Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 Namaste, A riddle is not supposed to have a solution! It may at the most provoke our thinking, which is good. If it is solvable, it is not a riddle and only appeared to be a riddle because we couldn't think keenly enough! Consciousness is not an illusion if we are talking of Universal consciousness. Limited consciousness (the feeling of I, you etc.,) is an illusion. Think of a group of islands. They appear different and separate from each other. And what is separating them? Water. Suppose we are able to go to the sea floor and trace the same. Do we then see any separation of an island from another? No. We see a continuous sea floor. Each island is a projection of the land through the water. At the base, it is connected with all other islands. Similarly, our individual consciousness is but a limted projection of the Universal consciousness through Maya, Illusion. If we go deep enough in our consciousness, we realise that the apparent separateness is an illusion and that we all are connected. Karl Jung, the psychologist contemporary with Sigmund Freud, called it collective subconscious. The feeling of separation is an illusion, but with a definite purpose. The story which you presented was good in that it brought forth this discussion. Yes, we are self-aware. But the self, which we are thinking we are may still be limited. For example if I think I am a man, I am an Indian, I am a Scientist, I am intelligent etc., I am still limiting my awareness to that I. If we start pondering over that vital question " Who am I? " we can certainly progress further. About Free will, I will post later, a nice conversation which Sri Ramana Maharshi and his visitors had. I don't know whether that will be of inteest to other members of this group. So let us have their reactions or if this group is moderated, that of the moderator. If allowed, I will post it here, else, I will send you separately. Best wishes. Swamy SV At 10:50 20/09/02 -0000, hur wrote: Message: 5 Fri, 20 Sep 2002 03:57:11 -0000 " Hur Guler " <hurg Re: Digest Number 625 swamy, thanks for taking the time to tackle the question. when i thought of this riddle, i didn't have a solution in mind. the intent was to question the disturbing possibility that what if " consciousness " was an illusion or that what if some people lacked self-awareness. for example one of the controversial concepts in eastern spirituality is that there is " no doer " and hence " no free will. " we could have also functioned without self-awareness, like machines. could we be like the cloned prof who knows a lot about consciousness but what if we are not really self-aware? then how could we know? by the way, i do believe that we're self aware. the question that i raised is similar to...what if you were mentally ill. how would you know? the answer is...others would tell you but what if this condition was widespread. yes, i know i have a lot of time in my hands...or mind. hur Well how does actually know that one is mentally ill? It is all probably relative. In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man may be a king or may be treated as insane. Think it over! - Swamy ---------- This is in response to Shri Milind's mail. Mr.Milind! Namaste! While wishing you all the best in your chosen career and life, I would like to point out to you that the very science which you are praising and which probably you are following to make a living/career, requires you to study a situation or person before you start making any evaluation! By studying a few micro situations, you can make generalisations (deduction followed by induction, verfied by deduction etc.) in a uniform universe limited by certain well defined conditions. Classical Physics for example takes that approach. However, in a statistical universe, while you can make generalisations, you can't predict the individual's behaviour. India, as you are aware is full of holy men and some are good, many are 'bad' in the sense they have taken that profession for their living. Here, only your individual experience can guide you. No generalisations. By the way I too am a scientist, 54, working in India for nearly 35 years in some frontier areas. I am not a 'sadhu or sanyasi'. Mr. Milind, I would like you to read Swamy Vivekananda's books. He certainly did not advocate idle spiritualism (the parasitic life which you are opposing) but put it beautifully: what west needs is less materialism and more spiritualism, what east needs is more materialism and less idling in the name of the spiritualism. Not exactly those words, but the gist of what I understood. We need what we lack. India needs young, energetic, practical people like you, who will bring science for the benefit of the common man. The west needs the sensitivtiy of the eastern spiritualism. The same science which is helping us fight diseases with wonderful antibiotics is producing bacterial warfare weaponry, the same science which gave nuclear power for electrical energy has given nuclear weapons. the same science which helped us control pests in agricultural crops gave chemical warfare weapons. So Mr.Milind, it is not just science which helps a civilisation to progress. It is science tempered with spirit which is needed. Albert Einstein, arguably one of the best scientists of the last century was also acknowledged as a very spiritual person. With warm regards and best wishes to you and similar young men of this generation, Swamy SV Message: 7 Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:56:07 -0700 (PDT) Milind B <mcyberia Re: Re: HI Well, I am sorry, but I did not research Nisargadatta specifically. I have no inclination to either. They are a dime a dozen. But I have made these conclusions looking at other such spiritual gurus, and I have done some research at the macro level taking a few micro cases(social psychological and, a little, genetic). I was born and spent 22 years of my life in India. This is my 23rd, and I am in America now. What I see in spirituality is a retrograde way to human decadence...when the West has shown that reason and science is the way. ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 Nisargadatta, " S.V.SWAMY " <swamy@n...> wrote: > About Free will, I will post later, a nice conversation which Sri Ramana > Maharshi and his visitors had. I don't know whether that will be of inteest > to other members of this group. So let us have their reactions or if this > group is moderated, that of the moderator. If allowed, I will post it here, > else, I will send you separately. > hi swamy, this group is unmoderated in the sense that messages need not be approved. it's only moderated if the personal attacks discourage others from posting. please feel free to post ramana's conversation. hur ps. there is a tv show in the US called " everybody loves raymond. " in the advaita world, " everybody loves ramana. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 Yes, Carl Jung had a theory of the collective unconscious. In this theory, patterns of meaning regulate energy that manifests as human minds and human cultures. He called these primordial patterns " archetypes " and believed they subsumed the instinctual energy that Freud focused on, such that instinctive energy could genuinely transform in ways that support the evolutionary aspect of consciousness, individually and collectively. He found archetypes in all cultures, and this theory gave him access to the meanings found in Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as Judaism, Christianity, and medeival alchemy. The limitation of his theory, from advaita perspective, is usually considered as his retention of the idea that an individual mind or ego is necessary, even if very translucent, in order to know and live. He couldn't accept the idea he found in some Eastern thought that dissolution of any individual self-center whatsoever could be possible, let alone " desirable. " It's interesting as well that Jung was put off by the fact that Ramana didn't look after his own physical grooming, and didn't seem to care about anything worldly. Jung thought it important to have some focus on things of this world, such as earning a living, grooming, taking care of day to day self-care. This was the reason he gave for not meeting with Ramana when such a meeting was offered, and also why he felt that at least some translucent version of ego is necessary. -- Dan > Karl Jung, the psychologist contemporary with > Sigmund Freud, called it collective subconscious. The feeling of separation > is an illusion, but with a definite purpose. > > The story which you presented was good in that it brought forth this > discussion. Yes, we are self-aware. But the self, which we are thinking we > are may still be limited. For example if I think I am a man, I am an > Indian, I am a Scientist, I am intelligent etc., I am still limiting my > awareness to that I. If we start pondering over that vital question " Who am > I? " we can certainly progress further. > > About Free will, I will post later, a nice conversation which Sri Ramana > Maharshi and his visitors had. I don't know whether that will be of inteest > to other members of this group. So let us have their reactions or if this > group is moderated, that of the moderator. If allowed, I will post it here, > else, I will send you separately. > > Best wishes. > > Swamy SV > > > At 10:50 20/09/02 -0000, hur wrote: > > Message: 5 > Fri, 20 Sep 2002 03:57:11 -0000 > " Hur Guler " <hurg> > Re: Digest Number 625 > > swamy, thanks for taking the time to tackle the question. when i > thought of this riddle, i didn't have a solution in mind. the intent > was to question the disturbing possibility that what > if " consciousness " was an illusion or that what if some people lacked > self-awareness. for example one of the controversial concepts in > eastern spirituality is that there is " no doer " and hence " no free > will. " we could have also functioned without self-awareness, like > machines. could we be like the cloned prof who knows a lot about > consciousness but what if we are not really self-aware? then how > could we know? > > by the way, i do believe that we're self aware. the question that i > raised is similar to...what if you were mentally ill. how would you > know? the answer is...others would tell you but what if this > condition was widespread. yes, i know i have a lot of time in my > hands...or mind. > > hur > > Well how does actually know that one is mentally ill? It is all probably > relative. In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man may be a king or may be > treated as insane. Think it over! - Swamy > > -- -------- > > This is in response to Shri Milind's mail. > > Mr.Milind! > > Namaste! While wishing you all the best in your chosen career and life, I > would like to point out to you that the very science which you are praising > and which probably you are following to make a living/career, requires you > to study a situation or person before you start making any evaluation! By > studying a few micro situations, you can make generalisations (deduction > followed by induction, verfied by deduction etc.) in a uniform universe > limited by certain well defined conditions. Classical Physics for example > takes that approach. However, in a statistical universe, while you can make > generalisations, you can't predict the individual's behaviour. India, as > you are aware is full of holy men and some are good, many are 'bad' in the > sense they have taken that profession for their living. Here, only your > individual experience can guide you. No generalisations. > > By the way I too am a scientist, 54, working in India for nearly 35 years > in some frontier areas. I am not a 'sadhu or sanyasi'. > > Mr. Milind, I would like you to read Swamy Vivekananda's books. He > certainly did not advocate idle spiritualism (the parasitic life which you > are opposing) but put it beautifully: what west needs is less materialism > and more spiritualism, what east needs is more materialism and less idling > in the name of the spiritualism. Not exactly those words, but the gist of > what I understood. > > We need what we lack. India needs young, energetic, practical people like > you, who will bring science for the benefit of the common man. The west > needs the sensitivtiy of the eastern spiritualism. The same science which > is helping us fight diseases with wonderful antibiotics is producing > bacterial warfare weaponry, the same science which gave nuclear power for > electrical energy has given nuclear weapons. the same science which helped > us control pests in agricultural crops gave chemical warfare weapons. > > So Mr.Milind, it is not just science which helps a civilisation to > progress. It is science tempered with spirit which is needed. Albert > Einstein, arguably one of the best scientists of the last century was also > acknowledged as a very spiritual person. > > With warm regards and best wishes to you and similar young men of this > generation, > > Swamy SV > > > > Message: 7 > Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:56:07 -0700 (PDT) > Milind B <mcyberia> > Re: Re: HI > > Well, I am sorry, but I did not research Nisargadatta > specifically. I have no inclination to either. They > are a dime a dozen. But I have made these conclusions > looking at other such spiritual gurus, and I have done > some research at the macro level taking a few micro > cases(social psychological and, a little, genetic). I > was born and spent 22 years of my life in India. This > is my 23rd, and I am in America now. > > What I see in spirituality is a retrograde way to > human decadence...when the West has shown that reason > and science is the way. > ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 ....some translucent version of ego is necessary. Jung per Dan -------------- Hair splitting. What is needed to know to function in " the world " comes to the forefront when needed. The " USA world " was not " Ramana's ashram " . However, that said, the wild animals here clean their bodies regularly, even the old decrepid ones do their best. Even those who live futher up the mountain where all the forests have been destroyed and they have a lousy environment do the same.You could say it is a function of a healthy organism. It takes care of itself. Needs no one to take care of it. El Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Elizabeth G Wells " <elwells8@e...> wrote: > > ...some translucent version of ego is necessary. > Jung per Dan > > -------------- > > Hair splitting. > > What is needed to know to function > in " the world " comes to the forefront when needed. > > The " USA world " was not " Ramana's ashram " . > > However, that said, the wild animals here > clean their bodies regularly, even the old decrepid ones > do their best. Even those who live futher up the mountain > where all the forests have been destroyed and they have a > lousy environment do the same.You could say it is a function of a > healthy organism. It takes care of itself. Needs > no one to take care of it. > > El I don't think Jung was hairsplitting. He was holding on to the perceived need for a centrality to a perspective. There was a time in Ramana's life when he didn't care whether he lived or died, and was singing religious tunes of some kind rather than finding food for himself. Whatever this was about for him, it wasn't typical animal behavior. Others who believed he was realized, fed him at this time. This kind of behavior was what Jung objected to. In Jung's perspective, this was psychotic behavior, and to call it realization would be to overthrow the parameters of his view. From Ramana's perspective, Jung would still be holding on to some idea of a phenomenal self. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta, " Elizabeth G Wells " <elwells8@e...> wrote: > > > > ...some translucent version of ego is necessary. > > Jung per Dan > > > > -------------- > > > > Hair splitting. > > > > What is needed to know to function > > in " the world " comes to the forefront when needed. > > > > The " USA world " was not " Ramana's ashram " . > > > > However, that said, the wild animals here > > clean their bodies regularly, even the old decrepid ones > > do their best. Even those who live futher up the mountain > > where all the forests have been destroyed and they have a > > lousy environment do the same.You could say it is a function of a > > healthy organism. It takes care of itself. Needs > > no one to take care of it. > > > > El > > I don't think Jung was hairsplitting. > > He was holding on to the perceived need for a centrality > to a perspective. > > There was a time in Ramana's life when he didn't > care whether he lived or died, and was singing > religious tunes of some kind rather than > finding food for himself. Whatever this > was about for him, it wasn't typical > animal behavior. Others who > believed he was realized, fed him at this > time. This kind of behavior was what Jung objected to. > In Jung's perspective, > this was psychotic behavior, and to call > it realization would be to overthrow the > parameters of his view. From Ramana's > perspective, Jung would still be holding > on to some idea of a phenomenal self. > > -- Dan -------------- Ya, hair splitting, was an inappropriate phrase. El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 > Ya, hair splitting, was an inappropriate phrase. > > El > > . Ah, okay. I think I gotcha now. Like, the ego as a center isn't needed for the organism to do what it needs to do to take care of itself... Yah? I agree (with my interpretation of what I think you said :-) Consciousness does not need to set up a location within an organism, in order for that organism to respond with self-care behaviors when those become foreground in a situation. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 > Consciousness does not need to > set up a location within an organism, > in order for that organism > to respond with self-care > behaviors when those become > foreground in a situation. The notion of consciousness " setting up a location " is interesting. The statement suggests that consciousness might have various " options " as to where it might " set up " . -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2002 Report Share Posted September 22, 2002 ....the ego as a center isn't needed for the organism to do what it needs to do to take care of itself... Dan ------------- Right. El ------------- Consciousness does not need to set up a location within an organism, in order for that organism to respond with self-care behaviors......... Dan --------------- Right. El ---------------- .....when those become foreground in a situation.... Dan ---------------- Knowledge comming to the foreground is only needed to function in society. El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2002 Report Share Posted September 22, 2002 --- Elizabeth G Wells <elwells8 wrote: > > ...some translucent version of ego is necessary. > Jung per Dan > > -------------- > > Hair splitting. > > What is needed to know to function > in " the world " comes to the forefront when needed. > > The " USA world " was not " Ramana's ashram " . > > However, that said, the wild animals here > clean their bodies regularly, even the old decrepid > ones > do their best. Even those who live futher up the > mountain > where all the forests have been destroyed and they > have a > lousy environment do the same.You could say it is a > function of a > healthy organism. It takes care of itself. Needs > no one to take care of it. > > El Well said. Time to head for the bathtub. Pete New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2002 Report Share Posted September 22, 2002 --- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote: > > > Consciousness does not need to > > set up a location within an organism, > > in order for that organism > > to respond with self-care > > behaviors when those become > > foreground in a situation. > > > The notion of consciousness " setting up a location " > is interesting. The statement suggests that > consciousness might have various " options " as to > where it might " set up " . > > -Bill Right on, Bill, maybe Dan can let consciousness know there is an empty store at the corner mall. Pete New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2002 Report Share Posted September 22, 2002 > > > Ya, hair splitting, was an inappropriate phrase. > > > > > > El > > > > > > . ----------------------------- > > Ah, okay. > > > > I think I gotcha now. > > > > Like, the ego as a center isn't > > needed for the organism to > > do what it needs to do to > > take care of itself... > > > > Yah? > > > > I agree (with my interpretation > > of what I think you said :-) > > > > Consciousness does not need to > > set up a location within an organism, > > in order for that organism > > to respond with self-care > > behaviors when those become > > foreground in a situation. > > > > -- Dan --------------------------- Messages Messages Help Reply | Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines | Delete Search Archive Message 5593 of 5599 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index Msg # Go " Elizabeth G Wells " <elwells8@e...> Date: Sat Sep 21, 2002 3:02 pm Subject: Re: Digest Number 629 ....the ego as a center isn't needed for the organism to do what it needs to do to take care of itself... Dan ------------- Right. El ------------- Consciousness does not need to set up a location within an organism, in order for that organism to respond with self-care behaviors......... Dan --------------- Right. El ---------------- .....when those become foreground in a situation.... Dan ---------------- Knowledge comming to the foreground is only needed to function in society. El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2002 Report Share Posted September 22, 2002 The Joker strikes again! pete seesaw [seesaw1us] Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:49 PM Nisargadatta Re: Re: Digest Number 629 --- Elizabeth G Wells <elwells8 wrote: > > ...some translucent version of ego is necessary. > Jung per Dan > > -------------- > > Hair splitting. > > What is needed to know to function > in " the world " comes to the forefront when needed. > > The " USA world " was not " Ramana's ashram " . > > However, that said, the wild animals here > clean their bodies regularly, even the old decrepid > ones > do their best. Even those who live futher up the > mountain > where all the forests have been destroyed and they > have a > lousy environment do the same.You could say it is a > function of a > healthy organism. It takes care of itself. Needs > no one to take care of it. > > El Well said. Time to head for the bathtub. Pete New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2002 Report Share Posted September 23, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > Consciousness does not need to > > set up a location within an organism, > > in order for that organism > > to respond with self-care > > behaviors when those become > > foreground in a situation. > > > The notion of consciousness " setting up a location " > is interesting. The statement suggests that > consciousness might have various " options " as to > where it might " set up " . > > -Bill True. Like the options, " I can go here and experience this, or I can go there and experience that. " Awareness tends to view itself in a fixed position associated with a body-mind, which moves it into experiences, and from one place to another. It's a shift when body-minds can move here and there, but awareness isn't being moved by them, into or out of experiences, or toward or away from places. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2002 Report Share Posted September 23, 2002 > ---------------- > Knowledge comming to the foreground > is only needed > to function in society. > > El > > > . Yes, knowledge is a social construction, and society is a construction to promote knowledge. Curious how knowledge tends to get destructive when there is an excessive emphasis on it. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2002 Report Share Posted September 23, 2002 > Right on, Bill, maybe Dan can let consciousness know > there is an empty store at the corner mall. > > Pete Pretty funny, wise guy. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Dan, When you say " awareness " here, don't you mean " consciousness " ? -Bill dan330033 [dan330033] Monday, September 23, 2002 12:52 PM Nisargadatta Re: Digest Number 629 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > Consciousness does not need to > > set up a location within an organism, > > in order for that organism > > to respond with self-care > > behaviors when those become > > foreground in a situation. > > > The notion of consciousness " setting up a location " > is interesting. The statement suggests that > consciousness might have various " options " as to > where it might " set up " . > > -Bill True. Like the options, " I can go here and experience this, or I can go there and experience that. " Awareness tends to view itself in a fixed position associated with a body-mind, which moves it into experiences, and from one place to another. It's a shift when body-minds can move here and there, but awareness isn't being moved by them, into or out of experiences, or toward or away from places. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 > > Yes, knowledge is a social construction, > and society is a construction > to promote knowledge. > ))) Society is a construction to promote itself. Knowledge is a survival tool and we love what help us live. Pete New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 How is knowledge different than language? Is not society a kind of machine or organism that uses language to procreate itself? Is not so-called knowledge an encoding of programs whereby society manages its constituents? -Bill pete seesaw [seesaw1us] Monday, September 23, 2002 7:20 PM Nisargadatta Re: Re: Digest Number 629 > > Yes, knowledge is a social construction, > and society is a construction > to promote knowledge. > ))) Society is a construction to promote itself. Knowledge is a survival tool and we love what help us live. Pete New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 --- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > > Right on, Bill, maybe Dan can let consciousness > know > > there is an empty store at the corner mall. > > > > Pete > > Pretty funny, wise guy. > > -- Dan Yeah, that one was under the belt. Well, at least I didn't bite your ear off. See, I like you. Mike T New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 a guru i was with had this thing with time and qauntum physics,he wiuld say all time is happening all the time,and i experienced that in past life stuff and parralel universes,or being in two places at the same moment,i am not saying this to qoute on woopy doo experiences,but to say when the fabric of space time break down it can get interesting,and ego bounderies can probably get a bit difficult ariel --- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: <HR> <html><body> <tt> Nisargadatta, & quot;Bill Rishel & quot; & lt;plexus@x & gt; wrote:<BR> & gt; <BR> & gt; & gt; Consciousness does not need to<BR> & gt; & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; set up a location within an organism,<BR> & gt; & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; in order for that organism<BR> & gt; & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; to respond with self-care<BR> & gt; & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; behaviors when those become<BR> & gt; & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; foreground in a situation.<BR> & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; <BR> & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; <BR> & gt; The notion of consciousness & quot;setting up a location & quot;<BR> & gt; is interesting. The statement suggests that <BR> & gt; consciousness might have various & quot;options & quot; as to<BR> & gt; where it might & quot;set up & quot;.<BR> & gt; <BR> & gt; -Bill<BR> <BR> True.<BR> <BR> Like the options, & quot;I can go here and experience this,<BR> & nbsp; or I can go there and experience that. & quot;<BR> <BR> Awareness tends to view itself in a fixed position<BR> & nbsp; associated with a body-mind, which moves it<BR> & nbsp; into experiences, and from one place to another.<BR> <BR> It's a shift when body-minds can move here and there,<BR> & nbsp; but awareness isn't being moved by them, into<BR> & nbsp; or out of experiences, or toward or away from places.<BR> <BR> -- Dan<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> </tt> <br> <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC> <td align=center><font size= " -1 " color=#003399><b> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Dan, > > When you say " awareness " here, don't you > mean " consciousness " ? > > -Bill Usually Nisargardatta used awareness to mean the truth prior to consciousness, which involves an " I " sense. These words get silly. Sometimes, when speaking to psychologists, I'm using consciousness to mean self-reviewing awareness. Then, on these lists, some people use consciousness to mean some kind of global primordial being that never changes or moves. But, to me, the key point is that before one is aware of change, there are no words, and nothing to be named. Once things change, move, there is the appearance of relationship, and there can be naming, and the apparent positioning of an observer. If one realizes that change and the changeless are not-two, then it is clear that this is the unnameable, and although we have names for things in day-to-day life, nothing moves, nothing changes position, no observer has taken the stage, ever. It is appearance, and the appearance is always relative to what doesn't appear, with which it is not-two. -- Dan -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > How is knowledge different than language? > Is not society a kind of machine or organism > that uses language to procreate itself? > Is not so-called knowledge an encoding of > programs whereby society manages its > constituents? > > -Bill Language, numbers, images, and relationships. This is society. Managing information by encoding and relating patterns of information. The basic binary system of information: on/off yes/no exist/not exist. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 > Yeah, that one was under the belt. Well, at least I > didn't bite your ear off. See, I like you. > > Mike T Your statement is indeed quite earie, dearie. See you in Pennsylvania. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, ariel cathcart <arielcathcart> wrote: > a guru i was with had this thing with time and qauntum > physics,he wiuld say all time is happening all the > time,and i experienced that in past life stuff and > parralel universes,or being in two places at the same > moment,i am not saying this to qoute on woopy doo > experiences,but to say when the fabric of space time > break down it can get interesting,and ego bounderies > can probably get a bit difficult ariel --- > dan330033 Ariel, Yes, that's so. And it's one thing when the fabric of space-time breaks down and boundaries are fluid or transparent, and location and identity fluctuate... And another thing when you are not separable whatsoever from that which manifests space-time and all boundaries within it ... and boundary and location don't pertain at all ... And still, this bag of bones gets up in the morning and drives itself to work ... All recognition of space-time and beyond notwithstanding ... -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.