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

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 7:00 PM

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

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Yes that is what happens. But not just me-you. The whole field of

> consciousness is noisy and fragmented. It is noisy because of the

> fragmentation. This brings us back to the healthy topic.

> Lookout...easy...dont jump..meditation... There is the need of seeing this

> limited conditioned field as one movement. Consciousness is one and

> here.

 

It can be called consciousness or awareness or " Self " or God or whatever...

the words really don't matter.

 

What's 'important' is that it is never " away " , never " out there " somewhere.

 

And that's what the word " Self " (with a capital S) points to, in my book.

Just the fact that it's never away, somewhere else.

 

Only 'being aware' without pretending that we know what's going on with 'the

other', is the cure for this.

 

It's so ingrained in us, the belief that we know what's happening with the

other, with " you " .

 

But, that is never the case.

 

We aren't in contact with an " other " , ever.

 

This is all that goes away: " Else " .

 

Distance.

 

Separation.

 

Nothing was ever apart.

-t-

 

Your book?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 7:00 PM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

> > Yes that is what happens. But not just me-you. The whole field of

> > consciousness is noisy and fragmented. It is noisy because of the

> > fragmentation. This brings us back to the healthy topic.

> > Lookout...easy...dont jump..meditation... There is the need of seeing this

> > limited conditioned field as one movement. Consciousness is one and

> > here.

>

> It can be called consciousness or awareness or " Self " or God or whatever...

> the words really don't matter.

>

> What's 'important' is that it is never " away " , never " out there " somewhere.

>

> And that's what the word " Self " (with a capital S) points to, in my book.

> Just the fact that it's never away, somewhere else.

>

> Only 'being aware' without pretending that we know what's going on with 'the

> other', is the cure for this.

>

> It's so ingrained in us, the belief that we know what's happening with the

> other, with " you " .

>

> But, that is never the case.

>

> We aren't in contact with an " other " , ever.

>

> This is all that goes away: " Else " .

>

> Distance.

>

> Separation.

>

> Nothing was ever apart.

> -t-

>

> Your book?

> -geo-

 

It's not 'someone else's' ;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > -geo-

> >

> > ..... said the ever-imploding nothing

> > that had no one to say anything to ....

> >

> >

> >

> > - d -

> >

>

>

> You're not supose to end a sentence with a supposition.

>

>

> :-0

>

> toombaru

 

 

the image created by the words is supposition, surely.

 

any word or series of words involves assumption - this has been covered about a

million times - but let's revisit the issue again, if you wish.

 

as has been said in a lot of different ways about a million times: to take word

meanings for what this is, would be dumb.

 

 

 

there is no question here.

 

supposition isn't possible.

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 3:16 PM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

> > 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.

>

> D: Well-said. This isn't going anywhere.

>

> Thus, it isn't coming from somewhere.

> -d-

>

> OK, I'll give it a try:

> This body/mind/consciousness appeared. The nature of all-this is not

> restricted to consciousness.

> -geo-

 

 

Consciousness has a quality associated with it.

 

Totality, nothing: has no quality.

 

You can't find it.

 

You can't discuss it.

 

You can't be it or embody it.

 

You can't get to it by negating things, ideas, selves, or being.

 

 

Please consider that words themselves will involve distortion of what this is.

As will any idea, feeling or experience associated.

 

 

Because there is no effort involved and no volition, it is said that it is

" easy, " " never not available, " never not " so. "

 

Yes, sure.

 

At the same time, it demands everything, consumes everything, as never having

been.

 

Thus, although effortless, natural, and easy - it is avoided like the plague.

 

As if avoidance could be possible.

 

 

At this point of understanding, one does not look to find something out, to

understand something better.

 

One looks to be clear on how avoidance is being constructed, as if avoidance

could be had.

 

As if a refuge were an option.

 

As if there could be security, a known, an existence to protect, even a knowing

or understanding to have.

 

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 3:25 PM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

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

> > -geo-

>

> ..... said the ever-imploding nothing

> that had no one to say anything to ....

>

> - d -

>

> The nature of all-that-is-or is-not isnot restricted to the nature of

> consciousness.

> -geo the fading-

 

 

which bold statement echoed in the halls of nothing, perceived by no one,

joyfully bouncing and reverberating from walls that don't exist, carrying the

brave message of the true nature of what is to all those who could hear it,

which numbered as numberless, because there was no one to count how many of them

weren't there.

 

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

 

>

> No. Deeper than that. Not intention in the casual sense...

> ...er...I think I am having speach problems today...

> -geo-

 

 

I get you, Geo.

 

Jesus speaking the Sermon on the Mount or Gautama handing the flower to Kassyapa

or Joshu shouting " mu. "

 

Yes, there is clarity, awareness, responsibility, nondivision, in words or

actions given that are from and of the Word, which is What Is, which is

unspeakable Nothing.

 

Speaking or acting unspeakable nothing, with no division.

 

There is a difference between one who speaks duplicitously, who has motives to

get something for self from speech and one who speaks nonduplicitously, who is

not speaking for gain or profit to self, but directly as/from/of This.

 

You don't have speech problems - it is a good point.

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > No. Deeper than that. Not intention in the casual sense...

> > ...er...I think I am having speach problems today...

> > -geo-

>

> The only problem above is " how do other people see me? " And the answer is --

they don't.

 

 

Energy never " really " hits into energy coming from another direction.

 

There is only energy moving through space.

 

The energy is the space it is moving through.

 

It thus is movement with nothing moving.

 

 

Because energy never really hits into itself, it never knows itself, reacts to

itself, or has a self.

 

 

It is all that is.

 

 

All the things, experiences, lives, deaths, people, beings formed by the

" resistance patterns " of energy interacting with energy are fictional.

 

They depend on a degree of " ignore-ance " for the pictures to form, for the forms

to be endowed with feeling and sentience, for the interactions to be perceived.

 

 

The ignorance is itself a patterning of energy moving, and so the ignorance

isn't a problem at all.

 

 

One instant of clarity, and there is only this energy, moving into itself,

without movement, as stillness.

 

 

Nothing to know or say or be.

 

 

 

The Buddha spoke as this movement.

 

 

The speaking was the movement.

 

 

That spoken to was the movement.

 

 

This is the stillness of the Buddha and the compassion of the Buddha.

 

 

The Buddha is an icon and image of the imageless movement.

 

 

So, in Zen they say things like, " The Buddha is a stick with shit on it " (used

for wiping).

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 4:24 PM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:09 PM

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

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> 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 ...

> >

> > Nisargadatta (correctly, in my view) noted that, as unconsciousness isn't

> > experienceable, there is no such thing.

> >

> > So, where does that leave " consciousness " , with nothing to contrast it

> > against?

> >

> > Is there such a thing as consciousness at all?

> > -t-

> >

> > Consciousness...as apparent...manifested..sensible.

>

> But... with everything in 'ceaseless change', what ever manifested?

>

> When nothing 'stands still' long enough to manifest, where is the

> manifested?

>

> " Apparent " is right.

> -t-

>

> The changing is the manifest. The unchanging is the only subject -

> nonrefernciable, non-understandable, non-thoughtable..is-ness.

> -geo-

 

 

The subject is the object.

 

The perceiver is the perceived.

 

The changing is the unchanging.

 

The manifest is the unmanifest.

 

" Somethings " is nothing.

 

 

 

And vice versa to all the above.

 

 

 

This is literally so, not figurative imagination.

 

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 5:04 PM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:24 PM

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

> > real.

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > fewtch

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:09 PM

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

> > > real.

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> 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 ...

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta (correctly, in my view) noted that, as unconsciousness

> > > isn't

> > > experienceable, there is no such thing.

> > >

> > > So, where does that leave " consciousness " , with nothing to contrast it

> > > against?

> > >

> > > Is there such a thing as consciousness at all?

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > Consciousness...as apparent...manifested..sensible.

> >

> > But... with everything in 'ceaseless change', what ever manifested?

> >

> > When nothing 'stands still' long enough to manifest, where is the

> > manifested?

> >

> > " Apparent " is right.

> > -t-

> >

> > The changing is the manifest. The unchanging is the only subject -

> > nonrefernciable, non-understandable, non-thoughtable..is-ness.

> > -geo-

>

> I say the manifest is the unmanifest.

>

> One can be stuck at " form is form, emptiness is emptiness " , which is

> duality.

>

> ... or not.

> -t-

>

> the manifest is the unmanifest? Well may be....but the unmanifest is more

> then just the manifest, right or left?

> -geo-

 

 

Where do you get " more " or " less " when manifest is the unmanifest?

 

Is there going to be less manifesting done at some other time?

 

Or more of the unmanifest than there is now?

 

The manifesting is the unmanifest.

 

How could it be otherwise?

 

From whence could a dividing line come?

 

Is a dividing line going to manifest in the unmanifest?????

 

 

-- D --

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

 

>

> Then stop talking!! Keep repeating how useless is talking and keep doing

> it....???

> I dont think talk is useless

> -geo-

 

 

Is the scent of a flower useless?

 

Is a ray of sunshine useless?

 

Is a dog barking useless?

 

People speak.

 

The ocean waves.

 

Useless as in purposeless?

 

That's fine by me!

 

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Then stop talking!! Keep repeating how useless is talking and keep doing

> > it....???

> > I dont think talk is useless

> > -geo-

>

> Ahh so... we're different again. " you " vs. " me " . YOU think talk is useless,

but *I* don't.

>

> Let's keep reinforcing that imaginary difference, shall we?

>

> Talk has its uses, after all (LOL).

 

 

If the imagined reinforces the imagined, the reinforcement is also imagined.

 

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:01 PM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 5:47 PM

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

> > real.

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > > And... why the " Timmy " ?

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > Because as I am you and you are me we are now intimate timmy.

> > > -geovanito-

> >

> > Still doesn't make sense. If I am you and you are me, how can we be

> > intimate?

> >

> > If the computer mouse is the computer mouse, can the computer mouse be

> > intimate with the computer mouse?

> >

> > I guess if separation is seen, it's seen.

> >

> > There is an attempt to maintain a sense of separation.

> >

> > That's fine.

> > -t-

> >

> > Now you are ofended. Time for the you-me stuff

> > -geovanito-

>

> Why not just say, " Now I am offended? " Be truthful.

> -t-

>

> Just say it? And then I am truthfull? ...ok...

> ..i am offended...

> -geozito-

 

 

Very funny! LOL.

 

Thanks for the entertaining conversation, guys.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:40 PM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 6:17 PM

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

> > real.

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > fewtch

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Friday, September 04, 2009 6:12 PM

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

> > > real.

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > > > -t-

> > > >

> > > > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way

> > > > around.

> > > > -geozito-

> > >

> > > No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

> > >

> > > Always.

> > >

> > > Here.

> > >

> > > Not " there " .

> > >

> > > Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's

> > > forgetting.

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > You just forgot it..otherwise you would not tell it to

> > > yourself.....obvioulsy

> > > Always the other way around.

> > > -g-

> >

> > No, Geo.

> >

> > The writer of this has been sitting here calmly, watching Geo thrash

> > about.

> >

> > Geo fell asleep.

> > -t-

> >

> > I will keep this post from tim. So there is sleeping and awakening. In

> > other

> > words..tim is able to recognise another one who is asleep. In other

> > words...what about the " only self can see self " stuff? If tim sees geo

> > sleeping, means tim is sleeping and dreaming that geo is asleep? LOL

> > ...dont take this too serioulsy....

> >

> > BTW: I do say that when one is awake (no conceptual projecting), it is

> > possible to recognise conceptual projecting in anothers words. There is a

> > margin of error.

> > -geo-

>

> That's pretty much it.

>

> When there is " full awareness " that never goes " out there " (although it may

> seem to by another), it's easy to recognize in 'someone else' when

> projecting, in particular, is happening.

>

> The word " you " starts being heavily used, for one thing. YOU are doing this,

> YOU are doing that, YOU don't recognize this, YOU are wrong... etc.

>

> And since, in truth, neither of us are in the remotest contact with " an

> other " (paradoxical, isn't it?) then it's pretty easy to see.

> -t-

>

> That is really quite easy to see. But when the issue is related to

> consciousness, awareness, ground...all those dificult and subtle

> symbols..there is the need to talk carefully and checking out as one is

> going along whether concepts sneak in. I is VERY easy to conceptualize when

> one gets to talk close...around....the absolute/ground. It must stay

> absolutely subject - not a trace of objectivation....can be very

> obvious..but sometimes quite tricky....subtle. Many times I find myself

> projecting a " ground " simmilar to a vast space...or a dimensionless

> " something " ...hhhaaa....

> -geo-

 

 

Hey Geo -

 

Subjectivity isn't the opposite of objectivity.

 

There aren't " bad " objects to get away from, and a " good " subject or Subject to

be or know.

 

Objectification has never occurred, never been real, because it can't happen.

 

Yes, people are convinced it is reality, and kill over it.

 

But those people doing bad things have never had the reality to themselves that

they are the " wanting " or " craving " of.

 

The craving is an energy movement.

 

Plain and simple.

 

You aren't doing anything, regardless of your claims (above).

 

You are being done, so to speak.

 

As is everything equally, being done.

 

The doer is the doing, no division.

 

There isn't any done-to.

 

 

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 8:36 PM

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

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 3:16 PM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

> > 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.

>

> D: Well-said. This isn't going anywhere.

>

> Thus, it isn't coming from somewhere.

> -d-

>

> OK, I'll give it a try:

> This body/mind/consciousness appeared. The nature of all-this is not

> restricted to consciousness.

> -geo-

 

Consciousness has a quality associated with it.

 

Totality, nothing: has no quality.

 

You can't find it.

 

You can't discuss it.

 

You can't be it or embody it.

 

You can't get to it by negating things, ideas, selves, or being.

 

Please consider that words themselves will involve distortion of what this

is. As will any idea, feeling or experience associated.

 

Because there is no effort involved and no volition, it is said that it is

" easy, " " never not available, " never not " so. "

 

Yes, sure.

 

At the same time, it demands everything, consumes everything, as never

having been.

 

Thus, although effortless, natural, and easy - it is avoided like the

plague.

 

As if avoidance could be possible.

 

At this point of understanding, one does not look to find something out, to

understand something better.

 

One looks to be clear on how avoidance is being constructed, as if avoidance

could be had.

 

As if a refuge were an option.

 

As if there could be security, a known, an existence to protect, even a

knowing or understanding to have.

 

- D -

 

Exactly its lack of quality that makes it " more " then that which has. For

not having anything it has all...and so it goes....LOL

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 8:58 PM

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

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 5:04 PM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:24 PM

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

> > real.

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > fewtch

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:09 PM

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

> > > seing....for

> > > real.

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> 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 ...

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta (correctly, in my view) noted that, as unconsciousness

> > > isn't

> > > experienceable, there is no such thing.

> > >

> > > So, where does that leave " consciousness " , with nothing to contrast it

> > > against?

> > >

> > > Is there such a thing as consciousness at all?

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > Consciousness...as apparent...manifested..sensible.

> >

> > But... with everything in 'ceaseless change', what ever manifested?

> >

> > When nothing 'stands still' long enough to manifest, where is the

> > manifested?

> >

> > " Apparent " is right.

> > -t-

> >

> > The changing is the manifest. The unchanging is the only subject -

> > nonrefernciable, non-understandable, non-thoughtable..is-ness.

> > -geo-

>

> I say the manifest is the unmanifest.

>

> One can be stuck at " form is form, emptiness is emptiness " , which is

> duality.

>

> ... or not.

> -t-

>

> the manifest is the unmanifest? Well may be....but the unmanifest is more

> then just the manifest, right or left?

> -geo-

 

Where do you get " more " or " less " when manifest is the unmanifest?

 

Is there going to be less manifesting done at some other time?

 

Or more of the unmanifest than there is now?

 

The manifesting is the unmanifest.

 

How could it be otherwise?

 

From whence could a dividing line come?

 

Is a dividing line going to manifest in the unmanifest?????

 

-- D --

 

Ha....how amazing. The more is manifested...does not change the capacity to

manifest ten zillion times more...

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 9:18 PM

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

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:40 PM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 6:17 PM

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

> > real.

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > fewtch

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Friday, September 04, 2009 6:12 PM

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

> > > seing....for

> > > real.

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > > > -t-

> > > >

> > > > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way

> > > > around.

> > > > -geozito-

> > >

> > > No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

> > >

> > > Always.

> > >

> > > Here.

> > >

> > > Not " there " .

> > >

> > > Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's

> > > forgetting.

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > You just forgot it..otherwise you would not tell it to

> > > yourself.....obvioulsy

> > > Always the other way around.

> > > -g-

> >

> > No, Geo.

> >

> > The writer of this has been sitting here calmly, watching Geo thrash

> > about.

> >

> > Geo fell asleep.

> > -t-

> >

> > I will keep this post from tim. So there is sleeping and awakening. In

> > other

> > words..tim is able to recognise another one who is asleep. In other

> > words...what about the " only self can see self " stuff? If tim sees geo

> > sleeping, means tim is sleeping and dreaming that geo is asleep? LOL

> > ...dont take this too serioulsy....

> >

> > BTW: I do say that when one is awake (no conceptual projecting), it is

> > possible to recognise conceptual projecting in anothers words. There is

> > a

> > margin of error.

> > -geo-

>

> That's pretty much it.

>

> When there is " full awareness " that never goes " out there " (although it

> may

> seem to by another), it's easy to recognize in 'someone else' when

> projecting, in particular, is happening.

>

> The word " you " starts being heavily used, for one thing. YOU are doing

> this,

> YOU are doing that, YOU don't recognize this, YOU are wrong... etc.

>

> And since, in truth, neither of us are in the remotest contact with " an

> other " (paradoxical, isn't it?) then it's pretty easy to see.

> -t-

>

> That is really quite easy to see. But when the issue is related to

> consciousness, awareness, ground...all those dificult and subtle

> symbols..there is the need to talk carefully and checking out as one is

> going along whether concepts sneak in. I is VERY easy to conceptualize

> when

> one gets to talk close...around....the absolute/ground. It must stay

> absolutely subject - not a trace of objectivation....can be very

> obvious..but sometimes quite tricky....subtle. Many times I find myself

> projecting a " ground " simmilar to a vast space...or a dimensionless

> " something " ...hhhaaa....

> -geo-

 

Hey Geo -

 

Subjectivity isn't the opposite of objectivity.

-dan-

 

I must stop reading here. This is something new. I never " looked " at this

statement. I will now light the incense sticks, retire and meditate upon

this deep and serious matter. Good night.

-geozinho-

 

 

 

 

 

There aren't " bad " objects to get away from, and a " good " subject or Subject

to be or know.

 

Objectification has never occurred, never been real, because it can't

happen.

 

Yes, people are convinced it is reality, and kill over it.

 

But those people doing bad things have never had the reality to themselves

that they are the " wanting " or " craving " of.

 

The craving is an energy movement.

 

Plain and simple.

 

You aren't doing anything, regardless of your claims (above).

 

You are being done, so to speak.

 

As is everything equally, being done.

 

The doer is the doing, no division.

 

There isn't any done-to.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

> Hey Geo -

>

> Subjectivity isn't the opposite of objectivity.

>

> There aren't " bad " objects to get away from, and a " good " subject or Subject

to be or know.

>

> Objectification has never occurred, never been real, because it can't happen.

>

> Yes, people are convinced it is reality, and kill over it.

>

> But those people doing bad things have never had the reality to

> themselves that they are the " wanting " or " craving " of.

 

And yet, in a sense, they have " had it all to themselves " the whole time.

 

It's this partialization that's the issue... " Some " one, " some " where,

" some " thing.

 

The truth is " everything, and nothing " .

 

It's the " some " that's the killer, so to speak.

 

" Everybody wants some " ... gets some, and then wants more.

 

Awe-some? ;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Hey Geo -

> >

> > Subjectivity isn't the opposite of objectivity.

> >

> > There aren't " bad " objects to get away from, and a " good " subject or Subject

to be or know.

> >

> > Objectification has never occurred, never been real, because it can't

happen.

> >

> > Yes, people are convinced it is reality, and kill over it.

> >

> > But those people doing bad things have never had the reality to

> > themselves that they are the " wanting " or " craving " of.

>

> And yet, in a sense, they have " had it all to themselves " the whole time.

>

> It's this partialization that's the issue... " Some " one, " some " where,

" some " thing.

>

> The truth is " everything, and nothing " .

>

> It's the " some " that's the killer, so to speak.

>

> " Everybody wants some " ... gets some, and then wants more.

>

> Awe-some? ;-).

 

" Some " is " so-me "

 

So... me ;-). LOL.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Hey Geo -

> > >

> > > Subjectivity isn't the opposite of objectivity.

> > >

> > > There aren't " bad " objects to get away from, and a " good " subject or

Subject to be or know.

> > >

> > > Objectification has never occurred, never been real, because it can't

happen.

> > >

> > > Yes, people are convinced it is reality, and kill over it.

> > >

> > > But those people doing bad things have never had the reality to

> > > themselves that they are the " wanting " or " craving " of.

> >

> > And yet, in a sense, they have " had it all to themselves " the whole time.

> >

> > It's this partialization that's the issue... " Some " one, " some " where,

" some " thing.

> >

> > The truth is " everything, and nothing " .

> >

> > It's the " some " that's the killer, so to speak.

> >

> > " Everybody wants some " ... gets some, and then wants more.

> >

> > Awe-some? ;-).

>

> " Some " is " so-me "

>

> So... me ;-). LOL.

 

P.S. and let's not forget the legendary meeting-place of the lover and beloved:

 

" Somewhere, out there "

 

As Brando said so well at the end of Apocalypse Now:

 

" The Horror... the horror " .

 

The horror of a partialization that never was.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 8:36 PM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 3:16 PM

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

> > real.

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> > D: Well-said. This isn't going anywhere.

> >

> > Thus, it isn't coming from somewhere.

> > -d-

> >

> > OK, I'll give it a try:

> > This body/mind/consciousness appeared. The nature of all-this is not

> > restricted to consciousness.

> > -geo-

>

> Consciousness has a quality associated with it.

>

> Totality, nothing: has no quality.

>

> You can't find it.

>

> You can't discuss it.

>

> You can't be it or embody it.

>

> You can't get to it by negating things, ideas, selves, or being.

>

> Please consider that words themselves will involve distortion of what this

> is. As will any idea, feeling or experience associated.

>

> Because there is no effort involved and no volition, it is said that it is

> " easy, " " never not available, " never not " so. "

>

> Yes, sure.

>

> At the same time, it demands everything, consumes everything, as never

> having been.

>

> Thus, although effortless, natural, and easy - it is avoided like the

> plague.

>

> As if avoidance could be possible.

>

> At this point of understanding, one does not look to find something out, to

> understand something better.

>

> One looks to be clear on how avoidance is being constructed, as if avoidance

> could be had.

>

> As if a refuge were an option.

>

> As if there could be security, a known, an existence to protect, even a

> knowing or understanding to have.

>

> - D -

>

> Exactly its lack of quality that makes it " more " then that which has. For

> not having anything it has all...and so it goes....LOL

> -geo-

 

D: For me, it has nothing to do with being more.

 

There is nothing outside of it for it to be more than.

 

It doesn't lack anything - that would be a quality, " lacking. "

 

 

So, it just burns out personhood, self, experiences.

 

It burns out inquiry, it burns out substance, it burns out

seeking and having and being.

 

Buddha called it " cessation. "

 

He was misunderstood as being nihilistic.

 

But there is nothing nihilistic about this annihilation, merely

utter simplicity and stillness, in the midst of all apparent

activity.

 

Of course, writing tons of words about it, as we do here, makes

it seem like there is some substance to it, something to

say about it, or maybe some person who has experienced and

known it.

 

But nothing has been said or known.

 

It is the burning up of words and ideas, even as they are said

or sensed.

 

-- D --

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 8:58 PM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 5:04 PM

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

> > real.

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > fewtch

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:24 PM

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

> > > real.

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > fewtch

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:09 PM

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

> > > > seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> 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 ...

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta (correctly, in my view) noted that, as unconsciousness

> > > > isn't

> > > > experienceable, there is no such thing.

> > > >

> > > > So, where does that leave " consciousness " , with nothing to contrast it

> > > > against?

> > > >

> > > > Is there such a thing as consciousness at all?

> > > > -t-

> > > >

> > > > Consciousness...as apparent...manifested..sensible.

> > >

> > > But... with everything in 'ceaseless change', what ever manifested?

> > >

> > > When nothing 'stands still' long enough to manifest, where is the

> > > manifested?

> > >

> > > " Apparent " is right.

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > The changing is the manifest. The unchanging is the only subject -

> > > nonrefernciable, non-understandable, non-thoughtable..is-ness.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > I say the manifest is the unmanifest.

> >

> > One can be stuck at " form is form, emptiness is emptiness " , which is

> > duality.

> >

> > ... or not.

> > -t-

> >

> > the manifest is the unmanifest? Well may be....but the unmanifest is more

> > then just the manifest, right or left?

> > -geo-

>

> Where do you get " more " or " less " when manifest is the unmanifest?

>

> Is there going to be less manifesting done at some other time?

>

> Or more of the unmanifest than there is now?

>

> The manifesting is the unmanifest.

>

> How could it be otherwise?

>

> From whence could a dividing line come?

>

> Is a dividing line going to manifest in the unmanifest?????

>

> -- D --

>

> Ha....how amazing. The more is manifested...does not change the capacity to

> manifest ten zillion times more...

> -geo-

 

 

That's because it never happened even once.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

 

> Hey Geo -

>

> Subjectivity isn't the opposite of objectivity.

> -dan-

>

> I must stop reading here. This is something new. I never " looked " at this

> statement. I will now light the incense sticks, retire and meditate upon

> this deep and serious matter. Good night.

> -geozinho-

 

Funny!

 

Okay, good night.

 

It's been fun.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Hey Geo -

> >

> > Subjectivity isn't the opposite of objectivity.

> >

> > There aren't " bad " objects to get away from, and a " good " subject or Subject

to be or know.

> >

> > Objectification has never occurred, never been real, because it can't

happen.

> >

> > Yes, people are convinced it is reality, and kill over it.

> >

> > But those people doing bad things have never had the reality to

> > themselves that they are the " wanting " or " craving " of.

>

> And yet, in a sense, they have " had it all to themselves " the whole time.

>

> It's this partialization that's the issue... " Some " one, " some " where,

" some " thing.

>

> The truth is " everything, and nothing " .

>

> It's the " some " that's the killer, so to speak.

>

> " Everybody wants some " ... gets some, and then wants more.

>

> Awe-some? ;-).

 

 

The craving that manifests doesn't go away because it's been explained to itself

clearly enough what it is about.

 

That is the error that all the teachers and teachings make.

 

The craving is a nonvolitional manifestation that burns out, or doesn't.

 

That is all.

 

Every experiential moment is the same.

 

All equal.

 

None abiding.

 

Everyone wants something that abides.

 

That is the craving.

 

It is an arising that is non-abiding.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Hey Geo -

> > > >

> > > > Subjectivity isn't the opposite of objectivity.

> > > >

> > > > There aren't " bad " objects to get away from, and a " good " subject or

Subject to be or know.

> > > >

> > > > Objectification has never occurred, never been real, because it can't

happen.

> > > >

> > > > Yes, people are convinced it is reality, and kill over it.

> > > >

> > > > But those people doing bad things have never had the reality to

> > > > themselves that they are the " wanting " or " craving " of.

> > >

> > > And yet, in a sense, they have " had it all to themselves " the whole time.

> > >

> > > It's this partialization that's the issue... " Some " one, " some " where,

" some " thing.

> > >

> > > The truth is " everything, and nothing " .

> > >

> > > It's the " some " that's the killer, so to speak.

> > >

> > > " Everybody wants some " ... gets some, and then wants more.

> > >

> > > Awe-some? ;-).

> >

> > " Some " is " so-me "

> >

> > So... me ;-). LOL.

>

> P.S. and let's not forget the legendary meeting-place of the lover and

beloved:

>

> " Somewhere, out there "

>

> As Brando said so well at the end of Apocalypse Now:

>

> " The Horror... the horror " .

>

> The horror of a partialization that never was.

 

 

It is experientially as real as any other experience, while it " lasts. "

 

To say that no experience lasts, is also an experience, and also doesn't last.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> > As Brando said so well at the end of Apocalypse Now:

> >

> > " The Horror... the horror " .

> >

> > The horror of a partialization that never was.

>

>

> It is experientially as real as any other experience, while

> it " lasts. "

 

In a sense, it *is* every " experience " .

 

In the sense of experiences being (seemingly) experienced by a separate

experiencer.

 

And so, it is 'qualities', with accompanying desire for 'quantity'.