Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > There is great freedom in this discovery that the awareness I am is not bounded, and not contained. > > > > > > Just in case you still see consciousness as a container: > > > > Consciousness is no container. And consciounes in no way is a coherent fluidum or a coherent susbtance. > > > > Consciousness is a flow or a flux of packeges. Each package is content AND consciousness. This flux is what Nis has called the 'I am'. > > > > Werner > > There isn't a container. > > You are trying to make the brain a container. > > You describe consciousness as a flux of packages. > > Where are you situated as you observe this flux of packages? first: The material I referred to was what I read from neurocience and second: Many years ago when tripping on LSD I could see those packages myself and I could see the seeming coherence of consciousness was broken up and delivered as packages and not as a coherent and solid continuum. Please see, these things I meantioned make no sense to the mind of a philosopher because they won't fit into any philosophy. I just mentioned them in case they eventually will meet some interest. Werner > > If you are inside the flux, then you can't see the big picture of the flux, you are just one of the packages. > > As you are not inside the flux, you are not contained by it. > > You are the awareness of it. > > That is how you can describe it. > > - D - > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > There is great freedom in this discovery that the awareness I am is not bounded, and not contained. > > > > > > > > > Just in case you still see consciousness as a container: > > > > > > Consciousness is no container. And consciounes in no way is a coherent fluidum or a coherent susbtance. > > > > > > Consciousness is a flow or a flux of packeges. Each package is content AND consciousness. This flux is what Nis has called the 'I am'. > > > > > > Werner > > > > There isn't a container. > > > > You are trying to make the brain a container. > > > > You describe consciousness as a flux of packages. > > > > Where are you situated as you observe this flux of packages? > > > first: > The material I referred to was what I read from neurocience and > > second: > Many years ago when tripping on LSD I could see those packages myself and I could see the seeming coherence of consciousness was broken up and delivered as packages and not as a coherent and solid continuum. > > Please see, these things I meantioned make no sense to the mind of a philosopher because they won't fit into any philosophy. I just mentioned them in case they eventually will meet some interest. > > Werner > > > > > > If you are inside the flux, then you can't see the big picture of the flux, you are just one of the packages. > > > > As you are not inside the flux, you are not contained by it. > > > > You are the awareness of it. > > > > That is how you can describe it. > > > > - D - What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by being. Being aware. You construe it as philosophy. That keeps it at arms distance. I invite you to notice that in describing the flux, you are not inside it. Aware of this fact, you would know directly the awareness you are that is not bounded. Any object of which you are aware, is not separable from this awareness. Thus, consciousness is its contents, meaning that a rose of which you are conscious, is the consciousness of it. Without having a container involved. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > There is great freedom in this discovery that the awareness I am is not bounded, and not contained. > > > > > > > > > > > > Just in case you still see consciousness as a container: > > > > > > > > Consciousness is no container. And consciounes in no way is a coherent fluidum or a coherent susbtance. > > > > > > > > Consciousness is a flow or a flux of packeges. Each package is content AND consciousness. This flux is what Nis has called the 'I am'. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > There isn't a container. > > > > > > You are trying to make the brain a container. > > > > > > You describe consciousness as a flux of packages. > > > > > > Where are you situated as you observe this flux of packages? > > > > > > first: > > The material I referred to was what I read from neurocience and > > > > second: > > Many years ago when tripping on LSD I could see those packages myself and I could see the seeming coherence of consciousness was broken up and delivered as packages and not as a coherent and solid continuum. > > > > Please see, these things I meantioned make no sense to the mind of a philosopher because they won't fit into any philosophy. I just mentioned them in case they eventually will meet some interest. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > If you are inside the flux, then you can't see the big picture of the flux, you are just one of the packages. > > > > > > As you are not inside the flux, you are not contained by it. > > > > > > You are the awareness of it. > > > > > > That is how you can describe it. > > > > > > - D - > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by being. > > Being aware. > > You construe it as philosophy. > > That keeps it at arms distance. > > I invite you to notice that in describing the flux, you are not inside ite it Dan if you are stumbling across a stone you are not inside the stumbling and yet you are conscious of it and it gets stored in memory and can be recalled. Please take in account memory. Memory is the 'knower'. Without memory you won't be able to survie. Memory is building your subjective world. The world which you 'know'. Therefore don't offer me such ridiculous nonsense you just did. All your nondual crap is just nice and useful to demonstrate your mental brilliance at cocktail parties. But outside cocktail parties they are of no worth. Werner > > Aware of this fact, you would know directly the awareness you are that is not bounded. > > Any object of which you are aware, is not separable from this awareness. > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, meaning that a rose of which you are conscious, is the consciousness of it. > > Without having a container involved. > > - Dan - > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by > being. > > Being aware. You aren't communicating it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > There is great freedom in this discovery that the awareness I am is not bounded, and not contained. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just in case you still see consciousness as a container: > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is no container. And consciounes in no way is a coherent fluidum or a coherent susbtance. > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is a flow or a flux of packeges. Each package is content AND consciousness. This flux is what Nis has called the 'I am'. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > There isn't a container. > > > > > > > > You are trying to make the brain a container. > > > > > > > > You describe consciousness as a flux of packages. > > > > > > > > Where are you situated as you observe this flux of packages? > > > > > > > > > first: > > > The material I referred to was what I read from neurocience and > > > > > > second: > > > Many years ago when tripping on LSD I could see those packages myself and I could see the seeming coherence of consciousness was broken up and delivered as packages and not as a coherent and solid continuum. > > > > > > Please see, these things I meantioned make no sense to the mind of a philosopher because they won't fit into any philosophy. I just mentioned them in case they eventually will meet some interest. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are inside the flux, then you can't see the big picture of the flux, you are just one of the packages. > > > > > > > > As you are not inside the flux, you are not contained by it. > > > > > > > > You are the awareness of it. > > > > > > > > That is how you can describe it. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by being. > > > > Being aware. > > > > You construe it as philosophy. > > > > That keeps it at arms distance. > > > > I invite you to notice that in describing the flux, you are not inside ite it > > > Dan if you are stumbling across a stone you are not inside the stumbling and yet you are conscious of it and it gets stored in memory and can be recalled. > > Please take in account memory. Memory is the 'knower'. Without memory you won't be able to survie. Memory is building your subjective world. The world which you 'know'. > > Therefore don't offer me such ridiculous nonsense you just did. All your nondual crap is just nice and useful to demonstrate your mental brilliance at cocktail parties. But outside cocktail parties they are of no worth. > > Werner It's what I'm experiencing and knowing. Apparently, you assume you are in your body knowing things outside of you. That's a contradiction, and it's not what is so. You seem intent to defend your position by labeling questions about it as " ridiculous " and " crap for cocktail parties " or whatever other characterizations come to your mind. In other words, you are not involved in inquiry, but self-defense. I wonder whether you have ever had a lucid moment, when you are aware of self-defensive strategies for what they are. When Krishnamurti's discussions about fear, awareness and being nothing actually made sense to you, if perhaps for a second. - Dan - > > > > Aware of this fact, you would know directly the awareness you are that is not bounded. > > > > Any object of which you are aware, is not separable from this awareness. > > > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, meaning that a rose of which you are conscious, is the consciousness of it. > > > > Without having a container involved. > > > > - Dan - > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by > > being. > > > > Being aware. > > You aren't communicating it. Only if communing is, then communication is. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by > > > being. > > > > > > Being aware. > > > > You aren't communicating it. > > Only if communing is, then communication is. > > - D - Yes -- agreed. Most of the conversation on this list involves " attack, defend and parry " . Which doesn't occur between two, either, although it may seem to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is great freedom in this discovery that the awareness I am is not bounded, and not contained. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just in case you still see consciousness as a container: > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is no container. And consciounes in no way is a coherent fluidum or a coherent susbtance. > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is a flow or a flux of packeges. Each package is content AND consciousness. This flux is what Nis has called the 'I am'. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > There isn't a container. > > > > > > > > > > You are trying to make the brain a container. > > > > > > > > > > You describe consciousness as a flux of packages. > > > > > > > > > > Where are you situated as you observe this flux of packages? > > > > > > > > > > > > first: > > > > The material I referred to was what I read from neurocience and > > > > > > > > second: > > > > Many years ago when tripping on LSD I could see those packages myself and I could see the seeming coherence of consciousness was broken up and delivered as packages and not as a coherent and solid continuum. > > > > > > > > Please see, these things I meantioned make no sense to the mind of a philosopher because they won't fit into any philosophy. I just mentioned them in case they eventually will meet some interest. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are inside the flux, then you can't see the big picture of the flux, you are just one of the packages. > > > > > > > > > > As you are not inside the flux, you are not contained by it. > > > > > > > > > > You are the awareness of it. > > > > > > > > > > That is how you can describe it. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by being. > > > > > > Being aware. > > > > > > You construe it as philosophy. > > > > > > That keeps it at arms distance. > > > > > > I invite you to notice that in describing the flux, you are not inside ite it > > > > > > Dan if you are stumbling across a stone you are not inside the stumbling and yet you are conscious of it and it gets stored in memory and can be recalled. > > > > Please take in account memory. Memory is the 'knower'. Without memory you won't be able to survie. Memory is building your subjective world. The world which you 'know'. > > > > Therefore don't offer me such ridiculous nonsense you just did. All your nondual crap is just nice and useful to demonstrate your mental brilliance at cocktail parties. But outside cocktail parties they are of no worth. > > > > Werner > > It's what I'm experiencing and knowing. > > Apparently, you assume you are in your body knowing things outside of you. > > That's a contradiction, and it's not what is so. > > You seem intent to defend your position by labeling questions about it as " ridiculous " and " crap for cocktail parties " or whatever other characterizations come to your mind. > > In other words, you are not involved in inquiry, but self-defense. > > I wonder whether you have ever had a lucid moment, when you are aware of self-defensive strategies for what they are. When Krishnamurti's discussions about fear, awareness and being nothing actually made sense to you, if perhaps for a second. > > - Dan - Everyone has probably had a lucid moment. And then it's back into the trance of confusion, the trance that supports " self and other " via past-based auto-pilot. Or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by > > > being. > > > > > > Being aware. > > > > You aren't communicating it. > > Only if communing is, then communication is. > > - D - and ONLY when tautological statements are thought profound... does one know one is in the presence of a nitwit. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by > > > > being. > > > > > > > > Being aware. > > > > > > You aren't communicating it. > > > > Only if communing is, then communication is. > > > > - D - > > Yes -- agreed. > > Most of the conversation on this list involves " attack, defend and parry " . > > Which doesn't occur between two, either, although it may seem to. you're an asshole timmtot. and that's yourself speaking with clarity. thee are not two. remember...remember that..remember.. hahahahahahahaaaaaa! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is great freedom in this discovery that the awareness I am is not bounded, and not contained. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just in case you still see consciousness as a container: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is no container. And consciounes in no way is a coherent fluidum or a coherent susbtance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is a flow or a flux of packeges. Each package is content AND consciousness. This flux is what Nis has called the 'I am'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > There isn't a container. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are trying to make the brain a container. > > > > > > > > > > > > You describe consciousness as a flux of packages. > > > > > > > > > > > > Where are you situated as you observe this flux of packages? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first: > > > > > The material I referred to was what I read from neurocience and > > > > > > > > > > second: > > > > > Many years ago when tripping on LSD I could see those packages myself and I could see the seeming coherence of consciousness was broken up and delivered as packages and not as a coherent and solid continuum. > > > > > > > > > > Please see, these things I meantioned make no sense to the mind of a philosopher because they won't fit into any philosophy. I just mentioned them in case they eventually will meet some interest. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are inside the flux, then you can't see the big picture of the flux, you are just one of the packages. > > > > > > > > > > > > As you are not inside the flux, you are not contained by it. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are the awareness of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is how you can describe it. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by being. > > > > > > > > Being aware. > > > > > > > > You construe it as philosophy. > > > > > > > > That keeps it at arms distance. > > > > > > > > I invite you to notice that in describing the flux, you are not inside ite it > > > > > > > > > Dan if you are stumbling across a stone you are not inside the stumbling and yet you are conscious of it and it gets stored in memory and can be recalled. > > > > > > Please take in account memory. Memory is the 'knower'. Without memory you won't be able to survie. Memory is building your subjective world. The world which you 'know'. > > > > > > Therefore don't offer me such ridiculous nonsense you just did. All your nondual crap is just nice and useful to demonstrate your mental brilliance at cocktail parties. But outside cocktail parties they are of no worth. > > > > > > Werner > > > > It's what I'm experiencing and knowing. > > > > Apparently, you assume you are in your body knowing things outside of you. > > > > That's a contradiction, and it's not what is so. > > > > You seem intent to defend your position by labeling questions about it as " ridiculous " and " crap for cocktail parties " or whatever other characterizations come to your mind. > > > > In other words, you are not involved in inquiry, but self-defense. > > > > I wonder whether you have ever had a lucid moment, when you are aware of self-defensive strategies for what they are. When Krishnamurti's discussions about fear, awareness and being nothing actually made sense to you, if perhaps for a second. > > > > - Dan - > > Everyone has probably had a lucid moment. > > And then it's back into the trance of confusion, the trance that supports " self and other " via past-based auto-pilot. > > Or not. and you're not a not kinda guy. sluuuuuurp! :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by > > being. > > > > Being aware. > > You aren't communicating it. what are YOU trying to communicate? LOL! ..b b.b. p.s. you said that you remember when this list was fun to be at.. with you and dabbo touching each others' private parts.. going on and on with " good nondual conversations " just for fun and self admiration? ohhhhhhhhh! yes those were the good ol' days. before this " not other than yourself " .. started to keep reminding you both.. you are both just a couple of pipsqueak boys. pssst... remember you are not a god..or demi god.. you are just a man.. well now wait.. even saying that either of you is a man might be going to far. now start whining and pissing and moaning timmy. show us all again how enlightened you are.. and committed to your own stated belief that we are all One. start crying about " personal " attacks from " others " on the list.. and the need for " civility " among others each as the One. howl " oh gee c'mon man! " to Hur again.. like wernerina..(THAT was a real hoot!) LOL! ..b b.b. p.p.s. i do so love you fellas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. > > > > Werner > > There is great freedom in this discovery that the awareness I am is not bounded, and not contained. > > This is the freedom of being nothing, of being present. > > - Dan - hahahahahahahahahaaaa! yeah.. you bet.. there you go.. there it is.. right on... what it is.. i hear you... it's the most dude.. LOL! dabbo do you play pretend space cadet in front of the mirror too? your mom should have a word with you son. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. What is called 'consciousness' is just a flux of contents=consciousness. I wonder when you fianlly will grasp that, Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > There is great freedom in this discovery that the awareness I am is not bounded, and not contained. > > > > > > > > > > > > Just in case you still see consciousness as a container: > > > > > > > > Consciousness is no container. And consciounes in no way is a coherent fluidum or a coherent susbtance. > > > > > > > > Consciousness is a flow or a flux of packeges. Each package is content AND consciousness. This flux is what Nis has called the 'I am'. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > There isn't a container. > > > > > > You are trying to make the brain a container. > > > > > > You describe consciousness as a flux of packages. > > > > > > Where are you situated as you observe this flux of packages? > > > > > > first: > > The material I referred to was what I read from neurocience and > > > > second: > > Many years ago when tripping on LSD I could see those packages myself and I could see the seeming coherence of consciousness was broken up and delivered as packages and not as a coherent and solid continuum. > > > > Please see, these things I meantioned make no sense to the mind of a philosopher because they won't fit into any philosophy. I just mentioned them in case they eventually will meet some interest. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > If you are inside the flux, then you can't see the big picture of the flux, you are just one of the packages. > > > > > > As you are not inside the flux, you are not contained by it. > > > > > > You are the awareness of it. > > > > > > That is how you can describe it. > > > > > > - D - > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by being. > > Being aware. > > You construe it as philosophy. > > That keeps it at arms distance. > > I invite you to notice that in describing the flux, you are not inside it. > > Aware of this fact, you would know directly the awareness you are that is not bounded. > > Any object of which you are aware, is not separable from this awareness. > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, meaning that a rose of which you are conscious, is the consciousness of it. > > Without having a container involved. > > - Dan - what you are communicating is that you are a nitwit. you construe your trite pleonastic bullshit as TRUTH. you really think you are some sort of friggin' guru. you are wrong. you are just little dabbo... you are callow... and like all fledgling boys you alway come off as just plain silly. repeating things you've heard and read that you think are cool. you need to wash behind your ears kid. and take the wax out of them too. you've missed the message sonny. and now you're spreading vicious lies about yourself. you should go outside and play with your toys for awhile. you're being bombastic. and adults are offended by your pretensions. so either go outside and play or like all good children.. children who don't try to pretend that they understand the world.. you should be seen and not heard. just post blank posts. we love you little dude. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by > > > > being. > > > > > > > > Being aware. > > > > > > You aren't communicating it. > > > > Only if communing is, then communication is. > > > > - D - > > Yes -- agreed. > > Most of the conversation on this list involves " attack, defend and parry " . > > Which doesn't occur between two, either, although it may seem to. D: True. It's interesting, how the other is projected in order to have " someone " to attack, defend against, spar and parry. Until that isn't needed anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by > > > > > being. > > > > > > > > > > Being aware. > > > > > > > > You aren't communicating it. > > > > > > Only if communing is, then communication is. > > > > > > - D - > > > > Yes -- agreed. > > > > Most of the conversation on this list involves " attack, defend and parry " . > > > > Which doesn't occur between two, either, although it may seem to. > > D: True. It's interesting, how the other is projected in order to have " someone " to attack, defend against, spar and parry. Until that isn't needed anymore. and this reply to timmy then.. in agreement which is not different than the above.. agreement too takes at least two.. is proof positive that you very much still need the projected other. now get off your pompous ass and go play with your toys dabbo. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by > > > > > > being. > > > > > > > > > > > > Being aware. > > > > > > > > > > You aren't communicating it. > > > > > > > > Only if communing is, then communication is. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Yes -- agreed. > > > > > > Most of the conversation on this list involves " attack, defend and parry " . > > > > > > Which doesn't occur between two, either, although it may seem to. > > > > D: True. It's interesting, how the other is projected in order to have " someone " to attack, defend against, spar and parry. Until that isn't needed anymore. > > > and this reply to timmy then.. > > in agreement which is not different than the above.. > > agreement too takes at least two.. > > is proof positive that you very much still need the projected other. > > now get off your pompous ass and go play with your toys dabbo. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. P: Indeed! I have to say that you got their number. These two, playing at being one, can't talk without showing their duality slip, and shutting up is not an option they want to contemplate to demonstrate they are one. LOL > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by > > > > > > > being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being aware. > > > > > > > > > > > > You aren't communicating it. > > > > > > > > > > Only if communing is, then communication is. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > Yes -- agreed. > > > > > > > > Most of the conversation on this list involves " attack, defend and parry " . > > > > > > > > Which doesn't occur between two, either, although it may seem to. > > > > > > D: True. It's interesting, how the other is projected in order to have " someone " to attack, defend against, spar and parry. Until that isn't needed anymore. > > > > > > and this reply to timmy then.. > > > > in agreement which is not different than the above.. > > > > agreement too takes at least two.. > > > > is proof positive that you very much still need the projected other. > > > > now get off your pompous ass and go play with your toys dabbo. > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > P: Indeed! I have to say that you got their > number. These two, playing at being one, can't > talk without showing their duality slip, and > shutting up is not an option they want to > contemplate to demonstrate they are one. LOL > > > One " gets the number of " nothing but a mirror image of oneself, presumably existing out there as 'other'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by > > > > > > > > being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being aware. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You aren't communicating it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Only if communing is, then communication is. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > Yes -- agreed. > > > > > > > > > > Most of the conversation on this list involves " attack, defend and parry " . > > > > > > > > > > Which doesn't occur between two, either, although it may seem to. > > > > > > > > D: True. It's interesting, how the other is projected in order to have " someone " to attack, defend against, spar and parry. Until that isn't needed anymore. > > > > > > > > > and this reply to timmy then.. > > > > > > in agreement which is not different than the above.. > > > > > > agreement too takes at least two.. > > > > > > is proof positive that you very much still need the projected other. > > > > > > now get off your pompous ass and go play with your toys dabbo. > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > P: Indeed! I have to say that you got their > > number. These two, playing at being one, can't > > talk without showing their duality slip, and > > shutting up is not an option they want to > > contemplate to demonstrate they are one. LOL > > > > > > > One " gets the number of " nothing but a mirror image of oneself, presumably existing out there as 'other'. > P.S. the same is true for Dan and I, of course. Can't speak for Dan, but when I talk to him (or to anyone, for that matter), I don't see 'someone out there' who I can get a number for. I see words appearing here. My own words -- my own thoughts. When 'agreeing with Dan', I am agreeing with my own prior thoughts, when replying to his message. I don't often bother disagreeing with my own prior thoughts -- that would be silly, nyet? ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I am communicating is not a philosophy, but direct knowing by > > > > > > > > being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being aware. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You aren't communicating it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Only if communing is, then communication is. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > Yes -- agreed. > > > > > > > > > > Most of the conversation on this list involves " attack, defend and parry " . > > > > > > > > > > Which doesn't occur between two, either, although it may seem to. > > > > > > > > D: True. It's interesting, how the other is projected in order to have " someone " to attack, defend against, spar and parry. Until that isn't needed anymore. > > > > > > > > > and this reply to timmy then.. > > > > > > in agreement which is not different than the above.. > > > > > > agreement too takes at least two.. > > > > > > is proof positive that you very much still need the projected other. > > > > > > now get off your pompous ass and go play with your toys dabbo. > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > P: Indeed! I have to say that you got their > > number. These two, playing at being one, can't > > talk without showing their duality slip, and > > shutting up is not an option they want to > > contemplate to demonstrate they are one. LOL > > > > > > > One " gets the number of " nothing but a mirror image of oneself, presumably existing out there as 'other'. > P.S. the same is true for Dan and I, of course. Can't speak for Dan, but when I talk to him (or to anyone, for that matter), I don't see 'someone out there' who I can get a number for. I see words appearing here. My own words -- my own thoughts. When 'agreeing with Dan', I am agreeing with my own prior thoughts, when replying to his message. I don't often bother disagreeing with my own prior thoughts -- that would be silly, nyet? ;-). Bolshoi ballet bullshit! you see everything just like everyone else buster. unless of course your back into lots of your brewskis again. then you see things crosseyed of corse. you try to pass of that " i see like God " bullshit.. and sport that dog won't hunt. yopu're just a little punk trying to impress people. and you fail miserably at that. even the heading of this stupidity: " affectionate attention " .. attention by whom and affection for what? you and your little sad sack pal dabbo.. are just so full of yourselves.. that everything that you try to convey as YOUR holiness.. and how you nare One.. is betrayed by your prissy pretentiousness. get a life timmytot. go play with dabbos toys outsiede. you are an embarrassment to any intelligence or true insight. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 2, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:16 PM Re: affectionate attention Nisargadatta , "Gloria Wilson" <gloriawilson wrote:>> > - > cerosoul > Nisargadatta > Monday, March 29, 2010 12:11 PM> Re: affectionate attention> > > > > > Nisargadatta , "Lene" <lschwabe@> wrote:> >> > > > > > Nisargadatta , "cerosoul" <pedsie6@> wrote:> > >> > > exclusion of experience.> > > > > > > > But meanwhile, I still have a question. What do you think Nisargadatta means by "affectionate attention" ? If anyone really has a feeling for what this means, could it be explained without using any spiritual jargon at all? Probably not. That is how haiku works, I guess. Dunno.> > > > > > > > Gloria> > > > > > > > Pete: > > > > > Sure, here it is: Attention seems irresistibly attracted> > > to what we love or hate. To gaze on what we love is Heaven,> > > to gaze on what we hate is Hell. So, wouldn't it be wise> > > to regard everything with a loving gaze.> > > > > > > > I know what you mean. Yes, it would - sometimes it is all is> > could, jaws down, mouth halfopen, eyes curiously walking all> > over the face of "the other", thought asking itself: what AM> > I doing in this here company? What IS this circus? > > > > "The other" on facing my apparent interest in "her/him" goes> > all confessive and inside out & now and then asks me "who"'s> > listening so carefully (if only they knew): why AM I telling> > you all this? I dunno why I am telling you all this. And she> > carries on and on till something makes her stop.> > > > Something ain't me for I am just regarding her with a loving> > gaze )> > > > -Lene> > P: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze,> nothing seems ugly, including myself. Intellectual stuff,> and opinions I can't regard with affectioned attention.> If I don't agree with a thought, I get the urge to step> on it (as if it were a roach. Roaches and houseflies are> the only animals I don't look on with a loving gaze. My bad) )> >> > > > > See, that's a problem for me. The arbitrary nature of love and hate has ruined the emotions for me:) Now I'm wondering if there is some intrinsic "affection" in Awareness itself?> But it was a really nice roach song.> > gloriaD: As there's nothing intrinsic to awareness, it isn't separable from what it is being aware of.And that is the "affection."- D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Gloria Wilson " <gloriawilson wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:16 PM > Re: affectionate attention > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Gloria Wilson " <gloriawilson@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > cerosoul > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, March 29, 2010 12:11 PM > > Re: affectionate attention > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > exclusion of experience. > > > > > > > > > > But meanwhile, I still have a question. What do you think Nisargadatta means by " affectionate attention " ? If anyone really has a feeling for what this means, could it be explained without using any spiritual jargon at all? Probably not. That is how haiku works, I guess. Dunno. > > > > > > > > > > Gloria > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete: > > > > > > > Sure, here it is: Attention seems irresistibly attracted > > > > to what we love or hate. To gaze on what we love is Heaven, > > > > to gaze on what we hate is Hell. So, wouldn't it be wise > > > > to regard everything with a loving gaze. > > > > > > > > > > > > I know what you mean. Yes, it would - sometimes it is all is > > > could, jaws down, mouth halfopen, eyes curiously walking all > > > over the face of " the other " , thought asking itself: what AM > > > I doing in this here company? What IS this circus? > > > > > > " The other " on facing my apparent interest in " her/him " goes > > > all confessive and inside out & now and then asks me " who " 's > > > listening so carefully (if only they knew): why AM I telling > > > you all this? I dunno why I am telling you all this. And she > > > carries on and on till something makes her stop. > > > > > > Something ain't me for I am just regarding her with a loving > > > gaze ) > > > > > > -Lene > > > > P: Well, usually, I regard everything with a loving gaze, > > nothing seems ugly, including myself. Intellectual stuff, > > and opinions I can't regard with affectioned attention. > > If I don't agree with a thought, I get the urge to step > > on it (as if it were a roach. Roaches and houseflies are > > the only animals I don't look on with a loving gaze. My bad) ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, that's a problem for me. The arbitrary nature of love and hate has ruined the emotions for me:) Now I'm wondering if there is some intrinsic " affection " in Awareness itself? > > But it was a really nice roach song. > > > > gloria > > D: As there's nothing intrinsic to awareness, it isn't > separable from what it is being aware of. > > And that is the " affection. " > > - D - and that is your affectation. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > See, that's a problem for me. The arbitrary nature of love and hate has ruined the emotions for me:) Now I'm wondering if there is some intrinsic " affection " in Awareness itself? > > > > But it was a really nice roach song. > > > > > > > > gloria > > > > > > > awareness is at best a reflection, a recognition of " something " ...maybe the recognition of the poor little old me. > > > > where have you found something existing outside of awareness? > > > > awareness is reflecting its reflection of its reflection, ad infinitum. > > > Nonsense, Dan, > > Awareness is not a mirror but a product of the brain. And that product doesn't reflect itself. It never will and it never did. Werner! Boooh - heh. You cannot use " the brain " as an answer to all our questions so why you do that? Ah - get - there is no you doing that - it is a happening of the brain, ha ha Explain the brain. If your explanation applies I will buy it. Dan did not say awareness is a mirror - he was talking about reflection in a somewhat confusing way but I got the message all the same - I think (wink) The answer to all of our problems, here it is, eventually Something - whatever - is a reflection of nothing. It is because something is nothing that there is doubt as to what to call it - what to call oneself - for one is, and yet one is not - simultaneously. There is therefore a tendency to separate oneself into two - for the sake of the all too menschlichly want of order: I am - nothing. I am - something. The nothing is watching the something and yet not, for I am both and they are inseparable but I am also neither and it is very confusing altogether sez Lene. And yet she is not confused - just tumbling around in a dream - like a piece of clothing in a dryer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, that's a problem for me. The arbitrary nature of love and hate has ruined the emotions for me:) Now I'm wondering if there is some intrinsic " affection " in Awareness itself? > > > > > But it was a really nice roach song. > > > > > > > > > > gloria > > > > > > > > > awareness is at best a reflection, a recognition of " something " ...maybe the recognition of the poor little old me. > > > > > > where have you found something existing outside of awareness? > > > > > > awareness is reflecting its reflection of its reflection, ad infinitum. > > > > > > Nonsense, Dan, > > > > Awareness is not a mirror but a product of the brain. And that product doesn't reflect itself. It never will and it never did. > > > > Werner! Boooh - heh. You cannot use " the brain " as an answer > to all our questions so why you do that? Ah - get - there is > no you doing that - it is a happening of the brain, ha ha > > Explain the brain. > > If your explanation applies I will buy it. > > Dan did not say awareness is a mirror - he was talking about > reflection in a somewhat confusing way but I got the message > all the same - I think (wink) > > The answer to all of our problems, here it is, eventually > > Something - whatever - is a reflection of nothing. > > It is because something is nothing that there is doubt as to > what to call it - what to call oneself - for one is, and yet > one is not - simultaneously. > > There is therefore a tendency to separate oneself into two - > for the sake of the all too menschlichly want of order: > > I am - nothing. I am - something. The nothing is watching the > something and yet not, for I am both and they are inseparable > but I am also neither and it is very confusing altogether sez > Lene. And yet she is not confused - just tumbling around in a > dream - like a piece of clothing in a dryer. Hi Lene - Yes, the way you interpreted what I said fits for me. Not easy to put into words and images, but yes. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, that's a problem for me. The arbitrary nature of love and hate has ruined the emotions for me:) Now I'm wondering if there is some intrinsic " affection " in Awareness itself? > > > > > > But it was a really nice roach song. > > > > > > > > > > > > gloria > > > > > > > > > > > awareness is at best a reflection, a recognition of " something " ...maybe the recognition of the poor little old me. > > > > > > > > where have you found something existing outside of awareness? > > > > > > > > awareness is reflecting its reflection of its reflection, ad infinitum. > > > > > > > > > Nonsense, Dan, > > > > > > Awareness is not a mirror but a product of the brain. And that product doesn't reflect itself. It never will and it never did. > > > > > > > > Werner! Boooh - heh. You cannot use " the brain " as an answer > > to all our questions so why you do that? Ah - get - there is > > no you doing that - it is a happening of the brain, ha ha > > > > Explain the brain. > > > > If your explanation applies I will buy it. > > > > Dan did not say awareness is a mirror - he was talking about > > reflection in a somewhat confusing way but I got the message > > all the same - I think (wink) > > > > The answer to all of our problems, here it is, eventually > > > > Something - whatever - is a reflection of nothing. > > > > It is because something is nothing that there is doubt as to > > what to call it - what to call oneself - for one is, and yet > > one is not - simultaneously. > > > > There is therefore a tendency to separate oneself into two - > > for the sake of the all too menschlichly want of order: > > > > I am - nothing. I am - something. The nothing is watching the > > something and yet not, for I am both and they are inseparable > > but I am also neither and it is very confusing altogether sez > > Lene. And yet she is not confused - just tumbling around in a > > dream - like a piece of clothing in a dryer. > > Hi Lene - > > Yes, the way you interpreted what I said fits for me. > > Not easy to put into words and images, but yes. > > - D - well wonderful! as long as it fits for dabbo. that's what counts. that's what's important. blessed art thou and thanks for alerting us to your compliance. oh what would we do without dabbo's " yes " ! hahahahahahahaaaa! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
