Guest guest Report post Posted September 9, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, September 08, 2009 9:02 PM Re: Consciousness at rest Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, September 08, 2009 7:39 PM > Re: Consciousness at rest > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel it is a kind of focusing of the mind...related to > > > > > > > > concerns. Our > > > > > > > > concerns are the guidelines of our life. Is it that once we > > > > > > > > understand that > > > > > > > > consciousness IS awareness patterning, is just its waves, > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > that the mind > > > > > > > > can not do anything about it...help it...observe > > > > > > > > it..nothing....perhaps then > > > > > > > > it remains quiet. And that is awakening. Just some > > > > > > > > thoughts.... > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awakening is just your " other " half, what you take to be > > > > > > > outside > > > > > > > you, coming to be a part of you, to be 'inside' you as well. > > > > > > > That is the end of being a center, as there's no periphery. > > > > > > > > > > > > Very nice. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is outside of you is inside. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is inside, is the outside. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > Well, really there's no inside or outside... but one could look at > > > > > it that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I could be nitpicky about what you said, too. > > > > > > > > I could say something like, " well, there really isn't anything > > > > coming > > > > to be 'part' of you " ... > > > > > > > > But I liked it, just the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > Just for fun, let me ask you this: if you say there isn't any > > > > inside or outside, then to what do the words inside and outside > > > > refer, which you are saying is not? > > > > > > > > -- D -- > > > > > > Conventional meanings, such as " a feeling inside " , I s'pose. I really > > > don't know... whatever folks take the words to mean. > > > > Well, usually they refer to inside of the skin of a body-mind, and what > > is > > outside of the skin. I agree it is kind of loose, the way these words > > are > > used, inside and outside. > > > > So, what is outside of the skin of a particular body mind is inside > > > you. > > > > What is inside the skin is equally outside to you as anything and > > everything else. > > I guess it sorta makes sense to say that what's inside the skin is > " outside " , as it's never 'seen', only surmised based on what one has been > told (e.g. the brain, the organs, etc). > > And memories, e.g. in terms of mental pictures, are very vague. > > So OK, it makes some sense to say what's outside is inside, and what's > inside is outside ;-). > -t- > > I swear to god I dont understand what is inside or outside or the > opposite. > No kidding. > Anything in order to be touches the senses. Why would the sense objects be > different from the senses themselves? > What is the fundamental difference between " retina " and " waving retina due > to a vison of some object " ? > Between " skin " and moving skin due to touching? ETc...to all senses. > -geo- It's also clear that you understand how to use the skin of your body-mind to differentiate inside and outside. It's required by conventional speech and relationships. You don't go to a doctor because your neighbor has a kidney stone, and it's important in conventional terms and situations that you understand what is your inside and what is someone else's. But yes, when observed without bias, the boundary isn't there in any directly perceived way. - D - That is true. So in fact I know what is inside....I go to doctors. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 9/9/2009 09:22:51 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 9, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Wednesday, September 09, 2009 5:31 AM Re: Consciousness at rest Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > consciousness = content = illusion = moving mind = ego = world = > concepts = theories = birds = lions = fishes = apples =......etc etc It isn't so much that " the content of consciousness is an illusion " , it's that, being ever in motion, ever in a state of flux, it never came into existence. Time never froze, in order for something to " be " in a steady-state of continuity. -t- The timebound....and the timeless. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 9/9/2009 09:22:54 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 9, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:55 AM Re: Consciousness at rest Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 5:31 AM > Re: Consciousness at rest > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > consciousness = content = illusion = moving mind = ego = world = > > concepts = theories = birds = lions = fishes = apples =......etc etc > > It isn't so much that " the content of consciousness is an illusion " , it's > that, being ever in motion, ever in a state of flux, it never came into > existence. Time never froze, in order for something to " be " in a > steady-state of continuity. > -t- > > The timebound....and the timeless. > -geo- Nothing is time-bound, because time is a conceptual illusion. Still, the separating. It shows that this is still largely a conceptual thing, a matter of definitions. -t- It true - there is no time. But the fact is that to be able to live even for a fraction of a sec. you need memory, perceptions - that is the nature of the world. In order to write, sit, read, eat, copulate, even to breathe, there is need for a certain " amount " of memory - which is time. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 9/9/2009 09:58:36 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 9, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:15 AM Re: Consciousness at rest Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > It true - there is no time. But the fact is that to be able to live even > for > a fraction of a sec. you need memory, perceptions - that is the nature of > the world. > In order to write, sit, read, eat, copulate, even to breathe, there is > need > for a certain " amount " of memory - which is time. > -geo- This just won't make any sense unless it's a living reality. To try and explain is pointless. It's like trying to explain the taste of an " unnamed " main dish at a restaurant by saying " well, it's sort of sweet, with a saltiness halfway through, and a slight tinge of sweetness at the end " . Does this give a taste? -t- Of course. The same with the seemingly theoretical question: what is the nature of that which aknowledeges changes, time? -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 9/9/2009 10:24:38 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > It's also clear that you understand how to use the skin of your body-> mind to differentiate inside and outside. > > > > It's required by conventional speech and relationships. > > I wouldn't word it that way -- " I know how to use the skin of my body/mind " . > > Whatever " knowledge " is required, arises by itself. > > There isn't a knower, knowing how to use something, nor is anything " being used " . It's simply a matter of memory, that's all. You remember how define a self using the skin as a reference. Or, if your memory is damaged, or if you can't follow social norms and requirements for other reasons, you may not know how to define yourself using that boundary. I'm not sure what " knowledge required arises of itself " means, if anything. What if knowledge required doesn't arise? Such as if there is memory damage or schizophrenia, for example? Then, a person may not be able to use the skin as a conventional self-boundary, and that will lead to problems functioning in society. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It's also clear that you understand how to use the skin of your body-> mind to differentiate inside and outside. > > > > > > It's required by conventional speech and relationships. > > > > I wouldn't word it that way -- " I know how to use the skin of my body/mind " . > > > > Whatever " knowledge " is required, arises by itself. > > > > There isn't a knower, knowing how to use something, nor is anything " being used " . > > It's simply a matter of memory, that's all. > > You remember how define a self using the skin as a reference. The words " me " and " you " are valid only in a social context. > Or, if your memory is damaged, or if you can't follow social norms > and requirements for other reasons, you may not know how to define > yourself using that boundary. I define my self? And so, I am separate from my self, in order to do so? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It's also clear that you understand how to use the skin of your body-> mind to differentiate inside and outside. > > > > > > > > It's required by conventional speech and relationships. > > > > > > I wouldn't word it that way -- " I know how to use the skin of my body/mind " . > > > > > > Whatever " knowledge " is required, arises by itself. > > > > > > There isn't a knower, knowing how to use something, nor is anything " being used " . > > > > It's simply a matter of memory, that's all. > > > > You remember how define a self using the skin as a reference. > > The words " me " and " you " are valid only in a social context. > > > Or, if your memory is damaged, or if you can't follow social norms > and requirements for other reasons, you may not know how to define > yourself using that boundary. > > I define my self? > > And so, I am separate from my self, in order to do so? You define yourself in social situations according to your speech and behavior. But that doesn't mean you've actually separated from yourself. Although, if you figure out how to do that, you could probably get booked on the Jay Leno show, at the very least. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
