Consciousness at rest

[Guest guest]

I was pondering. "Consciousness at rest" does not carry the implication that when the body dies and consciousness "goes to rest" that it will eventually wake up and manifest again?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication that

when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will eventually wake

up and manifest again?

> -geo-

>

The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms of

consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the

incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

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

> >

> > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication that

when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will eventually wake

up and manifest again?

> > -geo-

> >

> The Absolute (consciousness at rest)

 

The abso.... w00t? ;-).

[Guest guest]

-

douglasmitch1963

Nisargadatta

Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM

Re: Consciousness at rest

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication

> that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will

> eventually wake up and manifest again?

> -geo-

>

The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms of

consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the

incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion.

-doug-

 

The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to be

the same.

Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What are

the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness at

rest will awake again?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> douglasmitch1963

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM

> Re: Consciousness at rest

>

>

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

> >

> > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication

> > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will

> > eventually wake up and manifest again?

> > -geo-

> >

> The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms of

> consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the

> incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion.

> -doug-

>

> The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to be

> the same.

> Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What are

> the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness at

> rest will awake again?

> -geo-

>

Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether

consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether at

rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken, that

is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms appearing all the

time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality there is neither

creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication that

when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will eventually wake

up and manifest again?

> -geo-

>

Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it comes to

consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body. The body

appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness. Consciousness appears

to create new bodies all the time. So consciousness at rest and consciousness

in motion are merely concepts that are either helpful or not. If not, then

discard the concepts.

[Guest guest]

-

douglasmitch1963

Nisargadatta

Sunday, September 06, 2009 11:41 AM

Re: Consciousness at rest

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> douglasmitch1963

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM

> Re: Consciousness at rest

>

>

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

> >

> > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication

> > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will

> > eventually wake up and manifest again?

> > -geo-

> >

> The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms

> of

> consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the

> incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion.

> -doug-

>

> The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to

> be

> the same.

> Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What

> are

> the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness

> at

> rest will awake again?

> -geo-

>

Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether

consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether at

rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken,

that is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms appearing

all the time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality there

is neither creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion.

-doug-

 

Doug, in this particular case it doesn't really matter if personality is...

or not. It is impersonal, of course. The questioning refers to ANY kind of

manifestation. Follow: suddenly consciousness at rest stirs and the world is

born through the senses - the human senses in our particular case. This

human world involves all the past, all of the so called history, time,

space. The fact that other kinds of consciousness are arising and dissolving

also belong to the history of this one world and will dissolve with it,

belongs to the time that is only part of this one world (as all other things

in it) that was born with this one body/mind. The question is then....what

is the basis for one to say that some world will be manifested at all when

this body/consciousness kicks. Again...I am not saying yes or no....but

investigating something....perhaps at the bottom...

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

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

> >

> > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication that

when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will eventually wake

up and manifest again?

> > -geo-

> >

> Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it comes to

consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body. The body

appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness. Consciousness appears

to create new bodies all the time. So consciousness at rest and consciousness

in motion are merely concepts that are either helpful or not. If not, then

discard the concepts.

>

 

 

Douglas,

 

Consciousness doesn't create anything. Consciousness is its content, no content

-> no consciousness.

 

If new bodies are created then they eventually also might appear as contents of

consciousness. If they don't appear then they just dont, whatever the reason

might be.

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

-

douglasmitch1963

Nisargadatta

Sunday, September 06, 2009 11:53 AM

Re: Consciousness at rest

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication

> that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will

> eventually wake up and manifest again?

> -geo-

>

Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it comes to

consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body. The body

appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness. Consciousness

appears to create new bodies all the time. So consciousness at rest and

consciousness in motion are merely concepts that are either helpful or not.

If not, then discard the concepts.

-doug-

 

I just sent another post related to this. No...I am not mistaking the

personal with the non-personal, unless we are giving it different meanings -

which is possible.

How can one talk of a consciousness when the body disappears? This is not a

personal question -to you. I am looking at all this impersonally.

You say: consciousness appears to create new bodies all the time. I think it

may be so, I don't know....but what makes one to eventually be able to say

so?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

douglasmitch1963

Nisargadatta

Sunday, September 06, 2009 12:18 PM

Re: Consciousness at rest

 

 

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the

> > > implication that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest "

> > > that it will eventually wake up and manifest again?

> > > -geo-

> > >

> > Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it

> > comes to consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body.

> > The body appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness.

> > Consciousness appears to create new bodies all the time. So

> > consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion are merely concepts

> > that are either helpful or not. If not, then discard the concepts.

> >

>

>

> Douglas,

>

> Consciousness doesn't create anything. Consciousness is its content, no

> content -> no consciousness.

>

> If new bodies are created then they eventually also might appear as

> contents of consciousness. If they don't appear then they just dont,

> whatever the reason might be.

>

> Werner

>

Werner, thanks for your thoughful reply. Although I said that consciousness

APPEARS to create new forms all the time. If you read my other posting you

will see that I acknowledge that consciousness is neither creating nor

destroying anything in reality. It is all an illusion.

-doug-

 

All an illusion appearing to whom?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication

that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will eventually

wake up and manifest again?

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it comes

to consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body. The body

appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness. Consciousness appears

to create new bodies all the time. So consciousness at rest and consciousness

in motion are merely concepts that are either helpful or not. If not, then

discard the concepts.

> > >

> >

> >

> > Douglas,

> >

> > Consciousness doesn't create anything. Consciousness is its content, no

content -> no consciousness.

> >

> > If new bodies are created then they eventually also might appear as contents

of consciousness. If they don't appear then they just dont, whatever the reason

might be.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> Werner, thanks for your thoughful reply. Although I said that consciousness

APPEARS to create new forms all the time. If you read my other posting you will

see that I acknowledge that consciousness is neither creating nor destroying

anything in reality. It is all an illusion.

>

 

 

Forgive me Douglas,

 

I am reading most of your posts and yet it seems I still haven't categorized and

memorized you as someone who already thoroughly has demystified consciousness.

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

<douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the

implication that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it

will eventually wake up and manifest again?

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it

comes to consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body. The

body appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness. Consciousness

appears to create new bodies all the time. So consciousness at rest and

consciousness in motion are merely concepts that are either helpful or not. If

not, then discard the concepts.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Douglas,

> > >

> > > Consciousness doesn't create anything. Consciousness is its content, no

content -> no consciousness.

> > >

> > > If new bodies are created then they eventually also might appear as

contents of consciousness. If they don't appear then they just dont, whatever

the reason might be.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > Werner, thanks for your thoughful reply. Although I said that consciousness

APPEARS to create new forms all the time. If you read my other posting you will

see that I acknowledge that consciousness is neither creating nor destroying

anything in reality. It is all an illusion.

> >

>

>

> Forgive me Douglas,

>

> I am reading most of your posts and yet it seems I still haven't categorized

and memorized you as someone who already thoroughly has demystified

consciousness.

>

> Werner

>

 

Edg: Oooooo! Oooooo! Me next! Me next! Categorize me. It's going to be such

a surprise I'll bet. Sunday morning titillation is what I seek -- come on

Werner Von Brahma, rate my ass.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

<douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the

implication that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it

will eventually wake up and manifest again?

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > > Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it

comes to consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body. The

body appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness. Consciousness

appears to create new bodies all the time. So consciousness at rest and

consciousness in motion are merely concepts that are either helpful or not. If

not, then discard the concepts.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Douglas,

> > > >

> > > > Consciousness doesn't create anything. Consciousness is its content, no

content -> no consciousness.

> > > >

> > > > If new bodies are created then they eventually also might appear as

contents of consciousness. If they don't appear then they just dont, whatever

the reason might be.

> > > >

> > > > Werner

> > > >

> > > Werner, thanks for your thoughful reply. Although I said that

consciousness APPEARS to create new forms all the time. If you read my other

posting you will see that I acknowledge that consciousness is neither creating

nor destroying anything in reality. It is all an illusion.

> > >

> >

> >

> > Forgive me Douglas,

> >

> > I am reading most of your posts and yet it seems I still haven't categorized

and memorized you as someone who already thoroughly has demystified

consciousness.

> >

> > Werner

> >

>

> Edg: Oooooo! Oooooo! Me next! Me next! Categorize me. It's going to be

such a surprise I'll bet. Sunday morning titillation is what I seek -- come on

Werner Von Brahma, rate my ass.

>

 

 

Hi Edg,

 

Thanks for finally posting a short message instead of your usual miles of text.

 

 

Ok, to rate your ass, I would say it is full to the brim with miles of texts.

 

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > douglasmitch1963

> > Nisargadatta

> > Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM

> > Re: Consciousness at rest

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication

> > > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will

> > > eventually wake up and manifest again?

> > > -geo-

> > >

> > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms of

> > consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the

> > incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion.

> > -doug-

> >

> > The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to be

> > the same.

> > Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What are

> > the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness at

> > rest will awake again?

> > -geo-

> >

> Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether

consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether at

rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken, that

is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms appearing all the

time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality there is neither

creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion.

>

 

 

consciousness is personal

 

awareness is impersonal

 

....

 

to take consciousness for awareness....to mix up both....is of/by illusion

 

....

 

awareness isn't illusion

 

....

 

consciousness is necessary to be in/by/within/of illusion

...related to an illusory " somebody " .... " you " ... " me " ....etc...

 

....

 

 

awareness is necessary....to wake up...

again...and again....

 

 

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> douglasmitch1963

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, September 06, 2009 11:41 AM

> Re: Consciousness at rest

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > douglasmitch1963

> > Nisargadatta

> > Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM

> > Re: Consciousness at rest

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication

> > > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will

> > > eventually wake up and manifest again?

> > > -geo-

> > >

> > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms

> > of

> > consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the

> > incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion.

> > -doug-

> >

> > The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to

> > be

> > the same.

> > Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What

> > are

> > the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness

> > at

> > rest will awake again?

> > -geo-

> >

> Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether

> consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether at

> rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken,

> that is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms appearing

> all the time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality there

> is neither creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion.

> -doug-

>

> Doug, in this particular case it doesn't really matter if personality is...

> or not. It is impersonal, of course. The questioning refers to ANY kind of

> manifestation. Follow: suddenly consciousness at rest stirs and the world is

> born through the senses - the human senses in our particular case. This

> human world involves all the past, all of the so called history, time,

> space. The fact that other kinds of consciousness are arising and dissolving

> also belong to the history of this one world and will dissolve with it,

> belongs to the time that is only part of this one world (as all other things

> in it) that was born with this one body/mind. The question is then....what

> is the basis for one to say that some world will be manifested at all when

> this body/consciousness kicks. Again...I am not saying yes or no....but

> investigating something....perhaps at the bottom...

> -geo-

>

Geo, if by body/mind you mean the universe as the impersonal body/mind, then if

this body/mind goes to rest there is no knowing whether consciousness will again

stir/awaken as a new body/mind (universe). If by body/mind you mean a human

person then you are speaking from the personal level and yes consciousness then

does APPARENTLY (to the human senses) manifest new body/minds all the time. I

hope this clarifies terms used. :-)

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > douglasmitch1963

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM

> > > Re: Consciousness at rest

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication

> > > > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will

> > > > eventually wake up and manifest again?

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms

of

> > > consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the

> > > incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion.

> > > -doug-

> > >

> > > The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to

be

> > > the same.

> > > Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What

are

> > > the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness

at

> > > rest will awake again?

> > > -geo-

> > >

> > Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether

consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether at

rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken, that

is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms appearing all the

time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality there is neither

creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion.

> >

>

>

> consciousness is personal

>

> awareness is impersonal

>

> ...

>

> to take consciousness for awareness....to mix up both....is of/by illusion

>

> ...

>

> awareness isn't illusion

>

> ...

>

> consciousness is necessary to be in/by/within/of illusion

> ..related to an illusory " somebody " .... " you " ... " me " ....etc...

>

> ...

>

>

> awareness is necessary....to wake up...

> again...and again....

>

>

>

>

> Marc

 

I like the way you used the terms above. I admit the reason I like it, is that

I tend to use these words similarly. It makes sense to me to differentiate a

" consciousness " of the past, that involves contents, that is from a position and

has a direction, with " awareness " that is not of the past, has no contents, and

has no position or direction.

 

It is funny to me to watch people battling over which words to use, and trying

to end the use of certain words they don't like: awareness, self, Jesus,

whatever.

 

As if the problem was a certain word being used.

 

Instead, one can read through the words and hear the silent unspoken sound of

what is.

 

You can call what is anything you like: consciousness, awareness, self,

interdependent co-arising, no-self, being, no-being, nothing, everything.

 

It doesn't matter what you call that which has no name. There have been

hundreds of ways to talk about what can't be said, and there will be hundred

more.

 

What matters is what some Buddhists call " getting off the wheel. "

 

You don't get off the wheel by removing yourself from it.

 

You get off of it in the midst of its turning, by being it, and therefore simply

being aware, now.

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

I like the way you used the terms above. I admit the reason I like it, is that I

tend to use these words similarly. It makes sense to me to differentiate a

" consciousness " of the past, that involves contents, that is from a position and

has a direction, with " awareness " that is not of the past, has no contents, and

has no position or direction.

 

It is funny to me to watch people battling over which words to use, and trying

to end the use of certain words they don't like: awareness, self, Jesus,

whatever.

 

As if the problem was a certain word being used.

 

Instead, one can read through the words and hear the silent unspoken sound of

what is.

 

You can call what is anything you like: consciousness, awareness, self,

interdependent co-arising, no-self, being, no-being, nothing, everything.

 

It doesn't matter what you call that which has no name. There have been hundreds

of ways to talk about what can't be said, and there will be hundred more.

 

What matters is what some Buddhists call " getting off the wheel. "

 

You don't get off the wheel by removing yourself from it.

 

You get off of it in the midst of its turning, by being it, and therefore simply

being aware, now.

 

- Dan -

 

Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The ego may

not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still being

veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get out of the

manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the perfect

reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump off the cliff

into the abyss of the Absolute.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Edg <edg wrote:

>

>

> Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The ego

may not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still being

veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get out of the

manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the perfect

reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump off the cliff

into the abyss of the Absolute.

>

 

There's nowhere to get to.

 

No cliff to jump off of, not even an imaginary one.

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Monday, September 07, 2009 2:53 PM

Re: Consciousness at rest

 

 

Nisargadatta , Edg <edg wrote:

>

>

> Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The ego

> may not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still

> being veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get out

> of the manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the

> perfect reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump off

> the cliff into the abyss of the Absolute.

>

 

There's nowhere to get to.

 

No cliff to jump off of, not even an imaginary one.

-t-

 

If I am reading well that is what edg is implying...or trying to..I dunno.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, September 07, 2009 2:53 PM

> Re: Consciousness at rest

>

>

> Nisargadatta , Edg <edg@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The ego

> > may not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still

> > being veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get out

> > of the manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the

> > perfect reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump off

> > the cliff into the abyss of the Absolute.

> >

>

> There's nowhere to get to.

>

> No cliff to jump off of, not even an imaginary one.

> -t-

>

> If I am reading well that is what edg is implying...or trying to..I dunno.

> -geo-

 

Well, " Being " is not trying to get somewhere. It's the end of trying to get

somewhere.

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Monday, September 07, 2009 3:21 PM

Re: Consciousness at rest

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, September 07, 2009 2:53 PM

> Re: Consciousness at rest

>

>

> Nisargadatta , Edg <edg@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The

> > ego

> > may not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still

> > being veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get

> > out

> > of the manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the

> > perfect reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump

> > off

> > the cliff into the abyss of the Absolute.

> >

>

> There's nowhere to get to.

>

> No cliff to jump off of, not even an imaginary one.

> -t-

>

> If I am reading well that is what edg is implying...or trying to..I dunno.

> -geo-

 

Well, " Being " is not trying to get somewhere. It's the end of trying to get

somewhere.

-t-

 

I guess you are right. I thought he was making a sarcastic remark....but...

I give up trying to decipher it. :>))

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

douglasmitch1963

Nisargadatta

Monday, September 07, 2009 11:50 AM

Re: Consciousness at rest

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> douglasmitch1963

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, September 06, 2009 11:41 AM

> Re: Consciousness at rest

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > douglasmitch1963

> > Nisargadatta

> > Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM

> > Re: Consciousness at rest

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the

> > > implication

> > > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will

> > > eventually wake up and manifest again?

> > > -geo-

> > >

> > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new

> > forms

> > of

> > consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is

> > the

> > incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion.

> > -doug-

> >

> > The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to

> > be

> > the same.

> > Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What

> > are

> > the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness

> > at

> > rest will awake again?

> > -geo-

> >

> Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether

> consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether

> at

> rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken,

> that is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms

> appearing

> all the time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality

> there

> is neither creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion.

> -doug-

>

> Doug, in this particular case it doesn't really matter if personality

> is...

> or not. It is impersonal, of course. The questioning refers to ANY kind of

> manifestation. Follow: suddenly consciousness at rest stirs and the world

> is

> born through the senses - the human senses in our particular case. This

> human world involves all the past, all of the so called history, time,

> space. The fact that other kinds of consciousness are arising and

> dissolving

> also belong to the history of this one world and will dissolve with it,

> belongs to the time that is only part of this one world (as all other

> things

> in it) that was born with this one body/mind. The question is then....what

> is the basis for one to say that some world will be manifested at all when

> this body/consciousness kicks. Again...I am not saying yes or no....but

> investigating something....perhaps at the bottom...

> -geo-

>

Geo, if by body/mind you mean the universe as the impersonal body/mind, then

if this body/mind goes to rest there is no knowing whether consciousness

will again stir/awaken as a new body/mind (universe). If by body/mind you

mean a human person then you are speaking from the personal level and yes

consciousness then does APPARENTLY (to the human senses) manifest new

body/minds all the time. I hope this clarifies terms used. :-)

-doug-

 

I am not sure we can clarify this issue definitely. If we consider that

Ramesh was not talking about a personal consciousness, and as you say in

that case there is no way to know whether it will awake again...calling it

" consciousness at rest " is a bit strange because the word consciousness

(among an infinite number of possible names) is still there. So the question

stands: is it not implied that it will stir again? And....would consider

that possibility be a delusion? Or not...

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Edg <edg wrote:

>

> I like the way you used the terms above. I admit the reason I like it, is that

I tend to use these words similarly. It makes sense to me to differentiate a

" consciousness " of the past, that involves contents, that is from a position and

has a direction, with " awareness " that is not of the past, has no contents, and

has no position or direction.

>

> It is funny to me to watch people battling over which words to use, and trying

to end the use of certain words they don't like: awareness, self, Jesus,

whatever.

>

> As if the problem was a certain word being used.

>

> Instead, one can read through the words and hear the silent unspoken sound of

what is.

>

> You can call what is anything you like: consciousness, awareness, self,

interdependent co-arising, no-self, being, no-being, nothing, everything.

>

> It doesn't matter what you call that which has no name. There have been

hundreds of ways to talk about what can't be said, and there will be hundred

more.

>

> What matters is what some Buddhists call " getting off the wheel. "

>

> You don't get off the wheel by removing yourself from it.

>

> You get off of it in the midst of its turning, by being it, and therefore

simply being aware, now.

>

> - Dan -

>

> Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The ego

may not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still being

veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get out of the

manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the perfect

reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump off the cliff

into the abyss of the Absolute.

 

 

D: You can't jump into it, because there is nothing else.

 

The wheel is just the relativity of manifested phenomena.

 

Nothing is out of place.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Edg <edg@> wrote:

> >

> > I like the way you used the terms above. I admit the reason I like it, is

that I tend to use these words similarly. It makes sense to me to differentiate

a " consciousness " of the past, that involves contents, that is from a position

and has a direction, with " awareness " that is not of the past, has no contents,

and has no position or direction.

> >

> > It is funny to me to watch people battling over which words to use, and

trying to end the use of certain words they don't like: awareness, self, Jesus,

whatever.

> >

> > As if the problem was a certain word being used.

> >

> > Instead, one can read through the words and hear the silent unspoken sound

of what is.

> >

> > You can call what is anything you like: consciousness, awareness, self,

interdependent co-arising, no-self, being, no-being, nothing, everything.

> >

> > It doesn't matter what you call that which has no name. There have been

hundreds of ways to talk about what can't be said, and there will be hundred

more.

> >

> > What matters is what some Buddhists call " getting off the wheel. "

> >

> > You don't get off the wheel by removing yourself from it.

> >

> > You get off of it in the midst of its turning, by being it, and therefore

simply being aware, now.

> >

> > - Dan -

> >

> > Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The ego

may not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still being

veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get out of the

manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the perfect

reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump off the cliff

into the abyss of the Absolute.

>

>

> D: You can't jump into it, because there is nothing else.

>

> The wheel is just the relativity of manifested phenomena.

>

> Nothing is out of place.

>

 

 

Hummmmmmmmm.........

.......perhaps...........in a world of places and things.

 

 

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > douglasmitch1963

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM

> > > > Re: Consciousness at rest

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the

implication

> > > > > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will

> > > > > eventually wake up and manifest again?

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new

forms of

> > > > consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is

the

> > > > incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion.

> > > > -doug-

> > > >

> > > > The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to

be

> > > > the same.

> > > > Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What

are

> > > > the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness

at

> > > > rest will awake again?

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether

consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether at

rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken, that

is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms appearing all the

time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality there is neither

creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion.

> > >

> >

> >

> > consciousness is personal

> >

> > awareness is impersonal

> >

> > ...

> >

> > to take consciousness for awareness....to mix up both....is of/by illusion

> >

> > ...

> >

> > awareness isn't illusion

> >

> > ...

> >

> > consciousness is necessary to be in/by/within/of illusion

> > ..related to an illusory " somebody " .... " you " ... " me " ....etc...

> >

> > ...

> >

> >

> > awareness is necessary....to wake up...

> > again...and again....

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Marc

>

> I like the way you used the terms above. I admit the reason I like it, is

that I tend to use these words similarly. It makes sense to me to differentiate

a " consciousness " of the past, that involves contents, that is from a position

and has a direction, with " awareness " that is not of the past, has no contents,

and has no position or direction.

>

> It is funny to me to watch people battling over which words to use, and trying

to end the use of certain words they don't like: awareness, self, Jesus,

whatever.

>

> As if the problem was a certain word being used.

>

> Instead, one can read through the words and hear the silent unspoken sound of

what is.

>

> You can call what is anything you like: consciousness, awareness, self,

interdependent co-arising, no-self, being, no-being, nothing, everything.

>

> It doesn't matter what you call that which has no name. There have been

hundreds of ways to talk about what can't be said, and there will be hundred

more.

>

> What matters is what some Buddhists call " getting off the wheel. "

>

> You don't get off the wheel by removing yourself from it.

>

> You get off of it in the midst of its turning, by being it, and therefore

simply being aware, now.

>

> - Dan -

>

 

yes, Dan

 

 

true, it isn't about words....

 

yes, it's necessary to make the difference between " consciousness " and

" awareness " (consciousness at rest)....or whatever the used words in order to

talk about it

 

 

....

 

" You don't get off the wheel by removing yourself from it.

>

> You get off of it in the midst of its turning, by being it, and therefore

simply being aware, now. "

 

 

if there weren't this fictions " you " , " me " ..... " we " couldn't talk about

awareness, yes

 

to talk about awareness is to talk about our common real Self

 

to talk about awareness is to leave the fictions of " you " , " me " .... " spiritual

clown XY " .... " enlightened entity " ....etc.....etc.....in order to Be, now, here

 

peace

 

 

Marc