessary to use " awareness " ....when it can be

simply expressed as " consciousness at rest "

>

> ...

>

> i don't agree with the conclusion and mentionned definition of the

" Totality " .....

>

> as far i see...... " totality " is again a concept which arise in a consciousness

which isn't at rest......so, of no reality.

>

>

> thanks for your informations and interesting words

>

>

> Marc

 

No words posted, spoken, read, or taught will ever work to describe what is, or

what it is like to know or be what is.

 

Not that it isn't fun to try.

 

Sure, why not, go ahead ...

 

Although it's impossible.

 

Words require time, involve memory, include the assumption that language can

convey a meaning from the speaker to someone else...

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > geo

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

> > > > >

> > > > > without awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

entity).....percieve

> > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > >

> > > > > with awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > >

> > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there is

the

> > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed entities,

> > > > > empty

> > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act as

if

> > > > > they

> > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > >

> > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > >

> > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > etc

> > > etc

> > >

> > > ...

> > >

> > >

> > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > >

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

" Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating Nisargadatta's

talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always said that all there is is

consciousness. Ramesh would say that consciousness at rest and consciousness in

motion is the Totality. The original state is consciousness at rest. When the

potential energy of consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in

motion. " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to Ramesh.

>

> P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> that the writer wants to give the impression that

> consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> conscious or not.

 

D: If a knower using language isn't there, then there isn't any need

for a languaged knowing to be provided.

 

Concerns about getting the terminology correct among

a community of imparters of teachings start sounding

pretty funny right about now ...

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > geo

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

seing....for

> > > > > > real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > without awareness:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

entity).....percieve

> > > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > with awareness:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > > >

> > > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Marc

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there is

the

> > > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

entities,

> > > > > > empty

> > > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act as

if

> > > > > > they

> > > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > > >

> > > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > > >

> > > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > > etc

> > > > etc

> > > >

> > > > ...

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

" Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating Nisargadatta's

talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always said that all there is is

consciousness. Ramesh would say that consciousness at rest and consciousness in

motion is the Totality. The original state is consciousness at rest. When the

potential energy of consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in

motion. " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to Ramesh.

> >

> > P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> > consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> > Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> > so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> > that the writer wants to give the impression that

> > consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> > conscious or not.

> > >

> >

> >True enough. However consciousness at rest implies the potentiality that is

consciousness in motion. Unconsciousness does not maintain that potentiality of

consciousness to actualize its power. All of this is just concepts. So

whatever floats your boat.

 

 

My boat has sunk.

 

The wood has rotted and is dispersed into the ocean.

 

 

Glug, glug,

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

-

douglasmitch1963

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 11:01 AM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > geo

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > seing....for real.

> > > > >

> > > > > without awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > entity).....percieve

> > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > >

> > > > > with awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > >

> > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there

> > > > > is the

> > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

> > > > > entities,

> > > > > empty

> > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act

> > > > > as if

> > > > > they

> > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > >

> > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > >

> > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > etc

> > > etc

> > >

> > > ...

> > >

> > >

> > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > >

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

> > > " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

> > >Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always

> > >said that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that

> > >consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality. The

> > >original state is consciousness at rest. When the potential energy of

> > >consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in motion.

> > > " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to

> > >Ramesh.

>

> P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> that the writer wants to give the impression that

> consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> conscious or not.

> >

>

>True enough. However consciousness at rest implies the potentiality that is

>consciousness in motion. Unconsciousness does not maintain that

>potentiality of consciousness to actualize its power. All of this is just

>concepts. So whatever floats your boat.

-doug-

 

Why not " potentiality of consciousness " ? That certainly is identical to it.

:>)

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

toombaru2006

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 11:14 AM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

<douglasmitch1963 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > geo

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > seing....for

> > > > > > real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > seing....for real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > without awareness:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > entity).....percieve

> > > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > with awareness:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > > >

> > > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Marc

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there

> > > > > > is the

> > > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

> > > > > > entities,

> > > > > > empty

> > > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some

> > > > > > act as if

> > > > > > they

> > > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > > >

> > > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > > >

> > > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > > etc

> > > > etc

> > > >

> > > > ...

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

> > > > " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

> > > >Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always

> > > >said that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that

> > > >consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality.

> > > >The original state is consciousness at rest. When the potential

> > > >energy of consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness

> > > >in motion. " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept

> > > >according to Ramesh.

> >

> > P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> > consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> > Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> > so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> > that the writer wants to give the impression that

> > consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> > conscious or not.

> > >

> >

> >True enough. However consciousness at rest implies the potentiality that

> >is consciousness in motion. Unconsciousness does not maintain that

> >potentiality of consciousness to actualize its power. All of this is just

> >concepts. So whatever floats your boat.

>

 

The wind at rest implies nothing.

 

toombaru

 

But then...it starts blowing again....LOL LOL LOL. Where was it?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 1:38 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> without awareness:

>

> the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal entity).....percieve

> others of same nature, without knowing about.

>

> with awareness:

>

> the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

>

> means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

>

> Marc

>

> With awareness there is no imaginary separated entity as a perceiver. What

> perceives is the organism through its senses.

> -geo-

 

What perceives that an organism is perceiving through its senses?

 

- D -

 

Yes...that became clear a few minutes after I wrote this :>)

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 1:42 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> geo

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

>

> -

> dennis_travis33

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for real.

>

> without awareness:

>

> the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal entity).....percieve

> others of same nature, without knowing about.

>

> with awareness:

>

> the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

>

> means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

>

> Marc

>

> Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there is the

> seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed entities,

> empty

> waves of illusion.

>

> That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act as if

> they

> had an inner entity.

> -geo-

 

That is how you saw it a long time ago, in another place.

 

Here is how I see it now and here: a computer on my desk. fingers typing. My

glasses low on my nose. A faint glow of light through the shade on my

window.

 

Wait, that was how I saw it a minute ago.

 

Here is how I see it now: a computer on my desk. no fingers typing. Just a

finger about to hit " send. " A fairly bright glow of light through the shade

on my window.

 

Wait, it's ten second later. Here is how I see it now ...

 

Smiles,

 

Dan

 

LOL....yes/no...I realized a few secs later I wrote that..that it is obvious

that the organism as a perceiver is empty full of nothingness...

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 1:53 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

<douglasmitch1963 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > geo

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > seing....for real.

> > > > >

> > > > > without awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > entity).....percieve

> > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > >

> > > > > with awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > >

> > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there

> > > > > is the

> > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

> > > > > entities,

> > > > > empty

> > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act

> > > > > as if

> > > > > they

> > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > >

> > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > >

> > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > etc

> > > etc

> > >

> > > ...

> > >

> > >

> > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > >

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

> > > " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

> > >Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always

> > >said that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that

> > >consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality. The

> > >original state is consciousness at rest. When the potential energy of

> > >consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in motion.

> > > " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to

> > >Ramesh.

> >

> >With reagrd to the subject line of this posting, there is neither seer

> >nor seen, but there is only seeing happening in the Now.

 

Any attempt at description suffers from the assumption of time, and the

assumption of someone able to attach words to a reality.

 

- D -

 

And someone outside of IT to describe it. What a joke...

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 1:55 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

<dennis_travis33 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > geo

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > seing....for real.

> > > > >

> > > > > without awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > entity).....percieve

> > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > >

> > > > > with awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > >

> > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there

> > > > > is the

> > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

> > > > > entities,

> > > > > empty

> > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act

> > > > > as if

> > > > > they

> > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > >

> > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > >

> > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > etc

> > > etc

> > >

> > > ...

> > >

> > >

> > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > >

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

> > > " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

> > >Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always

> > >said that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that

> > >consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality. The

> > >original state is consciousness at rest. When the potential energy of

> > >consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in motion.

> > > " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to

> > >Ramesh.

> >

>

> interesting....indeed....such " consciousness at rest " ....as being

> " awareness " ....

>

> also agree with the description of " the original state is consciousness at

> rest "

>

> and yes....it's not realy necessary to use " awareness " ....when it can be

> simply expressed as " consciousness at rest "

>

> ...

>

> i don't agree with the conclusion and mentionned definition of the

> " Totality " .....

>

> as far i see...... " totality " is again a concept which arise in a

> consciousness which isn't at rest......so, of no reality.

>

>

> thanks for your informations and interesting words

>

>

> Marc

 

No words posted, spoken, read, or taught will ever work to describe what is,

or what it is like to know or be what is.

 

Not that it isn't fun to try.

 

Sure, why not, go ahead ...

 

Although it's impossible.

 

Words require time, involve memory, include the assumption that language can

convey a meaning from the speaker to someone else...

-d-

 

In the other hand..words are also it - what else could they be?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 1:57 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > geo

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > seing....for real.

> > > > >

> > > > > without awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > entity).....percieve

> > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > >

> > > > > with awareness:

> > > > >

> > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > >

> > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there

> > > > > is the

> > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

> > > > > entities,

> > > > > empty

> > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act

> > > > > as if

> > > > > they

> > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > >

> > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > >

> > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > etc

> > > etc

> > >

> > > ...

> > >

> > >

> > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > >

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

> > > " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

> > >Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always

> > >said that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that

> > >consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality. The

> > >original state is consciousness at rest. When the potential energy of

> > >consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in motion.

> > > " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to

> > >Ramesh.

>

> P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> that the writer wants to give the impression that

> consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> conscious or not.

 

D: If a knower using language isn't there, then there isn't any need

for a languaged knowing to be provided.

 

Concerns about getting the terminology correct among

a community of imparters of teachings start sounding

pretty funny right about now ...

-d-

 

Importers of teachings...

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

 

> >

> > With awareness there is no imaginary separated entity as a perceiver. What

> > perceives is the organism through its senses.

> > -geo-

>

> What perceives that an organism is perceiving through its senses?

>

> - D -

>

> Yes...that became clear a few minutes after I wrote this :>)

> -geo-

 

Cool.

 

And this " nothing " turns the scenario inside out.

 

What was outside the organism is its inside.

 

What was inside the organism is not.

 

Suddenly, no inside or outside.

 

And from whence is this perception (which is just this immediate perception as

it is) being perceived?

 

Where is the observer?

 

Nowhere, everywhere, nothing, all - these terms fall to the wayside,

meaningless.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 1:53 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > geo

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > seing....for

> > > > > > real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > seing....for real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > without awareness:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > entity).....percieve

> > > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > with awareness:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > > >

> > > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Marc

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there

> > > > > > is the

> > > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

> > > > > > entities,

> > > > > > empty

> > > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act

> > > > > > as if

> > > > > > they

> > > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > > >

> > > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > > >

> > > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > > etc

> > > > etc

> > > >

> > > > ...

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

> > > > " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

> > > >Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always

> > > >said that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that

> > > >consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality. The

> > > >original state is consciousness at rest. When the potential energy of

> > > >consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in motion.

> > > > " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to

> > > >Ramesh.

> > >

> > >With reagrd to the subject line of this posting, there is neither seer

> > >nor seen, but there is only seeing happening in the Now.

>

> Any attempt at description suffers from the assumption of time, and the

> assumption of someone able to attach words to a reality.

>

> - D -

>

> And someone outside of IT to describe it. What a joke...

> -geo-

 

Yes, unable to describe its inability to describe its inability to describe ...

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 1:55 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > geo

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > seing....for

> > > > > > real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > seing....for real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > without awareness:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > entity).....percieve

> > > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > with awareness:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > > >

> > > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Marc

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there

> > > > > > is the

> > > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

> > > > > > entities,

> > > > > > empty

> > > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act

> > > > > > as if

> > > > > > they

> > > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > > >

> > > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > > >

> > > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > > etc

> > > > etc

> > > >

> > > > ...

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

> > > > " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

> > > >Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always

> > > >said that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that

> > > >consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality. The

> > > >original state is consciousness at rest. When the potential energy of

> > > >consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in motion.

> > > > " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to

> > > >Ramesh.

> > >

> >

> > interesting....indeed....such " consciousness at rest " ....as being

> > " awareness " ....

> >

> > also agree with the description of " the original state is consciousness at

> > rest "

> >

> > and yes....it's not realy necessary to use " awareness " ....when it can be

> > simply expressed as " consciousness at rest "

> >

> > ...

> >

> > i don't agree with the conclusion and mentionned definition of the

> > " Totality " .....

> >

> > as far i see...... " totality " is again a concept which arise in a

> > consciousness which isn't at rest......so, of no reality.

> >

> >

> > thanks for your informations and interesting words

> >

> >

> > Marc

>

> No words posted, spoken, read, or taught will ever work to describe what is,

> or what it is like to know or be what is.

>

> Not that it isn't fun to try.

>

> Sure, why not, go ahead ...

>

> Although it's impossible.

>

> Words require time, involve memory, include the assumption that language can

> convey a meaning from the speaker to someone else...

> -d-

>

> In the other hand..words are also it - what else could they be?

> -geo-

 

But look closely at word meanings - they always require something else to point

to.

 

When there is nothing else, what happens to word meanings (and any meanings)?

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

 

> >

> > P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> > consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> > Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> > so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> > that the writer wants to give the impression that

> > consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> > conscious or not.

>

> D: If a knower using language isn't there, then there isn't any need

> for a languaged knowing to be provided.

>

> Concerns about getting the terminology correct among

> a community of imparters of teachings start sounding

> pretty funny right about now ...

> -d-

>

> Importers of teachings...

> -geo-

 

Yes, the import/export business.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

-

douglasmitch1963

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 10:29 AM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

<dennis_travis33 wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > dennis_travis33

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > geo

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > seing....for

> > > real.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > dennis_travis33

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > > real.

> > >

> > > without awareness:

> > >

> > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > entity).....percieve

> > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > >

> > > with awareness:

> > >

> > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > >

> > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there is

> > > the

> > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed entities,

> > > empty

> > > waves of illusion.

> > >

> > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act as

> > > if

> > > they

> > > had an inner entity.

> > > -geo-

> > >

> >

> > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> >

> > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> >

> > Marc

> >

> > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > -geo-

> >

> >

>

> ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

>

> " all there is is consciousness.... "

> " all there is is awareness of " ....

> etc

> etc

>

> ...

>

>

> awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

>

>

> Marc

>

>The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

> " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

>Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always said

>that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that consciousness at

>rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality. The original state is

>consciousness at rest. When the potential energy of consciousness at rest

>actualizes then it is consciousness in motion. " Awareness " is an

>unnecessary and confusing concept according to Ramesh.

-doug-

 

but.. " consciousness at rest " has one strange implication. There seems to be

a sense of continuity to it. Something like..the body dies...and

consciousness goes to rest...and then it will awake, stir, and come back.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

>

> > > >

> > > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

" Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating Nisargadatta's

talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always said that all there is is

consciousness. Ramesh would say that consciousness at rest and consciousness in

motion is the Totality. The original state is consciousness at rest. When the

potential energy of consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in

motion. " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to Ramesh.

> >

> > P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> > consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> > Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> > so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> > that the writer wants to give the impression that

> > consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> > conscious or not.

> > >

> >

> >True enough. However consciousness at rest implies the potentiality that is

consciousness in motion. Unconsciousness does not maintain that potentiality of

consciousness to actualize its power. All of this is just concepts. So

whatever floats your boat.

 

P: Yes concepts are not important. What is

important is when perceiving is enough in

itself. A perceiving that is complete, not

seeking a different content, or its own

perpetuation. Then it brings a sense of

infinity without duration that is peace itself.

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 2:37 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

 

> >

> > With awareness there is no imaginary separated entity as a perceiver.

> > What

> > perceives is the organism through its senses.

> > -geo-

>

> What perceives that an organism is perceiving through its senses?

>

> - D -

>

> Yes...that became clear a few minutes after I wrote this :>)

> -geo-

 

Cool.

 

And this " nothing " turns the scenario inside out.

 

What was outside the organism is its inside.

 

What was inside the organism is not.

 

Suddenly, no inside or outside.

 

And from whence is this perception (which is just this immediate perception

as it is) being perceived?

 

Where is the observer?

 

Nowhere, everywhere, nothing, all - these terms fall to the wayside,

meaningless.

 

- D -

 

I dont go through the inside-outside thing. Suddenly there is no inside at

all - which is the same as no outside at all...all at the same side

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 2:39 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 1:55 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > geo

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > seing....for

> > > > > > real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > seing....for real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > without awareness:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > entity).....percieve

> > > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > with awareness:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > > >

> > > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Marc

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there

> > > > > > is the

> > > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

> > > > > > entities,

> > > > > > empty

> > > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some

> > > > > > act

> > > > > > as if

> > > > > > they

> > > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > > >

> > > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > > >

> > > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > > etc

> > > > etc

> > > >

> > > > ...

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

> > > > " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

> > > >Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always

> > > >said that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that

> > > >consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality.

> > > >The

> > > >original state is consciousness at rest. When the potential energy of

> > > >consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in motion.

> > > > " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to

> > > >Ramesh.

> > >

> >

> > interesting....indeed....such " consciousness at rest " ....as being

> > " awareness " ....

> >

> > also agree with the description of " the original state is consciousness

> > at

> > rest "

> >

> > and yes....it's not realy necessary to use " awareness " ....when it can be

> > simply expressed as " consciousness at rest "

> >

> > ...

> >

> > i don't agree with the conclusion and mentionned definition of the

> > " Totality " .....

> >

> > as far i see...... " totality " is again a concept which arise in a

> > consciousness which isn't at rest......so, of no reality.

> >

> >

> > thanks for your informations and interesting words

> >

> >

> > Marc

>

> No words posted, spoken, read, or taught will ever work to describe what

> is,

> or what it is like to know or be what is.

>

> Not that it isn't fun to try.

>

> Sure, why not, go ahead ...

>

> Although it's impossible.

>

> Words require time, involve memory, include the assumption that language

> can

> convey a meaning from the speaker to someone else...

> -d-

>

> In the other hand..words are also it - what else could they be?

> -geo-

 

But look closely at word meanings - they always require something else to

point to.

 

When there is nothing else, what happens to word meanings (and any

meanings)?

 

- D -

 

That is what I mean. Suddenly....the words, the speaker, the meaning... are

it.

What did I just say.....?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 2:38 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 1:53 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > seing....for

> > > > > real.

> > > > >

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > geo

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > seing....for

> > > > > > real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > seing....for real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > without awareness:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > entity).....percieve

> > > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > with awareness:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > > >

> > > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Marc

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there

> > > > > > is the

> > > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

> > > > > > entities,

> > > > > > empty

> > > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some

> > > > > > act

> > > > > > as if

> > > > > > they

> > > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > > >

> > > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > > >

> > > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > > etc

> > > > etc

> > > >

> > > > ...

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

> > > > " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

> > > >Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always

> > > >said that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that

> > > >consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality.

> > > >The

> > > >original state is consciousness at rest. When the potential energy of

> > > >consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in motion.

> > > > " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to

> > > >Ramesh.

> > >

> > >With reagrd to the subject line of this posting, there is neither seer

> > >nor seen, but there is only seeing happening in the Now.

>

> Any attempt at description suffers from the assumption of time, and the

> assumption of someone able to attach words to a reality.

>

> - D -

>

> And someone outside of IT to describe it. What a joke...

> -geo-

 

Yes, unable to describe its inability to describe its inability to describe

....

 

- D -

 

But you know....there is an intention involved in words that are not

separate from what is. That could mean something, no?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

But...waaaaaitaminat.... I am not consciousness!!

-geo-