Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 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- Nis said I cannot be what I perceive. I question that. Why not? If I am not what I perceive, then there is me and the perceived. If that is a fact, it is not nonduality - it is duality: me and the world - ie. awareness (I am that) plus what I am aware of - the perceived. This is a puzzle, and I have not solved it although I have been working on it for quite some years now. I say I am the perceived and the perceived is not solid and so it comes and goes all the time, constantly - iow I am born and I die every moment. What is born and dies constantly is awareness which is what Hur says it is: same as consciousness, same as perception/perceived and so voila: puzzle solved. It's found out about in that *silence* that Tim talked of, when the mind which is the storehouse of past events - stops talking - when the incessant activity from, of and about the past, what was/ happened: movements quicker than movement itself - and now nothing but images and thoughts -- becomes still/quiet. There, in that quietude, me and other is all the same - there is no difference and birth and death are not tangible events for it takes images/thoughts to keep the idea of birth and death of all alive. Krishnamurti said: only the image can die He also said that thought is time. -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > 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- > > > > Nis said I cannot be what I perceive. I question that. Why not? > If I am not what I perceive, then there is me and the perceived. > If that is a fact, it is not nonduality - it is duality: me and > the world - ie. awareness (I am that) plus what I am aware of - > the perceived. > > This is a puzzle, and I have not solved it although I have been > working on it for quite some years now. > > I say I am the perceived and the perceived is not solid and so > it comes and goes all the time, constantly - iow I am born and > I die every moment. > > What is born and dies constantly is awareness which is what Hur > says it is: same as consciousness, same as perception/perceived > and so voila: puzzle solved. > > It's found out about in that *silence* that Tim talked of, when > the mind which is the storehouse of past events - stops talking > - when the incessant activity from, of and about the past, what > was/ happened: movements quicker than movement itself - and now > nothing but images and thoughts -- becomes still/quiet. > > There, in that quietude, me and other is all the same - there is > no difference and birth and death are not tangible events for it > takes images/thoughts to keep the idea of birth and death of all > alive. > > Krishnamurti said: only the image can die > > He also said that thought is time. > > -Lene When the mind is quiet - there is instead of the babbling - an open space-feel-like, and that space is whatever the other, ie fi the sound of a bird or phone ringing, and I am that - other The other and me is the same. There's just that sound, nothing else than that sound. There is one. That is nonduality. That's nondivision. The idea of a dual world arises in the mind which is the past. Krishnamurti would say a quiet mind is aware open alert aso. It means that there is room, empty, available space where before there was babble babble babble babble and more of it. I for one should know that Just for the fun of it - one might say that instead of me and other -- there is but a third There's nothing personal about or to that third. What personal is there to the sound of a bird singing in the tree outside my kitchen-window? Only when there is identification with it does it become personal as if persona is formed via identification. All of this will sound familiar to those of you, who meditate. So far so good. To speculate on what or who does the identification is really off-topic here. Such questions only arise when mind is tired of being empty & passive -- Imagine meditating 31 (24 + 7 on a mountain top for a thousand years plus. Would you not want to do something else for a change? Greetings -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 [snip] Lene: Nis said I cannot be what I perceive. I question that. Why not?If I am not what I perceive, then there is me and the perceived. Gloria: Because you cannot be what you are creating with thought, can you? (Would you want to be? ) I guess the question is do you think what you percieve is complete or real? Lene: If that is a fact, it is not nonduality - it is duality: me andthe world - ie. awareness (I am that) plus what I am aware of -the perceived. Gloria: It is only perceived duality, I think. It does seem like a puzzle from the mind's point of view. But the mind should not be asked to perform the task of evaluating it's relative existence. Isn't the mind essentially just a tool meant to distinguish ripe from unripe fruit? If attention is moved from mind to silence/awareness, the illusion of time and "I" disappear, and the duality may collapse. I say may because I'm kind of uncomfortable with some of this spiritual jargon. Lene: I say I am the perceived and the perceived is not solid and soit comes and goes all the time, constantly - iow I am born andI die every moment.What is born and dies constantly is awareness which is what Hursays it is: same as consciousness, same as perception/perceivedand so voila: puzzle solved. Gloria: I would say the mind is the percieved/only perceptions, and these perceptions quickly create the impression of substance. Like an artist creating a picture from shading. So I, who like the term "Awareness" say that being conscious of this process collapses the illusion of substance/time, and what is left is just Awareness, Consciousness. If the duality of that is troubling, throw the shaded sketch of oneself back in, knowing that it is Illusion. I suspect this is all a matter of definitions, and if those aren't agreed on, there will be no end to this thread Lene: It's found out about in that *silence* that Tim talked of, whenthe mind which is the storehouse of past events - stops talking- when the incessant activity from, of and about the past, whatwas/ happened: movements quicker than movement itself - and nownothing but images and thoughts -- becomes still/quiet. Gloria: I would make the distinction that the mind is a storehouse of percieved events, for the past itself is only what we percieve. The mind is also a storehouse of percieved future events, for the future is of the same fabric. And all these thoughts take place within silence/awareness.Lene: There, in that quietude, me and other is all the same - there isno difference and birth and death are not tangible events for ittakes images/thoughts to keep the idea of birth and death of allalive.Krishnamurti said: only the image can die :)He also said that thought is time. Gloria: Your comment about quietude is lovely. As are the two quotes from Krishnamurti. Gloria -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 Nis said I cannot be what I perceive. I question that. Why not?-lene- Nis uses his particular language/method. He likes to drive the reader through two stages in order to understand the one-ness of all. First, as you imply, he says I am the world and the world is me, or, I am all and all is me. At this point there is only one: me, or the world. The he invites you to ask: What is the nature of the essence of this one-all (all-one) that I am? It is at this point that he says "I cannot be what I perceive". Not as some final truth, but to make one understand - eventually - the nature of the "space" that is the ground of all there is here. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 - geo Nisargadatta Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:12 AM Re: Re: where the " i thought " rises Nis said I cannot be what I perceive. I question that. Why not? -lene- Nis uses his particular language/method. He likes to drive the reader through two stages in order to understand the one-ness of all. First, as you imply, he says I am the world and the world is me, or, I am all and all is me. At this point there is only one: me, or the world. The he invites you to ask: What is the nature of the essence of this one-all (all-one) that I am? It is at this point that he says " I cannot be what I perceive " . Not as some final truth, but to make one understand - eventually - the nature of the " space " that is the ground of all there is here. Perhaps it is interesting to note, lene, that that space, the ground, altough being the foundation of all,the essence of all, is unable to say " I am " . Only the world can say that. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 Tested on: 20/3/2010 09:15:26 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 , " 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. You suggest that something was added when the body-mind was constructed. You suggest that some quality called " awareness " got added in with something called a body-mind. Not so. The body-mind didn't add something into the picture. The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. Awareness has no time. You sound like you're equating awareness with body-mind consciousness, which Nisargadatta apparently wanted to distinguish, so that awareness is not misunderstood as the consciousness developed through body-mind neurons. In fact, a cell has consciousness, so it doesn't depend on neurons per se - although with humans the brain takes an " executive role " and the human structure is designed to require brain functions. Consciousness depends on " inside/outside " differentiation, whereas awareness does not. Awareness doesn't promise anything to a me, because awareness has no center to it. Eternity is not something a me can have, it is what is left when the center is not. Nor is awareness any kind of anchor for reality. One reaches a point that can't be discussed. So, for discussion's sake, what can be talked about, is talked about. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > 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- A geo? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > 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? See what I mean, jellybean. - D - 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. > 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- Yes. There are two understandings. One is understanding of the world through the inside/outside lens, the lens of cause and effect relationships of recognizable things. The other understanding is not involving inside/outside, has no cause and effect, and no basis in memory. These two understandings are one, but only when not having a center in the first understanding. If having a center in the first understanding, the second understanding isn't available. If speaking to one who takes the first understanding as his or her ground, one may find ways to suggest the second understanding. This is what Buddhists call " skillful means. " One who is grounded in the first understanding will resist the second understanding due to fear. There is no fear in the second understanding. So fear, resistance, is an attachment, and a way of attaching. It isn't given up voluntarily, because volition is based on inside/outside, and is therefore based in fear. There is no absolutely true way to present the second understanding. Nis. had his way, and any way involves " skillful means " that seem expedient to the situation, to the communicating. The second understanding " kills " the center or grounding held in the first understanding, so now there are not two understandings, and not even one understanding. - D - 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. You are talking about two different views. Geo is talking about the view where science works, where you use lemons to make lemonade and not onions. To use onions to make lemonade won't work, and one differentiates an onion from a lemon, and structurally biologists will differentiate one from the other. In this case, it doesn't work to equate an onion with a lemon, to say they are the same thing. In the view Tim is talking about, there is no division nor relationships. You could call one view relative and the other view absolute. That the relative is the absolute, and vice versa, well, how is one going to speak about that? From the relative perspective or from the absolute perspective? - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Saturday, March 20, 2010 11:48 AM 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. > 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- Yes. There are two understandings. One is understanding of the world through the inside/outside lens, the lens of cause and effect relationships of recognizable things. The other understanding is not involving inside/outside, has no cause and effect, and no basis in memory. These two understandings are one, but only when not having a center in the first understanding. If having a center in the first understanding, the second understanding isn't available. If speaking to one who takes the first understanding as his or her ground, one may find ways to suggest the second understanding. This is what Buddhists call " skillful means. " One who is grounded in the first understanding will resist the second understanding due to fear. There is no fear in the second understanding. So fear, resistance, is an attachment, and a way of attaching. It isn't given up voluntarily, because volition is based on inside/outside, and is therefore based in fear. There is no absolutely true way to present the second understanding. Nis. had his way, and any way involves " skillful means " that seem expedient to the situation, to the communicating. The second understanding " kills " the center or grounding held in the first understanding, so now there are not two understandings, and not even one understanding. - D - Yes. That is the way I see it also. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 Tested on: 20/3/2010 11:49:16 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 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Saturday, March 20, 2010 11:52 AM Re: where the " i thought " rises 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. You are talking about two different views. Geo is talking about the view where science works, where you use lemons to make lemonade and not onions. To use onions to make lemonade won't work, and one differentiates an onion from a lemon, and structurally biologists will differentiate one from the other. In this case, it doesn't work to equate an onion with a lemon, to say they are the same thing. In the view Tim is talking about, there is no division nor relationships. You could call one view relative and the other view absolute. That the relative is the absolute, and vice versa, well, how is one going to speak about that? From the relative perspective or from the absolute perspective? - D - That is what happens most of the times. And also.... we change sides to suit.... suit what? -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100313-1, 13/03/2010 Tested on: 20/3/2010 11:59:22 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 , " Gloria Wilson " <gloriawilson wrote: > > > 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. > to be frank with you, i don't understand most of what people write on the nonduality groups. it seems everyone is trying to talk about their experience and using " vedanta " or neo-advaita terminology. there's something that makes us speechless and then we fail to describe it in common terms that we can all agree on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2010 - Hur Guler Nisargadatta Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:12 PM Re: where the "i thought" rises to be frank with you, i don't understand most of what people write on the nonduality groups. it seems everyone is trying to talk about their experience and using "vedanta" or neo-advaita terminology. there's something that makes us speechless and then we fail to describe it in common terms that we can all agree on. there's something that makes us speechless and then we fail to describe it in common terms that we can all agree on. "Something that makes us speechless"—it doesn't need any more work than that, really. There is something very satisfying about this little gem. Thanks. gloria Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 21, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > 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? > > > See what I mean, jellybean. > > > - D - > Or, jellyfish. You must be human, right? You won't be around long. We live forever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 21, 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. > to whatever " i " belong whatever " consciousness " there is no " common consciousness " there is only a consciousness related to an " i " there is no " impersonal consciousness " existing ..... all this concepts which try hard to eleminate the " i " or ego.....trying hard to ignore it.....will fail for endless times.... .... all this concepts which try hard to escape any responsiblity of such " it " or ego.....telling that there is no responsiblity.....even if stupidity reach highest levels..... .....telling there is no stupidity etc.... non-sense .... all this neo advaitin freaks who are in love to this their consciousness of " Oneness " , " non-ego " and world..... are creating endlessly a moving mind.....a restless mind.... which, indeed.....Never can understand any reality....by any intelligence.... .... concepts are concepts only .... it's of busy and restless minds.... .... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 21, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > You could call one view relative and the other view absolute. > > That the relative is the absolute, and vice versa, well, how is one going to speak about that? From the relative perspective or from the absolute perspective? > > - D - > Well, to speak about 'what is so' isn't really necessary, and in fact isn't really happening. The speaking/listening is simply " part of " what is so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 21, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Gloria Wilson " <gloriawilson wrote: > > > - > Hur Guler > Nisargadatta > Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:12 PM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > to be frank with you, i don't understand most of what people write on the nonduality groups. it seems everyone is trying to talk about their experience and using " vedanta " or neo-advaita terminology. there's something that makes us speechless and then we fail to describe it in common terms that we can all agree on. > > > > there's something that makes us speechless and then we fail to describe it in common terms that we can all agree on. > > " Something that makes us speechless " -it doesn't need any more work than that, really. There is something very satisfying about this little gem. Thanks. > > gloria > thank you but i didn't mean to say " something that makes us speechless " as some sort of eternal being recognizing itself in awe...and give the carrot of eternity to the poor little old me who is always looking for an eternity exit out of the matrix. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 21, 2010 - Hur Guler Nisargadatta Sunday, March 21, 2010 4:48 PM Re: where the " i thought " rises Nisargadatta , " Gloria Wilson " <gloriawilson wrote: > > > - > Hur Guler > Nisargadatta > Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:12 PM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > to be frank with you, i don't understand most of what people write on the > nonduality groups. it seems everyone is trying to talk about their > experience and using " vedanta " or neo-advaita terminology. there's > something that makes us speechless and then we fail to describe it in > common terms that we can all agree on. > > > > there's something that makes us speechless and then we fail to describe it > in common terms that we can all agree on. > > " Something that makes us speechless " -it doesn't need any more work than > that, really. There is something very satisfying about this little gem. > Thanks. > > gloria > thank you but i didn't mean to say " something that makes us speechless " as some sort of eternal being recognizing itself in awe...and give the carrot of eternity to the poor little old me who is always looking for an eternity exit out of the matrix. == Who is aware of the poor little old me who is always looking for an eternity exit out of the matrix.? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, March 20, 2010 11:52 AM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > 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. > > You are talking about two different views. Geo is talking about the view > where science works, where you use lemons to make lemonade and not onions. > To use onions to make lemonade won't work, and one differentiates an onion > from a lemon, and structurally biologists will differentiate one from the > other. In this case, it doesn't work to equate an onion with a lemon, to say > they are the same thing. > > In the view Tim is talking about, there is no division nor relationships. > > You could call one view relative and the other view absolute. > > That the relative is the absolute, and vice versa, well, how is one going to > speak about that? From the relative perspective or from the absolute > perspective? > > - D - > > That is what happens most of the times. And also.... we change sides to > suit.... suit what? > -geo- A feeling of the moment, one supposes. An inclination that arises. Or doesn't. Smiles, - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You could call one view relative and the other view absolute. > > > > That the relative is the absolute, and vice versa, well, how is one going to speak about that? From the relative perspective or from the absolute perspective? > > > > - D - > > > > Well, to speak about 'what is so' isn't really necessary, and in fact isn't really happening. > > The speaking/listening is simply " part of " what is so. Good point. Just is-ing. Just listening/hearing/response. Just be-ing. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 22, 2010 Dear Gloria, Thank you very much for your response. I only just read it As far as I remember the subject was whether there is duality or not. If awareness/consciousness remains when all else is gone, and if consciousness is not different from all else (if it is not the same as all else - there is duality: this and that), then all else being gone - must mean that all else was an illusion - or to be nice - a dream, a phantom ... I've experienced quite often during deep meditation how world disappeared and all there was was consciousness /awareness or being, only being no thing. On one occasion there was just an ocean of love. Mmm This is so lovely, that one does not want to come back to the illusory world. I would explain illusory thus: it is real but not in the generally accepted meaning of the term real. It is for example not solid, not lasting, not this and not that and hopla! what is it then? It is " just " consciousness/ awareness. So whichever way and from whatever angle we look at the world - ourselves - it is /we are consciousness/ awareness - and so I can not agree that awareness is what remains whenever there is no perception of the sensory body/world - no thoughts etc. It is tempting, admitted - it is - but no deal. It is all the same world - it is one and undivided - it is not a thing, yet it shows as many different things - phenomena - and these are playing a game, which they/we call the game of life and death and in which thoughts play a huge role. (text deleted) > Gloria: > > I would say the mind is the percieved/only perceptions, and these perceptions quickly create the impression of substance. Like an artist creating a picture from shading. So I, who like the term " Awareness " say that being conscious of this process collapses the illusion of substance/time, and what is left is just Awareness, Consciousness. If the duality of that is troubling, throw the shaded sketch of oneself back in, knowing that it is Illusion. I suspect this is all a matter of definitions, and if those aren't agreed on, there will be no end to this thread Mm. I think I understand what you mean. What I am saying though is that the illusion is just as real as the awareness - because it is the same. The illusion cannot be separated from what is when the illusion (the " solid " sensual world plus its thoughts) has faded away. I hope people who talk of this - meditate - or know what it is. The whole thing is much easier to explain for such folk because during meditation the world disappears, and one is all there is and one does not know what one is - or how one became one (this is noone, nobody) - for it happened all by itself when the body closes its eyes to the world - a dive into the dark and unknown inner, deeper, downer, warmer, nicer palace initiates itself - it initiates itself - there is no doer doing this. I do not meditate on a regular basis - no need - I know what is there - and it helps me, the shallow, superficial persona to be that: a shallow, superficial persona. I know there is more/less to me than that > Lene: > It's found out about in that *silence* that Tim talked of, when > the mind which is the storehouse of past events - stops talking > - when the incessant activity from, of and about the past, what > was/ happened: movements quicker than movement itself - and now > nothing but images and thoughts -- becomes still/quiet. > > Gloria: > I would make the distinction that the mind is a storehouse of percieved events, for the past itself is only what we percieve. The mind is also a storehouse of percieved future events, for the future is of the same fabric. And all these thoughts take place within silence/awareness. Correct me if I am wrong please You made a drawing of a universe of silence/awareness in which /where " all these thoughts take place " . I make a drawing where the phenomenal (noisy, relational) world is the non-phenomenal the silent, non-relational world. Form is formless. Silence is noise. Iow I do not distinguish between silence and thoughts. Before I am - there is no silence. I am the silence and the noise -- sound of silence - they are identical phenomena. This is just streaming on - no idea who or what says it there is no thinking going on as this is taken down. Thanks for the contribution, Gloria. Very nice. Love Lene > Lene: > There, in that quietude, me and other is all the same - there is > no difference and birth and death are not tangible events for it > takes images/thoughts to keep the idea of birth and death of all > alive. > > Krishnamurti said: only the image can die > > He also said that thought is time. > > Gloria: > > Your comment about quietude is lovely. As are the two quotes from Krishnamurti. > > Gloria > > -Lene > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 23, 2010 - Lene Nisargadatta Monday, March 22, 2010 6:03 AM Re: where the "i thought" rises Dear Gloria,Thank you very much for your response. I only just read it Thanks for yours, as well, Lene. I certainly find nothing to disagree with in it. Funny, this whole list reminds me of the experience I had at the grand canyon a few years ago. The canyon itself struck me the way it stikes many--completely stopped my world for a moment. One big indrawn breath, then my companions and I began to share our perceptions of rock and river and goats, and it became illusion as well. Nothing wrong with that, but no amount of describing that illusion also described the clarity of my first and lasting impression of indrawn breath and silence and saturation, which I have come to call Awareness. There is nothing that rests outside awareness, including the infinite regressions into the illusion that we are describing it. It feels best to leave it at that, for me, because I am at a disavantage when it comes to clarity or propriety. I just see a big damn elephant resting in Awareness love, gloria [snip] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 23, 2010 - Hur Guler Nisargadatta Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:48 PM Re: where the "i thought" rises Nisargadatta , "Gloria Wilson" <gloriawilson wrote:>> > - > Hur Guler > Nisargadatta > Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:12 PM> Re: where the "i thought" rises > > > to be frank with you, i don't understand most of what people write on the nonduality groups. it seems everyone is trying to talk about their experience and using "vedanta" or neo-advaita terminology. there's something that makes us speechless and then we fail to describe it in common terms that we can all agree on. > > > > there's something that makes us speechless and then we fail to describe it in common terms that we can all agree on. > > "Something that makes us speechless"-it doesn't need any more work than that, really. There is something very satisfying about this little gem. Thanks.> > gloria>thank you but i didn't mean to say "something that makes us speechless" as some sort of eternal being recognizing itself in awe...and give the carrot of eternity to the poor little old me who is always looking for an eternity exit out of the matrix. You are welcome, but why this earnest and persistant notion that anyone is looking for eternity? Or persistence of being beyond whatever is? Or even seeking at all? Not everyone is. My dog, for one, who is speechless . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Gloria Wilson " <gloriawilson wrote: > > > - > Hur Guler > Nisargadatta > Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:48 PM > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Gloria Wilson " <gloriawilson@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Hur Guler > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:12 PM > > Re: where the " i thought " rises > > > > > > to be frank with you, i don't understand most of what people write on the nonduality groups. it seems everyone is trying to talk about their experience and using " vedanta " or neo-advaita terminology. there's something that makes us speechless and then we fail to describe it in common terms that we can all agree on. > > > > > > > > there's something that makes us speechless and then we fail to describe it in common terms that we can all agree on. > > > > " Something that makes us speechless " -it doesn't need any more work than that, really. There is something very satisfying about this little gem. Thanks. > > > > gloria > > > thank you but i didn't mean to say " something that makes us speechless " as some sort of eternal being recognizing itself in awe...and give the carrot of eternity to the poor little old me who is always looking for an eternity exit out of the matrix. > > > You are welcome, but why this earnest and persistant notion that anyone is looking for eternity? Or persistence of being beyond whatever is? Or even seeking at all? Not everyone is. My dog, for one, who is speechless . > as human civilazations got more advanced the divine super-ego is becoming more subtle in our language. it went from clear and present idols to monotheistic formless god who was no where to be found and hindus went further and invented brahman. non-theist buddhists who had " atman " and " brahman " taken away from them ended up worshipping the " emptiness. " neo-advaitans at their highly intellectual path present notions of " awareness " and the " absolute " as their metaphysical divine. as our magical imaginary world is cornered with science we are learning to hide the divine super-ego figure even at a more subtle way in our clever language. in my opion humans don't always have the interest in knowing the truth for the sake of truth but it's alwasy what's in it for them...how it can benefit their fears and desires. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
