Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional model it's " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine punisher " all in conflict with each other. the traditional models whether through religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in the relationship of the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the advaitan model, not only the guru points the fact that superego and id are the constructs of the mind but the " ego " itself is the construct of the mind as well. then in a subtle way the identification shifts from the " i thought " the ego to the impersonal existence or consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. one may look at it at as a smarter crutch than the traditional model but it's definetely an alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of the impending death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote: > > advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional model it's " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine punisher " all in conflict with each other. the traditional models whether through religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in the relationship of the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the advaitan model, not only the guru points the fact that superego and id are the constructs of the mind but the " ego " itself is the construct of the mind as well. then in a subtle way the identification shifts from the " i thought " the ego to the impersonal existence or consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. one may look at it at as a smarter crutch than the traditional model but it's definetely an alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of the impending death. hi hur - okay. so, prior to the construction of this body-mind, who am i? the same as after the death of this body-mind. i assume that in between birth and death something came together, the body-mind construction. so, i assume that something will be lost with death. given these assumptions, a model is generated. a question: is it possible to be aware without the assumption that something was gained - a body-mind construct? is it possible to be the same awareness prior to construction and after death of construction? is it not the case that this awareness is not disrupted by the carryings-on of a body-mind construct? if so - no model is needed. i can talk about this, and in so doing use words. words tell a story. you can call this story " a model. " yet, the awareness that doesn't depend on the body-mind construct is not a model, involves no story. one speaks of this and a story is generated. yet, not speaking of this is not necessarily superior to speaking of this. one may speak of it, understanding that none of the speech-constructs has conveyed the very awareness of the speech constructs as they are offered. thus, by being this, one knows it, without knowing anything of it or about it. one speaks freely of this, without anything being conveyed. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 - Hur Guler Nisargadatta Friday, March 19, 2010 3:38 PM where the " i thought " rises advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional model it's " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine punisher " all in conflict with each other. the traditional models whether through religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in the relationship of the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the advaitan model, not only the guru points the fact that superego and id are the constructs of the mind but the " ego " itself is the construct of the mind as well. then in a subtle way the identification shifts from the " i thought " the ego to the impersonal existence or consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. one may look at it at as a smarter crutch than the traditional model but it's definetely an alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of the impending death. -hur- Do advaitan gurus talk of id an super-ego? I thought it was freudian stuff. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 Tested on: 19/3/2010 15:59:35 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Do advaitan gurus talk of id an super-ego? I thought it was freudian stuff. > -geo- > > advaita gurus don't talk about the freudian model directly. by the way the frudian stuff is just a fancy packaging of the traditional religions model where the devil becomes the id, god is the super-ego and the poor me is in between. advaitan gurus greatest challenge is not just to question the existence of the super-ego but the poor old little me...who is harder to view as the construct of the mind than the any other resident in the mind... after all why worship the super ego at all if He can't give the " poor me " help and eternity? to paraphrase a line from a recent movie, the poor me does not want god's justice, he wants His help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional model it's " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine punisher " all in conflict with each other. the traditional models whether through religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in the relationship of the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the advaitan model, not only the guru points the fact that superego and id are the constructs of the mind but the " ego " itself is the construct of the mind as well. then in a subtle way the identification shifts from the " i thought " the ego to the impersonal existence or consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. one may look at it at as a smarter crutch than the traditional model but it's definetely an alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of the impending death. > > hi hur - > > okay. > > so, prior to the construction of this body-mind, who am i? > > the same as after the death of this body-mind. > > i assume that in between birth and death something came together, the body-mind construction. > > so, i assume that something will be lost with death. > > given these assumptions, a model is generated. > > a question: > > is it possible to be aware without the assumption that something was gained - a body-mind construct? > > is it possible to be the same awareness prior to construction and after death of construction? > > is it not the case that this awareness is not disrupted by the carryings-on of a body-mind construct? > > if so - no model is needed. > > i can talk about this, and in so doing use words. words tell a story. you can call this story " a model. " > > yet, the awareness that doesn't depend on the body-mind construct is not a model, involves no story. > > one speaks of this and a story is generated. > > yet, not speaking of this is not necessarily superior to speaking of this. > > one may speak of it, understanding that none of the speech-constructs has conveyed the very awareness of the speech constructs as they are offered. > > thus, by being this, one knows it, without knowing anything of it or about it. one speaks freely of this, without anything being conveyed. > > - d - > I don't believe there's any awareness before or after the body-mind since there's no need for it. Awareness is the mirror of existence and existence does not need awareness. There can't be awareness without the body-mind and the billions of neural connections firing. People who talk about Awareness or Consciousness in capital letters are holding on to some sort of impersonal existence after the body-mind dies. By definition all super natural spiritual models have to offer a promise of eternity...the eternal ticket at the all-inclusive exotic resort in the sky. That's why Advaita has no appeal to most people since the impersonal model offers no comfort to the poor old me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional model it's " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine punisher " all in conflict with each other. the traditional models whether through religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in the relationship of the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the advaitan model, not only the guru points the fact that superego and id are the constructs of the mind but the " ego " itself is the construct of the mind as well. then in a subtle way the identification shifts from the " i thought " the ego to the impersonal existence or consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. one may look at it at as a smarter crutch than the traditional model but it's definetely an alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of the impending death. > > > > hi hur - > > > > okay. > > > > so, prior to the construction of this body-mind, who am i? > > > > the same as after the death of this body-mind. > > > > i assume that in between birth and death something came together, the body-mind construction. > > > > so, i assume that something will be lost with death. > > > > given these assumptions, a model is generated. > > > > a question: > > > > is it possible to be aware without the assumption that something was gained - a body-mind construct? > > > > is it possible to be the same awareness prior to construction and after death of construction? > > > > is it not the case that this awareness is not disrupted by the carryings-on of a body-mind construct? > > > > if so - no model is needed. > > > > i can talk about this, and in so doing use words. words tell a story. you can call this story " a model. " > > > > yet, the awareness that doesn't depend on the body-mind construct is not a model, involves no story. > > > > one speaks of this and a story is generated. > > > > yet, not speaking of this is not necessarily superior to speaking of this. > > > > one may speak of it, understanding that none of the speech-constructs has conveyed the very awareness of the speech constructs as they are offered. > > > > thus, by being this, one knows it, without knowing anything of it or about it. one speaks freely of this, without anything being conveyed. > > > > - d - > > > > I don't believe there's any awareness before or after the body-mind since there's no need for it. Awareness is the mirror of existence and existence does not need awareness. There can't be awareness without the body-mind and the billions of neural connections firing. People who talk about Awareness or Consciousness in capital letters are holding on to some sort of impersonal existence after the body-mind dies. By definition all super natural spiritual models have to offer a promise of eternity...the eternal ticket at the all-inclusive exotic resort in the sky. That's why Advaita has no appeal to most people since the impersonal model offers no comfort to the poor old me. > Awareness and existence are not separable. In my view, it makes no sense at all to talk about either of them in isolation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 - Hur Guler Nisargadatta Friday, March 19, 2010 5:52 PM Re: where the " i thought " rises Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to > > question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional model it's > > " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine punisher " > > all in conflict with each other. the traditional models whether through > > religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in the relationship of > > the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the advaitan model, not > > only the guru points the fact that superego and id are the constructs of > > the mind but the " ego " itself is the construct of the mind as well. then > > in a subtle way the identification shifts from the " i thought " the ego > > to the impersonal existence or consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. > > one may look at it at as a smarter crutch than the traditional model but > > it's definetely an alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of > > the impending death. > > hi hur - > > okay. > > so, prior to the construction of this body-mind, who am i? > > the same as after the death of this body-mind. > > i assume that in between birth and death something came together, the > body-mind construction. > > so, i assume that something will be lost with death. > > given these assumptions, a model is generated. > > a question: > > is it possible to be aware without the assumption that something was > gained - a body-mind construct? > > is it possible to be the same awareness prior to construction and after > death of construction? > > is it not the case that this awareness is not disrupted by the > carryings-on of a body-mind construct? > > if so - no model is needed. > > i can talk about this, and in so doing use words. words tell a story. you > can call this story " a model. " > > yet, the awareness that doesn't depend on the body-mind construct is not a > model, involves no story. > > one speaks of this and a story is generated. > > yet, not speaking of this is not necessarily superior to speaking of this. > > one may speak of it, understanding that none of the speech-constructs has > conveyed the very awareness of the speech constructs as they are offered. > > thus, by being this, one knows it, without knowing anything of it or about > it. one speaks freely of this, without anything being conveyed. > > - d - > I don't believe there's any awareness before or after the body-mind since there's no need for it. Awareness is the mirror of existence and existence does not need awareness. There can't be awareness without the body-mind and the billions of neural connections firing. People who talk about Awareness or Consciousness in capital letters are holding on to some sort of impersonal existence after the body-mind dies. By definition all super natural spiritual models have to offer a promise of eternity...the eternal ticket at the all-inclusive exotic resort in the sky. That's why Advaita has no appeal to most people since the impersonal model offers no comfort to the poor old me. -hur- Just curiosity: and what do you want with Nisargadatta then? What attracted you to him? All he talks about is basically, the me, the world and awareness. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 Tested on: 19/3/2010 17:56:02 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Friday, March 19, 2010 5:56 PM Re: where the " i thought " rises Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to > > > question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional model > > > it's " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine > > > punisher " all in conflict with each other. the traditional models > > > whether through religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in the > > > relationship of the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the > > > advaitan model, not only the guru points the fact that superego and id > > > are the constructs of the mind but the " ego " itself is the construct > > > of the mind as well. then in a subtle way the identification shifts > > > from the " i thought " the ego to the impersonal existence or > > > consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. one may look at it at as a > > > smarter crutch than the traditional model but it's definetely an > > > alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of the impending > > > death. > > > > hi hur - > > > > okay. > > > > so, prior to the construction of this body-mind, who am i? > > > > the same as after the death of this body-mind. > > > > i assume that in between birth and death something came together, the > > body-mind construction. > > > > so, i assume that something will be lost with death. > > > > given these assumptions, a model is generated. > > > > a question: > > > > is it possible to be aware without the assumption that something was > > gained - a body-mind construct? > > > > is it possible to be the same awareness prior to construction and after > > death of construction? > > > > is it not the case that this awareness is not disrupted by the > > carryings-on of a body-mind construct? > > > > if so - no model is needed. > > > > i can talk about this, and in so doing use words. words tell a story. > > you can call this story " a model. " > > > > yet, the awareness that doesn't depend on the body-mind construct is not > > a model, involves no story. > > > > one speaks of this and a story is generated. > > > > yet, not speaking of this is not necessarily superior to speaking of > > this. > > > > one may speak of it, understanding that none of the speech-constructs > > has conveyed the very awareness of the speech constructs as they are > > offered. > > > > thus, by being this, one knows it, without knowing anything of it or > > about it. one speaks freely of this, without anything being conveyed. > > > > - d - > > > > I don't believe there's any awareness before or after the body-mind since > there's no need for it. Awareness is the mirror of existence and existence > does not need awareness. There can't be awareness without the body-mind > and the billions of neural connections firing. People who talk about > Awareness or Consciousness in capital letters are holding on to some sort > of impersonal existence after the body-mind dies. By definition all super > natural spiritual models have to offer a promise of eternity...the eternal > ticket at the all-inclusive exotic resort in the sky. That's why Advaita > has no appeal to most people since the impersonal model offers no comfort > to the poor old me. > Awareness and existence are not separable. In my view, it makes no sense at all to talk about either of them in isolation. -tim- If you read what hur wrote you will find that he is referring to awareness as synonymous to perception ( " There can't be awareness without the body-mind and the billions of neural connections firing " ). Also he uses consciousness with the same meaning as awareness. Its funny to think that way after having read at least one of Nis's books. But who am I to say anything.... -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 Tested on: 19/3/2010 17:58:04 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Friday, March 19, 2010 5:56 PM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to > > > > question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional model > > > > it's " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine > > > > punisher " all in conflict with each other. the traditional models > > > > whether through religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in the > > > > relationship of the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the > > > > advaitan model, not only the guru points the fact that superego and id > > > > are the constructs of the mind but the " ego " itself is the construct > > > > of the mind as well. then in a subtle way the identification shifts > > > > from the " i thought " the ego to the impersonal existence or > > > > consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. one may look at it at as a > > > > smarter crutch than the traditional model but it's definetely an > > > > alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of the impending > > > > death. > > > > > > hi hur - > > > > > > okay. > > > > > > so, prior to the construction of this body-mind, who am i? > > > > > > the same as after the death of this body-mind. > > > > > > i assume that in between birth and death something came together, the > > > body-mind construction. > > > > > > so, i assume that something will be lost with death. > > > > > > given these assumptions, a model is generated. > > > > > > a question: > > > > > > is it possible to be aware without the assumption that something was > > > gained - a body-mind construct? > > > > > > is it possible to be the same awareness prior to construction and after > > > death of construction? > > > > > > is it not the case that this awareness is not disrupted by the > > > carryings-on of a body-mind construct? > > > > > > if so - no model is needed. > > > > > > i can talk about this, and in so doing use words. words tell a story. > > > you can call this story " a model. " > > > > > > yet, the awareness that doesn't depend on the body-mind construct is not > > > a model, involves no story. > > > > > > one speaks of this and a story is generated. > > > > > > yet, not speaking of this is not necessarily superior to speaking of > > > this. > > > > > > one may speak of it, understanding that none of the speech-constructs > > > has conveyed the very awareness of the speech constructs as they are > > > offered. > > > > > > thus, by being this, one knows it, without knowing anything of it or > > > about it. one speaks freely of this, without anything being conveyed. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > I don't believe there's any awareness before or after the body-mind since > > there's no need for it. Awareness is the mirror of existence and existence > > does not need awareness. There can't be awareness without the body-mind > > and the billions of neural connections firing. People who talk about > > Awareness or Consciousness in capital letters are holding on to some sort > > of impersonal existence after the body-mind dies. By definition all super > > natural spiritual models have to offer a promise of eternity...the eternal > > ticket at the all-inclusive exotic resort in the sky. That's why Advaita > > has no appeal to most people since the impersonal model offers no comfort > > to the poor old me. > > > > Awareness and existence are not separable. > > In my view, it makes no sense at all to talk about either of them in > isolation. > -tim- > > If you read what hur wrote you will find that he is referring to awareness > as synonymous to perception ( " There can't be awareness without the body-mind > and the billions of neural connections firing " ). Also he uses consciousness > with the same meaning as awareness. Its funny to think that way after having > read at least one of Nis's books. But who am I to say anything.... > -geo- Awareness and perception aren't separable, either. What's funny is watching thought artificially pick these things apart -- " awareness " , " existence " , " perception " , " being " ... It's all the same -- none of it separable in any way whatsoever. Perception without awareness? Awareness without being? Being without perception? Perception without existence? See what I mean? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Friday, March 19, 2010 6:25 PM Re: where the " i thought " rises Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Friday, March 19, 2010 5:56 PM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to > > > > question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional model > > > > it's " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine > > > > punisher " all in conflict with each other. the traditional models > > > > whether through religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in > > > > the > > > > relationship of the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the > > > > advaitan model, not only the guru points the fact that superego and > > > > id > > > > are the constructs of the mind but the " ego " itself is the construct > > > > of the mind as well. then in a subtle way the identification shifts > > > > from the " i thought " the ego to the impersonal existence or > > > > consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. one may look at it at as a > > > > smarter crutch than the traditional model but it's definetely an > > > > alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of the impending > > > > death. > > > > > > hi hur - > > > > > > okay. > > > > > > so, prior to the construction of this body-mind, who am i? > > > > > > the same as after the death of this body-mind. > > > > > > i assume that in between birth and death something came together, the > > > body-mind construction. > > > > > > so, i assume that something will be lost with death. > > > > > > given these assumptions, a model is generated. > > > > > > a question: > > > > > > is it possible to be aware without the assumption that something was > > > gained - a body-mind construct? > > > > > > is it possible to be the same awareness prior to construction and > > > after > > > death of construction? > > > > > > is it not the case that this awareness is not disrupted by the > > > carryings-on of a body-mind construct? > > > > > > if so - no model is needed. > > > > > > i can talk about this, and in so doing use words. words tell a story. > > > you can call this story " a model. " > > > > > > yet, the awareness that doesn't depend on the body-mind construct is > > > not > > > a model, involves no story. > > > > > > one speaks of this and a story is generated. > > > > > > yet, not speaking of this is not necessarily superior to speaking of > > > this. > > > > > > one may speak of it, understanding that none of the speech-constructs > > > has conveyed the very awareness of the speech constructs as they are > > > offered. > > > > > > thus, by being this, one knows it, without knowing anything of it or > > > about it. one speaks freely of this, without anything being conveyed. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > I don't believe there's any awareness before or after the body-mind > > since > > there's no need for it. Awareness is the mirror of existence and > > existence > > does not need awareness. There can't be awareness without the body-mind > > and the billions of neural connections firing. People who talk about > > Awareness or Consciousness in capital letters are holding on to some > > sort > > of impersonal existence after the body-mind dies. By definition all > > super > > natural spiritual models have to offer a promise of eternity...the > > eternal > > ticket at the all-inclusive exotic resort in the sky. That's why Advaita > > has no appeal to most people since the impersonal model offers no > > comfort > > to the poor old me. > > > > Awareness and existence are not separable. > > In my view, it makes no sense at all to talk about either of them in > isolation. > -tim- > > If you read what hur wrote you will find that he is referring to awareness > as synonymous to perception ( " There can't be awareness without the > body-mind > and the billions of neural connections firing " ). Also he uses > consciousness > with the same meaning as awareness. Its funny to think that way after > having > read at least one of Nis's books. But who am I to say anything.... > -geo- Awareness and perception aren't separable, either. What's funny is watching thought artificially pick these things apart -- " awareness " , " existence " , " perception " , " being " ... It's all the same -- none of it separable in any way whatsoever. Perception without awareness? Awareness without being? Being without perception? Perception without existence? See what I mean? -tim- Why do you post nis quotes then? -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 Tested on: 19/3/2010 18:26:51 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 - " geo " <inandor <Nisargadatta > Friday, March 19, 2010 6:29 PM Re: Re: where the " i thought " rises > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Friday, March 19, 2010 6:25 PM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: >> >> >> - >> Tim G. >> Nisargadatta >> Friday, March 19, 2010 5:56 PM >> Re: where the " i thought " rises >> >> >> >> >> >> Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to >> > > > question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional model >> > > > it's " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine >> > > > punisher " all in conflict with each other. the traditional models >> > > > whether through religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in >> > > > the >> > > > relationship of the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the >> > > > advaitan model, not only the guru points the fact that superego and >> > > > id >> > > > are the constructs of the mind but the " ego " itself is the >> > > > construct >> > > > of the mind as well. then in a subtle way the identification shifts >> > > > from the " i thought " the ego to the impersonal existence or >> > > > consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. one may look at it at as a >> > > > smarter crutch than the traditional model but it's definetely an >> > > > alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of the impending >> > > > death. >> > > >> > > hi hur - >> > > >> > > okay. >> > > >> > > so, prior to the construction of this body-mind, who am i? >> > > >> > > the same as after the death of this body-mind. >> > > >> > > i assume that in between birth and death something came together, the >> > > body-mind construction. >> > > >> > > so, i assume that something will be lost with death. >> > > >> > > given these assumptions, a model is generated. >> > > >> > > a question: >> > > >> > > is it possible to be aware without the assumption that something was >> > > gained - a body-mind construct? >> > > >> > > is it possible to be the same awareness prior to construction and >> > > after >> > > death of construction? >> > > >> > > is it not the case that this awareness is not disrupted by the >> > > carryings-on of a body-mind construct? >> > > >> > > if so - no model is needed. >> > > >> > > i can talk about this, and in so doing use words. words tell a story. >> > > you can call this story " a model. " >> > > >> > > yet, the awareness that doesn't depend on the body-mind construct is >> > > not >> > > a model, involves no story. >> > > >> > > one speaks of this and a story is generated. >> > > >> > > yet, not speaking of this is not necessarily superior to speaking of >> > > this. >> > > >> > > one may speak of it, understanding that none of the speech-constructs >> > > has conveyed the very awareness of the speech constructs as they are >> > > offered. >> > > >> > > thus, by being this, one knows it, without knowing anything of it or >> > > about it. one speaks freely of this, without anything being conveyed. >> > > >> > > - d - >> > > >> > >> > I don't believe there's any awareness before or after the body-mind >> > since >> > there's no need for it. Awareness is the mirror of existence and >> > existence >> > does not need awareness. There can't be awareness without the body-mind >> > and the billions of neural connections firing. People who talk about >> > Awareness or Consciousness in capital letters are holding on to some >> > sort >> > of impersonal existence after the body-mind dies. By definition all >> > super >> > natural spiritual models have to offer a promise of eternity...the >> > eternal >> > ticket at the all-inclusive exotic resort in the sky. That's why >> > Advaita >> > has no appeal to most people since the impersonal model offers no >> > comfort >> > to the poor old me. >> > >> >> Awareness and existence are not separable. >> >> In my view, it makes no sense at all to talk about either of them in >> isolation. >> -tim- >> >> If you read what hur wrote you will find that he is referring to >> awareness >> as synonymous to perception ( " There can't be awareness without the >> body-mind >> and the billions of neural connections firing " ). Also he uses >> consciousness >> with the same meaning as awareness. Its funny to think that way after >> having >> read at least one of Nis's books. But who am I to say anything.... >> -geo- > > Awareness and perception aren't separable, either. > > What's funny is watching thought artificially pick these things apart -- > " awareness " , " existence " , " perception " , " being " ... > > It's all the same -- none of it separable in any way whatsoever. > > Perception without awareness? > > Awareness without being? > > Being without perception? > > Perception without existence? > > See what I mean? > -tim- > Why do you post nis quotes then? BTW... if it is as you say why do you read Nis's quotes at all? You are just trying to be cute... -geo- > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 > Tested on: 19/3/2010 18:26:51 > avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > " geo " <inandor > <Nisargadatta > > Friday, March 19, 2010 6:29 PM > Re: Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, March 19, 2010 6:25 PM > > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > >> > >> > >> - > >> Tim G. > >> Nisargadatta > >> Friday, March 19, 2010 5:56 PM > >> Re: where the " i thought " rises > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to > >> > > > question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional model > >> > > > it's " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine > >> > > > punisher " all in conflict with each other. the traditional models > >> > > > whether through religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in > >> > > > the > >> > > > relationship of the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the > >> > > > advaitan model, not only the guru points the fact that superego and > >> > > > id > >> > > > are the constructs of the mind but the " ego " itself is the > >> > > > construct > >> > > > of the mind as well. then in a subtle way the identification shifts > >> > > > from the " i thought " the ego to the impersonal existence or > >> > > > consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. one may look at it at as a > >> > > > smarter crutch than the traditional model but it's definetely an > >> > > > alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of the impending > >> > > > death. > >> > > > >> > > hi hur - > >> > > > >> > > okay. > >> > > > >> > > so, prior to the construction of this body-mind, who am i? > >> > > > >> > > the same as after the death of this body-mind. > >> > > > >> > > i assume that in between birth and death something came together, the > >> > > body-mind construction. > >> > > > >> > > so, i assume that something will be lost with death. > >> > > > >> > > given these assumptions, a model is generated. > >> > > > >> > > a question: > >> > > > >> > > is it possible to be aware without the assumption that something was > >> > > gained - a body-mind construct? > >> > > > >> > > is it possible to be the same awareness prior to construction and > >> > > after > >> > > death of construction? > >> > > > >> > > is it not the case that this awareness is not disrupted by the > >> > > carryings-on of a body-mind construct? > >> > > > >> > > if so - no model is needed. > >> > > > >> > > i can talk about this, and in so doing use words. words tell a story. > >> > > you can call this story " a model. " > >> > > > >> > > yet, the awareness that doesn't depend on the body-mind construct is > >> > > not > >> > > a model, involves no story. > >> > > > >> > > one speaks of this and a story is generated. > >> > > > >> > > yet, not speaking of this is not necessarily superior to speaking of > >> > > this. > >> > > > >> > > one may speak of it, understanding that none of the speech-constructs > >> > > has conveyed the very awareness of the speech constructs as they are > >> > > offered. > >> > > > >> > > thus, by being this, one knows it, without knowing anything of it or > >> > > about it. one speaks freely of this, without anything being conveyed. > >> > > > >> > > - d - > >> > > > >> > > >> > I don't believe there's any awareness before or after the body-mind > >> > since > >> > there's no need for it. Awareness is the mirror of existence and > >> > existence > >> > does not need awareness. There can't be awareness without the body-mind > >> > and the billions of neural connections firing. People who talk about > >> > Awareness or Consciousness in capital letters are holding on to some > >> > sort > >> > of impersonal existence after the body-mind dies. By definition all > >> > super > >> > natural spiritual models have to offer a promise of eternity...the > >> > eternal > >> > ticket at the all-inclusive exotic resort in the sky. That's why > >> > Advaita > >> > has no appeal to most people since the impersonal model offers no > >> > comfort > >> > to the poor old me. > >> > > >> > >> Awareness and existence are not separable. > >> > >> In my view, it makes no sense at all to talk about either of them in > >> isolation. > >> -tim- > >> > >> If you read what hur wrote you will find that he is referring to > >> awareness > >> as synonymous to perception ( " There can't be awareness without the > >> body-mind > >> and the billions of neural connections firing " ). Also he uses > >> consciousness > >> with the same meaning as awareness. Its funny to think that way after > >> having > >> read at least one of Nis's books. But who am I to say anything.... > >> -geo- > > > > Awareness and perception aren't separable, either. > > > > What's funny is watching thought artificially pick these things apart -- > > " awareness " , " existence " , " perception " , " being " ... > > > > It's all the same -- none of it separable in any way whatsoever. > > > > Perception without awareness? > > > > Awareness without being? > > > > Being without perception? > > > > Perception without existence? > > > > See what I mean? > > -tim- > > > Why do you post nis quotes then? > BTW... if it is as you say why do you read Nis's quotes at all? Because it's interesting watching thought artificially pick these things apart ;-). Nis: says: " until once becomes self-realised, attains to knowledge of the self, transcends the self, until then, all these cock-and-bull stories are provided, all these concepts. " > You are just trying to be cute... > -geo- Why... do you think I'm cute? ;-D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Friday, March 19, 2010 6:25 PM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, March 19, 2010 5:56 PM > > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to > > > > > question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional model > > > > > it's " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine > > > > > punisher " all in conflict with each other. the traditional models > > > > > whether through religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in > > > > > the > > > > > relationship of the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the > > > > > advaitan model, not only the guru points the fact that superego and > > > > > id > > > > > are the constructs of the mind but the " ego " itself is the construct > > > > > of the mind as well. then in a subtle way the identification shifts > > > > > from the " i thought " the ego to the impersonal existence or > > > > > consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. one may look at it at as a > > > > > smarter crutch than the traditional model but it's definetely an > > > > > alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of the impending > > > > > death. > > > > > > > > hi hur - > > > > > > > > okay. > > > > > > > > so, prior to the construction of this body-mind, who am i? > > > > > > > > the same as after the death of this body-mind. > > > > > > > > i assume that in between birth and death something came together, the > > > > body-mind construction. > > > > > > > > so, i assume that something will be lost with death. > > > > > > > > given these assumptions, a model is generated. > > > > > > > > a question: > > > > > > > > is it possible to be aware without the assumption that something was > > > > gained - a body-mind construct? > > > > > > > > is it possible to be the same awareness prior to construction and > > > > after > > > > death of construction? > > > > > > > > is it not the case that this awareness is not disrupted by the > > > > carryings-on of a body-mind construct? > > > > > > > > if so - no model is needed. > > > > > > > > i can talk about this, and in so doing use words. words tell a story. > > > > you can call this story " a model. " > > > > > > > > yet, the awareness that doesn't depend on the body-mind construct is > > > > not > > > > a model, involves no story. > > > > > > > > one speaks of this and a story is generated. > > > > > > > > yet, not speaking of this is not necessarily superior to speaking of > > > > this. > > > > > > > > one may speak of it, understanding that none of the speech-constructs > > > > has conveyed the very awareness of the speech constructs as they are > > > > offered. > > > > > > > > thus, by being this, one knows it, without knowing anything of it or > > > > about it. one speaks freely of this, without anything being conveyed. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe there's any awareness before or after the body-mind > > > since > > > there's no need for it. Awareness is the mirror of existence and > > > existence > > > does not need awareness. There can't be awareness without the body-mind > > > and the billions of neural connections firing. People who talk about > > > Awareness or Consciousness in capital letters are holding on to some > > > sort > > > of impersonal existence after the body-mind dies. By definition all > > > super > > > natural spiritual models have to offer a promise of eternity...the > > > eternal > > > ticket at the all-inclusive exotic resort in the sky. That's why Advaita > > > has no appeal to most people since the impersonal model offers no > > > comfort > > > to the poor old me. > > > > > > > Awareness and existence are not separable. > > > > In my view, it makes no sense at all to talk about either of them in > > isolation. > > -tim- > > > > If you read what hur wrote you will find that he is referring to awareness > > as synonymous to perception ( " There can't be awareness without the > > body-mind > > and the billions of neural connections firing " ). Also he uses > > consciousness > > with the same meaning as awareness. Its funny to think that way after > > having > > read at least one of Nis's books. But who am I to say anything.... > > -geo- > > Awareness and perception aren't separable, either. > > What's funny is watching thought artificially pick these things apart -- > " awareness " , " existence " , " perception " , " being " ... > > It's all the same -- none of it separable in any way whatsoever. > > Perception without awareness? > > Awareness without being? > > Being without perception? > > Perception without existence? > > See what I mean? > -tim- > > Why do you post nis quotes then? > -geo- So folks can read them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2010 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Friday, March 19, 2010 6:38 PM Re: where the " i thought " rises Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Friday, March 19, 2010 6:25 PM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, March 19, 2010 5:56 PM > > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to > > > > > question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional > > > > > model > > > > > it's " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine > > > > > punisher " all in conflict with each other. the traditional models > > > > > whether through religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in > > > > > the > > > > > relationship of the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the > > > > > advaitan model, not only the guru points the fact that superego > > > > > and > > > > > id > > > > > are the constructs of the mind but the " ego " itself is the > > > > > construct > > > > > of the mind as well. then in a subtle way the identification > > > > > shifts > > > > > from the " i thought " the ego to the impersonal existence or > > > > > consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. one may look at it at as > > > > > a > > > > > smarter crutch than the traditional model but it's definetely an > > > > > alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of the > > > > > impending > > > > > death. > > > > > > > > hi hur - > > > > > > > > okay. > > > > > > > > so, prior to the construction of this body-mind, who am i? > > > > > > > > the same as after the death of this body-mind. > > > > > > > > i assume that in between birth and death something came together, > > > > the > > > > body-mind construction. > > > > > > > > so, i assume that something will be lost with death. > > > > > > > > given these assumptions, a model is generated. > > > > > > > > a question: > > > > > > > > is it possible to be aware without the assumption that something was > > > > gained - a body-mind construct? > > > > > > > > is it possible to be the same awareness prior to construction and > > > > after > > > > death of construction? > > > > > > > > is it not the case that this awareness is not disrupted by the > > > > carryings-on of a body-mind construct? > > > > > > > > if so - no model is needed. > > > > > > > > i can talk about this, and in so doing use words. words tell a > > > > story. > > > > you can call this story " a model. " > > > > > > > > yet, the awareness that doesn't depend on the body-mind construct is > > > > not > > > > a model, involves no story. > > > > > > > > one speaks of this and a story is generated. > > > > > > > > yet, not speaking of this is not necessarily superior to speaking of > > > > this. > > > > > > > > one may speak of it, understanding that none of the > > > > speech-constructs > > > > has conveyed the very awareness of the speech constructs as they are > > > > offered. > > > > > > > > thus, by being this, one knows it, without knowing anything of it or > > > > about it. one speaks freely of this, without anything being > > > > conveyed. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe there's any awareness before or after the body-mind > > > since > > > there's no need for it. Awareness is the mirror of existence and > > > existence > > > does not need awareness. There can't be awareness without the > > > body-mind > > > and the billions of neural connections firing. People who talk about > > > Awareness or Consciousness in capital letters are holding on to some > > > sort > > > of impersonal existence after the body-mind dies. By definition all > > > super > > > natural spiritual models have to offer a promise of eternity...the > > > eternal > > > ticket at the all-inclusive exotic resort in the sky. That's why > > > Advaita > > > has no appeal to most people since the impersonal model offers no > > > comfort > > > to the poor old me. > > > > > > > Awareness and existence are not separable. > > > > In my view, it makes no sense at all to talk about either of them in > > isolation. > > -tim- > > > > If you read what hur wrote you will find that he is referring to > > awareness > > as synonymous to perception ( " There can't be awareness without the > > body-mind > > and the billions of neural connections firing " ). Also he uses > > consciousness > > with the same meaning as awareness. Its funny to think that way after > > having > > read at least one of Nis's books. But who am I to say anything.... > > -geo- > > Awareness and perception aren't separable, either. > > What's funny is watching thought artificially pick these things apart -- > " awareness " , " existence " , " perception " , " being " ... > > It's all the same -- none of it separable in any way whatsoever. > > Perception without awareness? > > Awareness without being? > > Being without perception? > > Perception without existence? > > See what I mean? > -tim- > > Why do you post nis quotes then? > -geo- So folks can read them. -tim- Folks read them, I read them, you read them, and he speaks of awareness, consciousness, being, world, etc... -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 Tested on: 19/3/2010 18:40:33 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 - geo Nisargadatta Friday, March 19, 2010 6:53 PM Re: Re: where the " i thought " rises - Tim G. Nisargadatta Friday, March 19, 2010 6:38 PM Re: where the " i thought " rises Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Friday, March 19, 2010 6:25 PM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, March 19, 2010 5:56 PM > > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > advaitan gurus ask where the " i thought " arises from in order to > > > > > question our traditional model of reality. in the traditional > > > > > model > > > > > it's " id the devil, ego the worshipper, and super-ego the divine > > > > > punisher " all in conflict with each other. the traditional models > > > > > whether through religion or psychology try to fix the conflicts in > > > > > the > > > > > relationship of the different aspects of the ego...whereas in the > > > > > advaitan model, not only the guru points the fact that superego > > > > > and > > > > > id > > > > > are the constructs of the mind but the " ego " itself is the > > > > > construct > > > > > of the mind as well. then in a subtle way the identification > > > > > shifts > > > > > from the " i thought " the ego to the impersonal existence or > > > > > consciousness or " Whatever " you call it. one may look at it at as > > > > > a > > > > > smarter crutch than the traditional model but it's definetely an > > > > > alternative model of reality to offer some comfort of the > > > > > impending > > > > > death. > > > > > > > > hi hur - > > > > > > > > okay. > > > > > > > > so, prior to the construction of this body-mind, who am i? > > > > > > > > the same as after the death of this body-mind. > > > > > > > > i assume that in between birth and death something came together, > > > > the > > > > body-mind construction. > > > > > > > > so, i assume that something will be lost with death. > > > > > > > > given these assumptions, a model is generated. > > > > > > > > a question: > > > > > > > > is it possible to be aware without the assumption that something was > > > > gained - a body-mind construct? > > > > > > > > is it possible to be the same awareness prior to construction and > > > > after > > > > death of construction? > > > > > > > > is it not the case that this awareness is not disrupted by the > > > > carryings-on of a body-mind construct? > > > > > > > > if so - no model is needed. > > > > > > > > i can talk about this, and in so doing use words. words tell a > > > > story. > > > > you can call this story " a model. " > > > > > > > > yet, the awareness that doesn't depend on the body-mind construct is > > > > not > > > > a model, involves no story. > > > > > > > > one speaks of this and a story is generated. > > > > > > > > yet, not speaking of this is not necessarily superior to speaking of > > > > this. > > > > > > > > one may speak of it, understanding that none of the > > > > speech-constructs > > > > has conveyed the very awareness of the speech constructs as they are > > > > offered. > > > > > > > > thus, by being this, one knows it, without knowing anything of it or > > > > about it. one speaks freely of this, without anything being > > > > conveyed. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe there's any awareness before or after the body-mind > > > since > > > there's no need for it. Awareness is the mirror of existence and > > > existence > > > does not need awareness. There can't be awareness without the > > > body-mind > > > and the billions of neural connections firing. People who talk about > > > Awareness or Consciousness in capital letters are holding on to some > > > sort > > > of impersonal existence after the body-mind dies. By definition all > > > super > > > natural spiritual models have to offer a promise of eternity...the > > > eternal > > > ticket at the all-inclusive exotic resort in the sky. That's why > > > Advaita > > > has no appeal to most people since the impersonal model offers no > > > comfort > > > to the poor old me. > > > > > > > Awareness and existence are not separable. > > > > In my view, it makes no sense at all to talk about either of them in > > isolation. > > -tim- > > > > If you read what hur wrote you will find that he is referring to > > awareness > > as synonymous to perception ( " There can't be awareness without the > > body-mind > > and the billions of neural connections firing " ). Also he uses > > consciousness > > with the same meaning as awareness. Its funny to think that way after > > having > > read at least one of Nis's books. But who am I to say anything.... > > -geo- > > Awareness and perception aren't separable, either. > > What's funny is watching thought artificially pick these things apart -- > " awareness " , " existence " , " perception " , " being " ... > > It's all the same -- none of it separable in any way whatsoever. > > Perception without awareness? > > Awareness without being? > > Being without perception? > > Perception without existence? > > See what I mean? > -tim- > > Why do you post nis quotes then? > -geo- So folks can read them. -tim- Folks read them, I read them, you read them, and he speaks of awareness, consciousness, being, world, etc... -geo- As I see it, first one must stand as awareness, explore such possibility, understand it, to then see that perceptions and awareness are inseparable - but not identical. Just like electrons and an apple pie. Destroy the pie, eat it, step on it... and the electrons are not moved or touched or destroyed. Destroy the electrons (if such a thing is possible) and the pie is gone. So..they are inseparable but not identical. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 Tested on: 19/3/2010 18:40:33 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 Tested on: 19/3/2010 18:54:22 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Folks read them, I read them, you read them, and he speaks of awareness, > consciousness, being, world, etc... > -geo- Lemme ask ya this -- are you going to say in one breath: " all is one, nothing is divided " , and in the next breath say: " there are all these actual, different 'things' like consciousness, being, awareness, existence, and they all have complex relationships between each other, and some depend on others, and some don't " ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Friday, March 19, 2010 7:32 PM Re: where the " i thought " rises Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Folks read them, I read them, you read them, and he speaks of awareness, > consciousness, being, world, etc... > -geo- Lemme ask ya this -- are you going to say in one breath: " all is one, nothing is divided " , and in the next breath say: " there are all these actual, different 'things' like consciousness, being, awareness, existence, and they all have complex relationships between each other, and some depend on others, and some don't " -tim- Lemme tell ya then: In the world, all things have complex relationships between each other, and some depend on others, and some don't. As nis would say its all a play of the gunas. And the gunas, the world, consciousness, perceptions occupy an adimensional " space " that some call " awareness " . This awareness or space is unborn - in contrast to the things of the world that are born and die - and its there even when the others above mentioned are not.... and that is my real nature. This does not mean I am not gona die because memory is part of the world and the play of the gunas.... so everything known will disappear. BTW....IMHO, this is nis message. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 Tested on: 19/3/2010 19:33:24 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Friday, March 19, 2010 7:32 PM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Folks read them, I read them, you read them, and he speaks of awareness, > > consciousness, being, world, etc... > > -geo- > > Lemme ask ya this -- are you going to say in one breath: > > " all is one, nothing is divided " , > > and in the next breath say: > > " there are all these actual, different 'things' like consciousness, being, > awareness, existence, and they all have complex relationships between each > other, and some depend on others, and some don't " > -tim- > > Lemme tell ya then: > In the world, all things have complex relationships between each other, and > some depend on others, and some don't. 'Tis not true. I am the world, and am not in relationship with anything -- being everything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, March 19, 2010 7:32 PM > > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Folks read them, I read them, you read them, and he speaks of awareness, > > > consciousness, being, world, etc... > > > -geo- > > > > Lemme ask ya this -- are you going to say in one breath: > > > > " all is one, nothing is divided " , > > > > and in the next breath say: > > > > " there are all these actual, different 'things' like consciousness, being, > > awareness, existence, and they all have complex relationships between each > > other, and some depend on others, and some don't " > > -tim- > > > > Lemme tell ya then: > > In the world, all things have complex relationships between each other, and > > some depend on others, and some don't. > > 'Tis not true. > > I am the world, and am not in relationship with anything -- being everything. > Memory and the world are one. The world is myself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Friday, March 19, 2010 8:13 PM Re: where the " i thought " rises Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Friday, March 19, 2010 7:32 PM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Folks read them, I read them, you read them, and he speaks of awareness, > > consciousness, being, world, etc... > > -geo- > > Lemme ask ya this -- are you going to say in one breath: > > " all is one, nothing is divided " , > > and in the next breath say: > > " there are all these actual, different 'things' like consciousness, being, > awareness, existence, and they all have complex relationships between each > other, and some depend on others, and some don't " > -tim- > > Lemme tell ya then: > In the world, all things have complex relationships between each other, > and > some depend on others, and some don't. 'Tis not true. I am the world, and am not in relationship with anything -- being everything. -tim- You are a bit too hasty, because even if what you said where true, it is written above: " ... some depend on others, and some don't " And some don't, it says. So.... tis true. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 Tested on: 19/3/2010 20:17:33 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Friday, March 19, 2010 8:13 PM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, March 19, 2010 7:32 PM > > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Folks read them, I read them, you read them, and he speaks of awareness, > > > consciousness, being, world, etc... > > > -geo- > > > > Lemme ask ya this -- are you going to say in one breath: > > > > " all is one, nothing is divided " , > > > > and in the next breath say: > > > > " there are all these actual, different 'things' like consciousness, being, > > awareness, existence, and they all have complex relationships between each > > other, and some depend on others, and some don't " > > -tim- > > > > Lemme tell ya then: > > In the world, all things have complex relationships between each other, > > and > > some depend on others, and some don't. > > 'Tis not true. > > I am the world, and am not in relationship with anything -- being > everything. > -tim- > > You are a bit too hasty, because even if what you said where true, it is > written above: " ... some depend on others, and some don't " > And some don't, it says. So.... tis true. > -geo- Some what? Some projected " some things out there? " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Friday, March 19, 2010 7:32 PM > > > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks read them, I read them, you read them, and he speaks of awareness, > > > > consciousness, being, world, etc... > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Lemme ask ya this -- are you going to say in one breath: > > > > > > " all is one, nothing is divided " , > > > > > > and in the next breath say: > > > > > > " there are all these actual, different 'things' like consciousness, being, > > > awareness, existence, and they all have complex relationships between each > > > other, and some depend on others, and some don't " > > > -tim- > > > > > > Lemme tell ya then: > > > In the world, all things have complex relationships between each other, and > > > some depend on others, and some don't. > > > > 'Tis not true. > > > > I am the world, and am not in relationship with anything -- being everything. > > > > Memory and the world are one. > > The world is myself. > " To one who is firmly established in the blissful Natural State, beyond change, and therefore is not aware of difference, who does not think 'I am one, and he is another', who is there, other than the Self? If any one says anything about him, what matters it? For him it is just the same as if it was said by himself. " -- Ramana Maharshi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Friday, March 19, 2010 9:27 PM Re: where the " i thought " rises Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Friday, March 19, 2010 7:32 PM > > > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks read them, I read them, you read them, and he speaks of > > > > awareness, > > > > consciousness, being, world, etc... > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Lemme ask ya this -- are you going to say in one breath: > > > > > > " all is one, nothing is divided " , > > > > > > and in the next breath say: > > > > > > " there are all these actual, different 'things' like consciousness, > > > being, > > > awareness, existence, and they all have complex relationships between > > > each > > > other, and some depend on others, and some don't " > > > -tim- > > > > > > Lemme tell ya then: > > > In the world, all things have complex relationships between each > > > other, and > > > some depend on others, and some don't. > > > > 'Tis not true. > > > > I am the world, and am not in relationship with anything -- being > > everything. > > > > Memory and the world are one. > > The world is myself. > " To one who is firmly established in the blissful Natural State, beyond change, and therefore is not aware of difference, who does not think 'I am one, and he is another', who is there, other than the Self? If any one says anything about him, what matters it? For him it is just the same as if it was said by himself. " -- Ramana Maharshi -tim- Yes but, you have been denying any " state " that is beyond change. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 Tested on: 19/3/2010 21:30:03 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Friday, March 19, 2010 9:27 PM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Tim G. > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Friday, March 19, 2010 7:32 PM > > > > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks read them, I read them, you read them, and he speaks of > > > > > awareness, > > > > > consciousness, being, world, etc... > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Lemme ask ya this -- are you going to say in one breath: > > > > > > > > " all is one, nothing is divided " , > > > > > > > > and in the next breath say: > > > > > > > > " there are all these actual, different 'things' like consciousness, > > > > being, > > > > awareness, existence, and they all have complex relationships between > > > > each > > > > other, and some depend on others, and some don't " > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > Lemme tell ya then: > > > > In the world, all things have complex relationships between each > > > > other, and > > > > some depend on others, and some don't. > > > > > > 'Tis not true. > > > > > > I am the world, and am not in relationship with anything -- being > > > everything. > > > > > > > Memory and the world are one. > > > > The world is myself. > > > > " To one who is firmly established in the blissful Natural State, beyond > change, and therefore is not aware of difference, who does not think 'I am > one, and he is another', who is there, other than the Self? If any one says > anything about him, what matters it? For him it is just the same as if it > was said by himself. " -- Ramana Maharshi > -tim- > > Yes but, you have been denying any " state " that is beyond change. > -geo- " Actual change " = no-change. " Imagined static self " , " standing against the flood of change " , = perceived change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 Hur: I don't believe there's any awareness before or after the body-mind since there's no need for it. Awareness is the mirror of existence and existence does not need awareness. There can't be awareness without the body-mind and the billions of neural connections firing. People who talk about Awareness or Consciousness in capital letters are holding on to some sort of impersonal existence after the body-mind dies. By definition all super natural spiritual models have to offer a promise of eternity...the eternal ticket at the all-inclusive exotic resort in the sky. That's why Advaita has no appeal to most people since the impersonal model offers no comfort to the poor old me. I may not understand this discussion--I probably don't understand it, but isn't this comment about Awareness similar to saying a tree doesn't make any noise when it falls in the forest if there isn't anyone there to hear it? I use Awareness in capital letters to describe the potential of the tree to exist. I had never thought about this being a comfort in the sense of a ticket of eternity, but perhaps it is, though not for this particular egoic structure, I suspect. Here is an interesting passage about perception and I think awareness from Don Juan: The first truth is that the world is as it looks and yet it isn't," he went on. "It's not as solid and real as our perception has been led to believe, but it isn't a mirage either. The world is not an illusion, as it has been said to be; it's real on the one hand, and unreal on the other. Pay close attention to this, for it must be understood, not just accepted. We perceive. This is a hard fact. But what we perceive is not a fact of the same kind, because we learn what to perceive." "Something out there is affecting our senses. This is the part that is real. The unreal part is what our senses tell us is there. Take a mountain, for instance. Our senses tell us that it is an object. It has size, color, form. We even have categories of mountains, and they are downright accurate. Nothing wrong with that; the flaw is simply that it has never occurred to us that our senses play only a superficial role. Gloria Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
