Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > Beautifully put Bill! > > Consciousness is somethingness appearing out of nothingness. It is that which is created from nothingness folding back on itself. As Nisargadatta put it, " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. " Or " Whenever a form is infused with life, consciousness appears by reflection of awareness in matter. " > > Toby You don't really think that nothing folding back on itself explains something, do you? And in the explanation you attribute to N, where did this matter come from, or a separable life to be infused in one thing and not another? Are not all explanations bankrupt in immediacy? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 eh? You gave an answer, I am trying to grasp it, by unravelling the strands on which it appears to be based upon. sk: I would call this " mission impossible " If the separation is virtual,sk .......then that afirmation after a life-long,......would it not be a virtuality? sk: Yes, why not? Besides, I should stop laughing about my own jokes. Thanks for the hint. If all positions, are nothing but arisings of Consciousness, can there be an answer to the question, an answer which in essence,... is not a conditioned hoopla? sk: no OK, give an example which is not so. sk: No is no. Why do you insist? To see whether there is an unconditioned hoopla. sk: Again, why do you insist. I would call the search for the " unconditioned hoopla " again, " mission impossible " , at least, if you look for a written form of an " unconditioned hoopla " . So,.....Nisargadatta, Ramana and Ramesh were/are bullshitters of the highest class? sk: Perhaps! Like we all, who presume to capture " Truth " in words and concepts. So, are you saying N/R/R was just doing that? sk: Hoopla! Like your style ;)Nice try! Reams of paper with captured words, appears to have been endorsed by them. sk: N/R/R were/are a gift to humanity, in my opinion. But, don't ask my neighbour:). Truth keeps having a relative dignity. What's truth for me, does not have to be seen, as I see it, by my neighbour. So, what are you questioning here? Secondly, are you saying that " Truth " (in this case the answer to the question), can be captured in the " wordless " , in the " concept- less " sk: No. (T)ruth can't be captured. A young, innocent mind not yet corrupted by all the Advaitic stuff, never read any N/R/R,........asks this question,..... ....What is Consciousness....... sk: You don´t seem to me uncorrupted No? Aw shucks sk: don´t worry, it isn't cancer every expansion on that would be therefore experienced as a compression by me. Laugh! I avoided the terms time and duration deliberately. Duration and time are, IMHO, biological filters through which we project an individual reality based on a collective validation internalized by the evolutional process of our species (doesn't this sound intelligent?). Other species perhaps just experience rythm, changes of repetition without a notion of duration. You mean peeing dogs don't have birthdays. sk: I dont know, ask a peeing dog! A nice coloured hydrant to pee upon, .... is Nirvan,.... doggy style? sk: Should I say something? Why should I say something? You can always go woof, woof, woof, to signify the three states of waking, dreaming and deep-sleep and wag something to signify the Turiya. sk: Thanks! I will try it and send you a photo of me doing it! Sorry, sk, couldn't help that. sk: Keep the image in mind, when you get the photo :-)) Back to serious business, ....What is Consciousness.. Hmmmmm sk: Hmm...hoopla is a great term! Yes. Could it be that the key lies in that term? I wonder. sk: Hmmm...a good question, yes, why not? sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > Beautifully put Bill! > > Consciousness is somethingness appearing out of nothingness. It is that which is created from nothingness folding back on itself. As Nisargadatta put it, " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. " Or " Whenever a form is infused with life, consciousness appears by reflection of awareness in matter. " > > Toby > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus@x...] > > Tuesday, July 29, 2003 4:32 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Re: The thingy known as Consciousness > > > > sk, > > > > re: Consciousness as...That from which every instant arises. > > > > The trouble with your term " arises " (it seems to me) is that it implies a " rising up " , > > a beginning, middle, end sort of thing. > > > > > > Consider the " totality of phenomenal appearance " . Referring to such totality as > > " Appearance " , then Appearance is Now, or What Is. Appearance is undifferentiated. > > Appearance has no apparent subject, for if a subject were " apparent " it would be > > included in Appearance itself. Note that there are not separate " moments " or > > " instants " of Appearance. > > > > I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is not *in* > > Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is* Consciousness. > > all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver? isn't Consciousness an energy? <I still think that Consciousness is the initiating energy of what IS> > > Or, in other terms, as I stated before, Consciousness = Manifestation. > > > > If a *subject* of experience is posited then Consciousness is carved into a > > *this* and a *that*. Appearance is realized only on dissolution of experiential > > subject-object. > > > > Experiential subject-object appears as " fact " and uncontestable until dissolution of > > such, whereupon such fact is realized as only psuedo-fact and not real. > > > > -Bill > > > > > > Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc@b... <sandeepc@b...>> wrote: > > > > > > Sk, could you kindly expand on that? > > > > Still floundering with the " arising moment from " > > > > Since you are defining Consciousness with the help of that which emerges from it, ......an arising moment having duration, are you saying Consciousness is a thingy with duration? > > > > > > > > Hi Sandeep, > > > > > > That from which every instant arises. Is that Better? It took my whole life to write down this affirmation; every expansion on that would be therefore experienced as a compression by me. Laugh! I avoided the terms time and duration deliberately. Duration and time are, IMHO, biological filters through which we project an individual reality based on a collective validation internalized by the evolutional process of our species (doesn't this sound intelligent?). Other species perhaps just experience rythm, changes of repetition without a notion of duration. > > > > > > sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 << all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being >> What you say does not pertain to my comments, viz: I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is not *in* Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is* Consciousness. Or, in other terms, as I stated before, Consciousness = Manifestation. If a *subject* of experience is posited then Consciousness is carved into a *this* and a *that*. Appearance is realized only on dissolution of experiential subject-object. Experiential subject-object appears as " fact " and uncontestable until dissolution of such, whereupon such fact is realized as only psuedo- fact and not real. << isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver? >> To realize the nature of Consciousness is to realize there is no perceiver. << isn't Consciousness an energy? >> Not at all. " Energy " is a phenomenal appearance, an appearance within the totality of phenomena. Consciousness *is* the totality of phenomena. <I still think that Consciousness is the initiating energy of what IS> There is no initiating energy of what IS. How can there *be* something to initiate *beingness*? Consciousness = What Is You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But Consciousness is trans-conceptual. -Bill satkartar7 [mi_nok] Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:54 AM Nisargadatta Re: The thingy known as Consciousness Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > Beautifully put Bill! > > Consciousness is somethingness appearing out of nothingness. It is that which is created from nothingness folding back on itself. As Nisargadatta put it, " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. " Or " Whenever a form is infused with life, consciousness appears by reflection of awareness in matter. " > > Toby > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus@x...] > > Tuesday, July 29, 2003 4:32 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Re: The thingy known as Consciousness > > > > sk, > > > > re: Consciousness as...That from which every instant arises. > > > > The trouble with your term " arises " (it seems to me) is that it implies a " rising up " , > > a beginning, middle, end sort of thing. > > > > > > Consider the " totality of phenomenal appearance " . Referring to such totality as > > " Appearance " , then Appearance is Now, or What Is. Appearance is undifferentiated. > > Appearance has no apparent subject, for if a subject were " apparent " it would be > > included in Appearance itself. Note that there are not separate " moments " or > > " instants " of Appearance. > > > > I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is not *in* > > Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is* Consciousness. > > all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver? isn't Consciousness an energy? <I still think that Consciousness is the initiating energy of what IS> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > << > all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being > >> > What you say does not pertain to my comments, viz: > > I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is > not *in* Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is* > Consciousness. yes, agreed > > Or, in other terms, as I stated before, Consciousness = Manifestation. not quite, like the: C = What Is > > If a *subject* of experience is posited then Consciousness is carved > into a *this* and a *that*. Appearance is realized only on dissolution > of experiential subject-object. > > Experiential subject-object appears as " fact " and uncontestable until > dissolution of such, whereupon such fact is realized as only psuedo- > fact and not real. > > << > isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver? > >> > To realize the nature of Consciousness is to realize there is no perceiver. this is with small " c " consciousness > > << > isn't Consciousness an energy? > >> > Not at all. > " Energy " is a phenomenal appearance, an appearance within the totality of > phenomena. Consciousness *is* the totality of phenomena. for me everything is a form of energy > > <I still think that Consciousness is the initiating energy of what IS> > There is no initiating energy of what IS. How can there *be* something > to initiate *beingness*? simultaniously with the Big Bang > > Consciousness = What Is yes > > You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But Consciousness is > trans-conceptual. > > -Bill > karta > > " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> > wrote: > > Beautifully put Bill! > > > > Consciousness is somethingness appearing out of nothingness. It is that > which is created from nothingness folding back on itself. As Nisargadatta > put it, " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a > state of duality. " Or " Whenever a form is infused with life, consciousness > appears by reflection of awareness in matter. " > > > > Toby > > > > > sk, > > > > > > re: Consciousness as...That from which every instant arises. > > > > > > The trouble with your term " arises " (it seems to me) is that it implies > a " rising up " , > > > a beginning, middle, end sort of thing. > > > > > > > > > Consider the " totality of phenomenal appearance " . Referring to such > totality as > > > " Appearance " , then Appearance is Now, or What Is. Appearance is > undifferentiated. > > > Appearance has no apparent subject, for if a subject were " apparent " it > would be > > > included in Appearance itself. Note that there are not separate > " moments " or > > > " instants " of Appearance. > > > > > > I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is not > *in* > > > Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is* Consciousness. > > all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being > > isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver? > > isn't Consciousness an energy? > > <I still think that Consciousness is the initiating energy of what IS> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But Consciousness is > trans-conceptual. +++++*************\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ You mean it dresses up?!! What a fantastic image?!! ))))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 << > To realize the nature of Consciousness is to realize there is no perceiver. this is with small " c " consciousness >> I don't get what you mean here. By " Consciousness " I mean " all that is " , as opposed to " consciousness " , which is an overloaded term and typically means " human consciousness " . << for me everything is a form of energy > <I still think that Consciousness is the initiating energy of what IS> > There is no initiating energy of what IS. How can there *be* something > to initiate *beingness*? simultaniously with the Big Bang >> Does energy imply movement? Big Bang certainly does. Big Bang is still just an appearance. It is not the origination of Being. Movement implies a " relative frame " . Movement implies a perceiver. When you are immersed in the totality of Now there is no perceiver. [Krishnamurti speaks very clearly about this, BTW.] Each moment is an island unto itself. There is no connection between moments. Any appearance of connection between moments is just appearance in a moment. Hence each moment stands silent, transparent, pure. Further, each moment is not an " each " , is not discrete, is not separate. And as such, there can never be truly a perceiver, only an apparent one. Similarly with movement. Movement is only apparent. Movement is not real. The only " dynamics " are dream dynamics, a dancing in the Mirage. -Bill satkartar7 [mi_nok] Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:41 PM Nisargadatta Re: The thingy known as Consciousness Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > << > all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being > >> > What you say does not pertain to my comments, viz: > > I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is > not *in* Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is* > Consciousness. yes, agreed > > Or, in other terms, as I stated before, Consciousness = Manifestation. not quite, like the: C = What Is > > If a *subject* of experience is posited then Consciousness is carved > into a *this* and a *that*. Appearance is realized only on dissolution > of experiential subject-object. > > Experiential subject-object appears as " fact " and uncontestable until > dissolution of such, whereupon such fact is realized as only psuedo- > fact and not real. > > << > isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver? > >> > To realize the nature of Consciousness is to realize there is no perceiver. this is with small " c " consciousness > > << > isn't Consciousness an energy? > >> > Not at all. > " Energy " is a phenomenal appearance, an appearance within the totality of > phenomena. Consciousness *is* the totality of phenomena. for me everything is a form of energy > > <I still think that Consciousness is the initiating energy of what IS> > There is no initiating energy of what IS. How can there *be* something > to initiate *beingness*? simultaniously with the Big Bang > > Consciousness = What Is yes > > You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But Consciousness is > trans-conceptual. > > -Bill > karta > > " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> > wrote: > > Beautifully put Bill! > > > > Consciousness is somethingness appearing out of nothingness. It is that > which is created from nothingness folding back on itself. As Nisargadatta > put it, " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a > state of duality. " Or " Whenever a form is infused with life, consciousness > appears by reflection of awareness in matter. " > > > > Toby > > > > > sk, > > > > > > re: Consciousness as...That from which every instant arises. > > > > > > The trouble with your term " arises " (it seems to me) is that it implies > a " rising up " , > > > a beginning, middle, end sort of thing. > > > > > > > > > Consider the " totality of phenomenal appearance " . Referring to such > totality as > > > " Appearance " , then Appearance is Now, or What Is. Appearance is > undifferentiated. > > > Appearance has no apparent subject, for if a subject were " apparent " it > would be > > > included in Appearance itself. Note that there are not separate > " moments " or > > > " instants " of Appearance. > > > > > > I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is not > *in* > > > Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is* Consciousness. > > all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being > > isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver? > > isn't Consciousness an energy? > > <I still think that Consciousness is the initiating energy of what IS> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Hey! Whatever turns you on! ... LOL Shawn Hair [shawn] Tuesday, July 29, 2003 2:01 PM Nisargadatta Re: The thingy known as Consciousness Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But Consciousness is > trans-conceptual. +++++*************\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ You mean it dresses up?!! What a fantastic image?!! ))))))Shawn ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Hey! Whatever turns you on! ... > > LOL > > > Shawn Hair [shawn@w...] > Tuesday, July 29, 2003 2:01 PM > Nisargadatta > Re: The thingy known as Consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> > wrote: > > > > You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But > Consciousness is > > trans-conceptual. > +++++*************\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > > You mean it dresses up?!! What a fantastic image?!! > > ))))))Shawn I just saw a small boy walk out of his apartment wearing his mom's shoes. He was walking with his hands inside the shoes and his feet were dangling in the air. I think he had been reading this threat. ) Wake me up before you gogo, Pete > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta > group and click on Save Changes. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > << > > To realize the nature of Consciousness is to realize there is no > perceiver. > > this is with small " c " consciousness > >> > I don't get what you mean here. By " Consciousness " I mean " all that is " , > as opposed to " consciousness " , which is an overloaded term and typically > means " human consciousness " . I read the distinction between Consciousness and the small c at: <http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/> 1.5 distinction bw Consciousness, Awareness and mind to relize the nature of C can be only the one with a small " c " " Many writers use " mind " when other writers use " consciousness " to describe the same thing. In Chapters 1 through 8, we shall use the word consciousness (uncapitalized) rather ambiguously = to mean either mind or the general principle of consciousness. This reflects the ambiguity of common usage. Beginning in Chapter 9, we shall be more precise and shall start referring to Consciousness (capitalized) as All-That-Is. This includes Noumenon (the Unmanifest) and phenomenon (the manifest). When we speak of our experience, we shall often refer to Noumenon as Awareness, and to phenomenon as mind. Then the word mind will mean only our experience of the mental, sensory, and perceptual functioning of the individual organism, not to any kind of physical object such as the brain. The combination of body and mind we shall refer to as the body-mind organism. After Chapter 9, we shall not use consciousness (uncapitalized) unless we are following the usage of other writers. " > > <<for me everything is a form of energy > > > <I still think that Consciousness is the initiating energy of what IS> > > There is no initiating energy of what IS. How can there *be* something > > to initiate *beingness*? > it is similar to the egg or chicken metaphor I say it all came together into existence simultaneously: Consciousness and All that is > simultaniously with the Big Bang > >> > Does energy imply movement? Big Bang certainly does. > Big Bang is still just an appearance. It is not the origination > of Being. > > Movement implies a " relative frame " . Movement implies a perceiver. > no not movement: the Big Bang is the beginning of All > When you are immersed in the totality of Now there is no perceiver. > [Krishnamurti speaks very clearly about this, BTW.] > > Each moment is an island unto itself. There is no connection between > moments. Any appearance of connection between moments is just appearance > in a moment. Hence each moment stands silent, transparent, pure. Further,= > each moment is not an " each " , is not discrete, is not separate. And as > such, there can never be truly a perceiver, only an apparent one. > > Similarly with movement. Movement is only apparent. Movement is not real.= > The only " dynamics " are dream dynamics, a dancing in the Mirage. > > -Bill > > <<all you were discussing are related to consciousness of a human being > > >> > > What you say does not pertain to my comments, viz: > > > > I suggest that Consciousness *is* Appearance, that Appearance is > > not *in* Consciousness, but that Appearance itself *is* > > Consciousness. > > > yes, agreed > > > > > > Or, in other terms, as I stated before, Consciousness = Manifestati= on. > > > not quite, like the: C = What Is > > > > > > If a *subject* of experience is posited then Consciousness is carve= d > > into a *this* and a *that*. Appearance is realized only on dissolut= ion > > of experiential subject-object. > > > > Experiential subject-object appears as " fact " and uncontestable unt= il > > dissolution of such, whereupon such fact is realized as only psuedo= - > > fact and not real. > > > > << > > isn't Consciousness existing prior to a perceiver? > > >> > > To realize the nature of Consciousness is to realize there is no > perceiver. > > > > this is with small " c " consciousness > > > > > > > << > > isn't Consciousness an energy? > > >> > > Not at all. > > " Energy " is a phenomenal appearance, an appearance within the totality = of > > phenomena. Consciousness *is* the totality of phenomena. > > > > for me everything is a form of energy > > > > > > > <I still think that Consciousness is the initiating energy of what IS> > > There is no initiating energy of what IS. How can there *be* something > > to initiate *beingness*? > > > > simultaniously with the Big Bang > > > > > > > Consciousness = What Is > > > yes > > > > > > You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But Consciousness is > > trans-conceptual. > > > > -Bill > > > karta <I still think that Consciousness is the initiating energy of what IS> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > for me everything is a form of energy " for me " Energy is a concept of " mine. " > Each moment is an island unto itself. There is no connection between > moments. any " moment " has a line drawn by mind to keep it defined and seperate and describeable. perhaps there is only connection,flow...with no-thing flowing. :-) Any appearance of connection between moments is just appearance > in a moment. Hence each moment stands silent, transparent, pure. Further, > each moment is not an " each " , is not discrete, is not separate. And as > such, there can never be truly a perceiver, only an apparent one. See I told ya! > Similarly with movement. Movement is only apparent. Movement is not real. > The only " dynamics " are dream dynamics, a dancing in the Mirage. > > -Bill perception happens " against " what? > > <I still think that Consciousness is the initiating energy of what IS> There are gaps in consciousness. What is there? )))))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Hi Bill -- You wrote, in part: > Each moment is an island unto itself. There is no connection between > moments. Any appearance of connection between moments is just appearance > in a moment. Hence each moment stands silent, transparent, pure. Further, > each moment is not an " each " , is not discrete, is not separate. And as > such, there can never be truly a perceiver, only an apparent one. > > Similarly with movement. Movement is only apparent. Movement is not real. > The only " dynamics " are dream dynamics, a dancing in the Mirage. Good stuff -- well-said. If a moment could be connected with another moment, then there would be some kind of real, tangible separation operating in the universe. But how can you separate something from something else, if you are truly separate from things? You couldn't touch them. So, yes, nothing is separable from anything else, everything is this interpenetration and interbeing, so nothing can move from here to there, and nothing can contact this or that, and no moment can connect with any other moment. It just is as it is. With no separable perceiver from what is perceived, there is no one to move out of the moment, or do something to something existing in the moment, or to move within the moment or have an experience of it. Yet, there is no stasis -- for to be static is to be separate. Motionless, Evermoving Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Shawn, Perfect illustration... a kind of expereintial explanation - zero intellect. Toby > > Shawn Hair [sMTP:shawn] > Tuesday, July 29, 2003 7:18 PM > Nisargadatta > Re: The thingy known as Consciousness > > Nisargadatta , Sandeep Chatterjee > <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > > Hiya learned Gurus and Masters on this List, > > > > > > Please do advise,....... what is this thingy known as > Consciousness. > > > > Nisarga, Ramesh, Ramana, they all go on about > Consciousness. > > > > What is Consciousness? > > > THIS > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 > > You don't really think that nothing folding back on itself > explains something, do you? > > Well Dan, if it does, I have achieved the unachievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > Shawn, > > Perfect illustration... a kind of expereintial explanation - zero intellect. Toby Yes, otherwise it is like asking the child of a baren woman, " Who's your mother? " ,,,and then of course, there's the grandmother! ))))))Shawn > > > What is Consciousness? > > > > > > THIS > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Hey! Whatever turns you on! ... > > LOL Exactly! What turns us on is what we are interested in. . What we are interested in, we are devoted (give attention to, worship) to. Until all experience (all objects we superimpose a relationship upon) is clearly seen as dukkha (unsatisfactory) we will not turn our full attention to it's Source. )))))Shawn > > Shawn Hair [shawn@w...] > Tuesday, July 29, 2003 2:01 PM > Nisargadatta > Re: The thingy known as Consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> > wrote: > > > > You seem to have a " concept " of Consciousness. But > Consciousness is > > trans-conceptual. > > +++++*************\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > > You mean it dresses up?!! What a fantastic image?!! > > ))))))Shawn > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta > group and click on Save Changes. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Dan...can we say touche' here? -Bill Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:33 PM Nisargadatta RE: Re: The thingy known as Consciousness > > You don't really think that nothing folding back on itself > explains something, do you? > > Well Dan, if it does, I have achieved the unachievable. ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, July 29, 2003 08:40 PM Re: The thingy known as Consciousness <SNIP> > Earnestly awaiting enlightenment. I'll just bet you are <s> You already are the enlightenment you are awaiting. ------ Ahaa. But then right now I have to raise $40,000. Any inside information on a benefactor(s),Dan, as I suspect that is going to be far more useful, than conscious enlightenment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 > ))))))Shawn > > > > > > > What is Consciousness? > > > > > > > > > THIS > > > > > > Shawn THIS is a good answer. Though not that " THAT " or the other's are not. Parsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote:> > Hiya learned Gurus and Masters on this List, > > > > > > Please do advise,....... what is this thingy known as > Consciousness. > > > > Nisarga, Ramesh, Ramana, they all go on about > Consciousness. Sandeep, Consciousness/thingy " IS " . The " ISNESS " excludes Nothing/y, yet Nothing is included. Parsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Nisargadatta , Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > > > - > skoggman > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 28, 2003 08:25 PM > Re: The thingy known as Consciousness > > > the question: > > >> > What is Consciousness? > << > Well, any answer is as good as the next, but all's i know is that while y'all are giving out answers, Andrew Cohen will probably start a new magazine called " What is Consciousness? " to go along with " What is Enlightenment? " and rake in some more ka-ching. LOL Freyja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, July 29, 2003 08:40 PM > Re: The thingy known as Consciousness > > > <SNIP> > > > > > Earnestly awaiting enlightenment. > > I'll just bet you are <s> > > You already are the enlightenment you are awaiting. > > ------ > > Ahaa. > > But then right now I have to raise $40,000. > Oh my, Sandeep, if you need to raise money, you can't possibly be " enlightened " ! <g> ;-) Also, if one has cancer or any other health problem, you cannot be enlightened. That is how the story goes-- that someone said upon hearing that Nisargadatta had throat cancer.... oh well, then he must have issues, and can't be enlightened...... This kind of thinking must be another form of spiritual illusion, that if you have any kind of 'problems' you are not realized. But are they problems, or just more situations to deal with, like everything else that arises, whether they are labeled good or bad? However, we are so much more quick to scramble about trying to do something about it when we think we don't have what we think we should have, as opposed to when we feel everything is fine. Lots of correlations out there, even in the scientific world, between things like having perfect physical 'health' no money problems, etc, and realization. Freyja > Any inside information on a benefactor(s),Dan, as I suspect that is > going to be far more useful, than conscious enlightenment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > > > > > You don't really think that nothing folding back on itself > > explains something, do you? > > > > > Well Dan, if it does, I have achieved the unachievable. I once achieved the unachievable. It was great. Then, the unachievable achieved me, and I had no longer achieved the unacheivable. Seriously, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Dan...can we say touche' here? > > -Bill Sure. There is nowhere " this " isn't already touching. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, July 29, 2003 08:40 PM > Re: The thingy known as Consciousness > > > <SNIP> > > > > > Earnestly awaiting enlightenment. > > I'll just bet you are <s> > > You already are the enlightenment you are awaiting. > > ------ > > Ahaa. > > But then right now I have to raise $40,000. > > Any inside information on a benefactor(s),Dan, as I suspect that is > going to be far more useful, than conscious enlightenment. Yes, it would be useful. But then, if you don't get it, you can learn what it's like to be poor and awake. My mom always used to say, if you have to be awake, it's better to be rich and awake, than poor and awake. (I'm paraphrasing -- to be sure.) King Solomon also held that to be true. But Ramana had a steady supply of free diapers, and was happy with that. So, who's to say? Me, of course. And I say, " show me the money! " Smiles, 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.