Guest guest Posted May 15, 2004 Report Share Posted May 15, 2004 Presumably, there is no truth to find in words, the noises of the street are not different and, all that harmonies wouldn't be music, if time couldn't be hold for a while, an instant, at the least, in some space, in an imagined room behind the eyes. Presumably, there is truth to find in words, the word as parenthesis, a caesura coloured in time, movement, light and perhaps warmth, as real and unreal as the grinding gravel under my shoes. Presumably, it is only the search for truth, which makes things seem false and untrue. Already at the beginning a slight dislocation of view, an almost imperceptible fissure in the mirror, made you believe in God and in yourself. Presumably, there is nothing to hold on, a game with magic lights is displayed, like an artificial oasis in the middle of the night, promises, illusions, prospects and vanities, pass-times in every imaginable form are exhibited, to comfort, to entertain, to forget perhaps, something you never wanted to hear again, the voice in your heart, which tells you the truth, constantly, since immemorial times, endlessly... there is no purpose, no truth, no hope, where nothing is left, in the absence of nothing. sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2004 Report Share Posted May 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Presumably, there is no truth to find in words, > the noises of the street are not different and, > all that harmonies wouldn't be music, > if time couldn't be hold for a while, > an instant, at the least, in some space, > in an imagined room behind the eyes. > Presumably, there is truth to find in words, > the word as parenthesis, a caesura coloured in time, > movement, light and perhaps warmth, > as real and unreal as the grinding gravel under my shoes. > Presumably, it is only the search for truth, > which makes things seem false and untrue. > Already at the beginning a slight dislocation of view, > an almost imperceptible fissure in the mirror, > made you believe in God and in yourself. > Presumably, there is nothing to hold on, > a game with magic lights is displayed, > like an artificial oasis in the middle of the night, > promises, illusions, prospects and vanities, > pass-times in every imaginable form are exhibited, > to comfort, to entertain, to forget perhaps, > something you never wanted to hear again, > the voice in your heart, which tells you the truth, > constantly, since immemorial times, endlessly... > there is no purpose, no truth, no hope, > where nothing is left, > in the absence of nothing. > > > sk Hi, My name is Anders Lindman living in Sweden and I am new to this group. I am interested in Advaita because it is a simple yet all- encompassing description of reality. To define truth is very difficult or very easy. As Ramesh Balsekar says: the only Truth in phenominality is the impersonal sense of 'I am', 'I exist'. That is a pretty simple definition of Truth that I like. In duality we have this and that, and there is no end to the diversity of phenomenal experiences, but one can begin to question the reality of the entire phenomenal world by observing how separation can happen? A separate object cannot truly be separate from another object because there is the awareness of both objects making them appear in a _single_ field of consciousness. This single field of consciousness, this 'I am', is One, in which seemingly separate objects exist. But there can never be any _real_ separation between objects because then they would not be parts of 'I am'. So, it is the unity of all things that is the Truth and the separation is only an appearance in this unity. All are One. Discrete things are not discrete in a real sense. The number two (2) only exists as an idea in the mind. We can never find the number 2 itself in reality! So all is One Oneness. Two apples on a table appear as two separate objects but they exist in a single field of consciousness. The same with space; the two apples are parts of the _same_ space. Not that they occupy the same space, but no part of these apples are outside of the one space containing them. In this sense, everything is interconnected into one wholeness. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > My name is Anders Lindman living in Sweden and I am new to this > group. I am interested in Advaita because it is a simple yet all- > encompassing description of reality. sk: Welcome to the group, Anders > To define truth is very difficult or very easy. As Ramesh Balsekar > says: the only Truth in phenominality is the impersonal sense of 'I > am', 'I exist'. That is a pretty simple definition of Truth that I > like. In duality we have this and that, and there is no end to the > diversity of phenomenal experiences, but one can begin to question > the reality of the entire phenomenal world by observing how > separation can happen? A separate object cannot truly be separate > from another object because there is the awareness of both objects > making them appear in a _single_ field of consciousness. This single > field of consciousness, this 'I am', is One, in which seemingly > separate objects exist. But there can never be any _real_ separation > between objects because then they would not be parts of 'I am'. So, > it is the unity of all things that is the Truth and the separation is > only an appearance in this unity. All are One. Discrete things are > not discrete in a real sense. The number two (2) only exists as an > idea in the mind. We can never find the number 2 itself in reality! > So all is One Oneness. Two apples on a table appear as two separate > objects but they exist in a single field of consciousness. The same > with space; the two apples are parts of the _same_ space. Not that > they occupy the same space, but no part of these apples are outside > of the one space containing them. In this sense, everything is > interconnected into one wholeness. sk: A good theory. The concept of oneness and wholeness can emerge out of analytical, deductive and empirical process, as well as, the concept of interconectedness. Your theory reminds me of the Aspect- experiment, someone offered here as possible scientifical explanation for artificial separation. Numbers are numbers. Mathematics do, in my opinion, at the end only demonstrate themselves by giving, as a kind of side-effect, an elaborated and coherent interpretation of collectively experienced coherences. Even Einstein's theory of relativity lacks a final proof. It is just the best known working hypothesis. What we experience as reality is always a physiological simulation. The existence of a kind of " ultimate reality " is therefore an oxymoron. We will probably the next years hear something about other dimensions, if the experiments at CERN will come to be successful and gravitational forces, as supposed, can " ramble " between dimesions. There are a lot of interesting things going on concerning reality... Nice to see how many fascettes this dream can, could, will have. There is perhaps a similar show going on in other dimensions, without we knowing about it! If oneness works for you, it is OK for me, too. But, at the end, it is a concept like every other, perhaps, fine working hypothesis. Kind of strange, this search for truth and proofs for something, which never needed a proof. I agree with Ramesh Balsekar here. One of Nisargadatta's approaches was to say that the unexpected, unhoped- for, unsuspected and unthought of, lying in the future approximates itself at nearest to a notion of " reality " ... " I am " is surprise! MVH sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > My name is Anders Lindman living in Sweden and I am new to this > > group. I am interested in Advaita because it is a simple yet all- > > encompassing description of reality. > > sk: Welcome to the group, Anders Thanks sk. > > > To define truth is very difficult or very easy. As Ramesh Balsekar > > says: the only Truth in phenominality is the impersonal sense > of 'I > > am', 'I exist'. That is a pretty simple definition of Truth that I > > like. In duality we have this and that, and there is no end to the > > diversity of phenomenal experiences, but one can begin to question > > the reality of the entire phenomenal world by observing how > > separation can happen? A separate object cannot truly be separate > > from another object because there is the awareness of both objects > > making them appear in a _single_ field of consciousness. This > single > > field of consciousness, this 'I am', is One, in which seemingly > > separate objects exist. But there can never be any _real_ > separation > > between objects because then they would not be parts of 'I am'. > So, > > it is the unity of all things that is the Truth and the separation > is > > only an appearance in this unity. All are One. Discrete things are > > not discrete in a real sense. The number two (2) only exists as an > > idea in the mind. We can never find the number 2 itself in > reality! > > So all is One Oneness. Two apples on a table appear as two > separate > > objects but they exist in a single field of consciousness. The > same > > with space; the two apples are parts of the _same_ space. Not that > > they occupy the same space, but no part of these apples are > outside > > of the one space containing them. In this sense, everything is > > interconnected into one wholeness. > > sk: A good theory. The concept of oneness and wholeness can emerge > out of analytical, deductive and empirical process, as well as, the > concept of interconectedness. Your theory reminds me of the Aspect- > experiment, someone offered here as possible scientifical > explanation for artificial separation. > Numbers are numbers. Yes, numbers are numbers, but what is a number but a thought in the mind? We can never find for example the _actual_ number 2 anywhere. Just like two waves on the ocean, they appear as " 2 " , but the number 2 itself is not present other than as a thought about an appearance. Two apples can in a quantum interpretation be said to be of one interconnected ocean of energy according to the Aspect-experiment. The apples are nothing but waves in this ocean, they appear as " 2 " but even here we cannot find the _actual_ number 2 anywhere, because 2 means a discrete absolute separation between objects and if something was absolutely separate it would not be a part of this existence. Of course, it is so with all concepts, except perhaps the Advaita concept: " not two " . We cannot say " one " about oneness, because " one " (1) can only exist when we at the same time have 2, 3, 4... But if we say " not two " then we halt the enumeration process right at the start beginning with 1 and ending with 1, for in order to have 3, 4, 5... we need 2, but what we started with was " not two " . :-) > Mathematics do, in my opinion, at the end only > demonstrate themselves by giving, as a kind of side-effect, an > elaborated and coherent interpretation of collectively experienced > coherences. Even Einstein's theory of relativity lacks a final > proof. It is just the best known working hypothesis. > What we experience as reality is always a physiological simulation. > The existence of a kind of " ultimate reality " is therefore an > oxymoron. We will probably the next years hear something about other > dimensions, if the experiments at CERN will come to be successful > and gravitational forces, as supposed, can " ramble " between > dimesions. There are a lot of interesting things going on concerning > reality... > Nice to see how many fascettes this dream can, could, will have. > There is perhaps a similar show going on in other dimensions, > without we knowing about it! > If oneness works for you, it is OK for me, too. But, at the end, it > is a concept like every other, perhaps, fine working hypothesis. > Kind of strange, this search for truth and proofs for something, > which never needed a proof. I agree with Ramesh Balsekar here. One > of Nisargadatta's approaches was to say that the unexpected, unhoped- > for, unsuspected and unthought of, lying in the future approximates > itself at nearest to a notion of " reality " ... > > " I am " is surprise! > > > MVH > sk I have ideas about oneness, but I don't have the realization of oneness. According to Ramesh Balsekar the final Understanding cannot be realized by the intellect, but he says that the path to Understanding can begin with intellectual concepts. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 ANDERS: Yes, numbers are numbers, but what is a number but a thought in the mind? DANANANDA: who or what is it that beholds the thought? Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > My name is Anders Lindman living in Sweden and I am new to this > > > group. I am interested in Advaita because it is a simple yet all- > > > encompassing description of reality. > > > > sk: Welcome to the group, Anders > > Thanks sk. > > > > > > To define truth is very difficult or very easy. As Ramesh > Balsekar > > > says: the only Truth in phenominality is the impersonal sense > > of 'I > > > am', 'I exist'. That is a pretty simple definition of Truth that > I > > > like. In duality we have this and that, and there is no end to > the > > > diversity of phenomenal experiences, but one can begin to > question > > > the reality of the entire phenomenal world by observing how > > > separation can happen? A separate object cannot truly be separate > > > from another object because there is the awareness of both > objects > > > making them appear in a _single_ field of consciousness. This > > single > > > field of consciousness, this 'I am', is One, in which seemingly > > > separate objects exist. But there can never be any _real_ > > separation > > > between objects because then they would not be parts of 'I am'. > > So, > > > it is the unity of all things that is the Truth and the > separation > > is > > > only an appearance in this unity. All are One. Discrete things > are > > > not discrete in a real sense. The number two (2) only exists as > an > > > idea in the mind. We can never find the number 2 itself in > > reality! > > > So all is One Oneness. Two apples on a table appear as two > > separate > > > objects but they exist in a single field of consciousness. The > > same > > > with space; the two apples are parts of the _same_ space. Not > that > > > they occupy the same space, but no part of these apples are > > outside > > > of the one space containing them. In this sense, everything is > > > interconnected into one wholeness. > > > > sk: A good theory. The concept of oneness and wholeness can emerge > > out of analytical, deductive and empirical process, as well as, the > > concept of interconectedness. Your theory reminds me of the Aspect- > > experiment, someone offered here as possible scientifical > > explanation for artificial separation. > > Numbers are numbers. > > Yes, numbers are numbers, but what is a number but a thought in the > mind? We can never find for example the _actual_ number 2 anywhere. > Just like two waves on the ocean, they appear as " 2 " , but the number > 2 itself is not present other than as a thought about an appearance. > Two apples can in a quantum interpretation be said to be of one > interconnected ocean of energy according to the Aspect-experiment. > The apples are nothing but waves in this ocean, they appear as " 2 " > but even here we cannot find the _actual_ number 2 anywhere, because > 2 means a discrete absolute separation between objects and if > something was absolutely separate it would not be a part of this > existence. Of course, it is so with all concepts, except perhaps the > Advaita concept: " not two " . We cannot say " one " about oneness, > because " one " (1) can only exist when we at the same time have 2, 3, > 4... But if we say " not two " then we halt the enumeration process > right at the start beginning with 1 and ending with 1, for in order > to have 3, 4, 5... we need 2, but what we started with was " not > two " . :-) > > > Mathematics do, in my opinion, at the end only > > demonstrate themselves by giving, as a kind of side-effect, an > > elaborated and coherent interpretation of collectively experienced > > coherences. Even Einstein's theory of relativity lacks a final > > proof. It is just the best known working hypothesis. > > What we experience as reality is always a physiological simulation. > > The existence of a kind of " ultimate reality " is therefore an > > oxymoron. We will probably the next years hear something about > other > > dimensions, if the experiments at CERN will come to be successful > > and gravitational forces, as supposed, can " ramble " between > > dimesions. There are a lot of interesting things going on > concerning > > reality... > > Nice to see how many fascettes this dream can, could, will have. > > There is perhaps a similar show going on in other dimensions, > > without we knowing about it! > > If oneness works for you, it is OK for me, too. But, at the end, it > > is a concept like every other, perhaps, fine working hypothesis. > > Kind of strange, this search for truth and proofs for something, > > which never needed a proof. I agree with Ramesh Balsekar here. One > > of Nisargadatta's approaches was to say that the unexpected, > unhoped- > > for, unsuspected and unthought of, lying in the future approximates > > itself at nearest to a notion of " reality " ... > > > > " I am " is surprise! > > > > > > MVH > > sk > > I have ideas about oneness, but I don't have the realization of > oneness. According to Ramesh Balsekar the final Understanding cannot > be realized by the intellect, but he says that the path to > Understanding can begin with intellectual concepts. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Hi Anders, But if we say " not two " then we halt the enumeration process right at the start beginning with 1 and ending with 1, for in order to have 3, 4, 5... we need 2, but what we started with was " not two " . :-) sk: Indeed! I have ideas about oneness, but I don't have the realization of oneness. According to Ramesh Balsekar the final Understanding cannot be realized by the intellect, but he says that the path to Understanding can begin with intellectual concepts. sk: there is no final " Understanding " , in my view. Just apperception of what is, moment to moment...surprise to surprise, without beginning or end regards sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " <danananda2004> wrote: > ANDERS: Yes, numbers are numbers, but what is a number but a thought > in the > mind? > > DANANANDA: who or what is it that beholds the thought? That is easy to answer. It is consciousness itself that beholds the thought. Thoughts need time, consciousness is timeless. Only what is not time can behold time. If consciousness was connected to time, then it would not be able to observe time. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Hi Anders, > > > But if we say " not two " then we halt the enumeration process > right at the start beginning with 1 and ending with 1, for in order > to have 3, 4, 5... we need 2, but what we started with was " not > two " . :-) > > > sk: Indeed! > > > I have ideas about oneness, but I don't have the realization of > oneness. According to Ramesh Balsekar the final Understanding cannot > be realized by the intellect, but he says that the path to > Understanding can begin with intellectual concepts. > > > sk: there is no final " Understanding " , in my view. Just apperception > of what is, moment to moment...surprise to surprise, without > beginning or end > > > regards > sk The nice thing is that surprise happens only on the screen of consciousness. The screen itself if forever untouched by time! If the screen was to move with time, then what appears on the screen would not move. So, consciousness does not move with time. Consciousness is the timeless screen. You are pure consciousness. You are forever safe. Fear is about the future. You can never experience the future. Never have. Never will. Even if you could travel in time you would be only Now. This means that fear is an illusion, because fear is about something that never and ever can touch you; the future. The future exists only as dream world created by fear, and in turn the dream world generates more fear which fuels more dreams, and so on... It's a vicious self-generating loop. Your body is not afraid of the future for it can only exist in the now. Only the thinking mind can create a dream world called the future, which it takes to be reality. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Hi Anders, > The nice thing is that surprise happens only on the screen of > consciousness. The screen itself if forever untouched by time! If the > screen was to move with time, then what appears on the screen would > not move. So, consciousness does not move with time. Consciousness is > the timeless screen. You are pure consciousness. You are forever > safe. Fear is about the future. You can never experience the future. > Never have. Never will. Even if you could travel in time you would be > only Now. This means that fear is an illusion, because fear is about > something that never and ever can touch you; the future. The future > exists only as dream world created by fear, and in turn the dream > world generates more fear which fuels more dreams, and so on... It's > a vicious self-generating loop. Your body is not afraid of the future > for it can only exist in the now. Only the thinking mind can create a > dream world called the future, which it takes to be reality. > > /AL Indeed! Very well written, Anders. Take the term " surprise " perhaps a little more metaphorical as it in its usual sense. What could " now " else be? a bow sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " > <danananda2004> wrote: > > ANDERS: Yes, numbers are numbers, but what is a number but a > thought > > in the > > mind? > > > > DANANANDA: who or what is it that beholds the thought? > > That is easy to answer. It is consciousness itself that beholds the > thought. Thoughts need time, consciousness is timeless. Only what is > not time can behold time. If consciousness was connected to time, > then it would not be able to observe time. > > /AL good answer... thanks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 there can be no " one " without " two " ... in order to recognize " one, there must be " two " ... otherwise, " one " would be indefinite... " one " can only have definition in contrast to " two " ... no? Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Hi Anders, > > > But if we say " not two " then we halt the enumeration process > right at the start beginning with 1 and ending with 1, for in order > to have 3, 4, 5... we need 2, but what we started with was " not > two " . :-) > > > sk: Indeed! > > > I have ideas about oneness, but I don't have the realization of > oneness. According to Ramesh Balsekar the final Understanding cannot > be realized by the intellect, but he says that the path to > Understanding can begin with intellectual concepts. > > > sk: there is no final " Understanding " , in my view. Just apperception > of what is, moment to moment...surprise to surprise, without > beginning or end > > > regards > sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > But if we say " not two " then we halt the enumeration process > > right at the start beginning with 1 and ending with 1, for in order > > to have 3, 4, 5... we need 2, but what we started with was " not > > two " . :-) > > > > > > sk: Indeed! > > > > > > I have ideas about oneness, but I don't have the realization of > > oneness. According to Ramesh Balsekar the final Understanding > cannot > > be realized by the intellect, but he says that the path to > > Understanding can begin with intellectual concepts. > > > > > > sk: there is no final " Understanding " , in my view. Just > apperception > > of what is, moment to moment...surprise to surprise, without > > beginning or end > > > > > > regards > > sk > > The nice thing is that surprise happens only on the screen of > consciousness. The screen itself if forever untouched by time! If the > screen was to move with time, then what appears on the screen would > not move. So, consciousness does not move with time. Consciousness is > the timeless screen. You are pure consciousness. You are forever > safe. Fear is about the future. You can never experience the future. > Never have. Never will. Even if you could travel in time you would be > only Now. This means that fear is an illusion, because fear is about > something that never and ever can touch you; the future. The future > exists only as dream world created by fear, and in turn the dream > world generates more fear which fuels more dreams, and so on... It's > a vicious self-generating loop. Your body is not afraid of the future > for it can only exist in the now. Only the thinking mind can create a > dream world called the future, which it takes to be reality. > > /AL totally awesome... who or what is it that is conscious of consciousness??? who is talking about consciousness??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 - " danananda2004 " <danananda2004 <Nisargadatta > Tuesday, May 18, 2004 10:09 PM Re: Truth > there can be no " one " without " two " ... > > in order to recognize " one, there must be " two " ... > > otherwise, " one " would be indefinite... > > " one " can only have definition in contrast to " two " ... > > no? Yes. That is why the positing of not-Two, does not further posit ...........only One. Does not posit anything. Not-Two, is just not-two. The apperception of not-Two,...............is the end of not-Two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Hi Anders, > > > > The nice thing is that surprise happens only on the screen of > > consciousness. The screen itself if forever untouched by time! If > the > > screen was to move with time, then what appears on the screen > would > > not move. So, consciousness does not move with time. Consciousness > is > > the timeless screen. You are pure consciousness. You are forever > > safe. Fear is about the future. You can never experience the > future. > > Never have. Never will. Even if you could travel in time you would > be > > only Now. This means that fear is an illusion, because fear is > about > > something that never and ever can touch you; the future. The > future > > exists only as dream world created by fear, and in turn the dream > > world generates more fear which fuels more dreams, and so on... > It's > > a vicious self-generating loop. Your body is not afraid of the > future > > for it can only exist in the now. Only the thinking mind can > create a > > dream world called the future, which it takes to be reality. > > > > /AL > > > Indeed! Very well written, Anders. Take the term " surprise " perhaps > a little more metaphorical as it in its usual sense. What > could " now " else be? > > > a bow > sk The cool thing is that even seemingly hard-core things like money can only exist as ideas in the Now. Money is a no-thing. Tell that to the ordinary person, and he or she would look very funny in the face. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " <danananda2004> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > > > > But if we say " not two " then we halt the enumeration process > > > right at the start beginning with 1 and ending with 1, for in > order > > > to have 3, 4, 5... we need 2, but what we started with was " not > > > two " . :-) > > > > > > > > > sk: Indeed! > > > > > > > > > I have ideas about oneness, but I don't have the realization of > > > oneness. According to Ramesh Balsekar the final Understanding > > cannot > > > be realized by the intellect, but he says that the path to > > > Understanding can begin with intellectual concepts. > > > > > > > > > sk: there is no final " Understanding " , in my view. Just > > apperception > > > of what is, moment to moment...surprise to surprise, without > > > beginning or end > > > > > > > > > regards > > > sk > > > > The nice thing is that surprise happens only on the screen of > > consciousness. The screen itself if forever untouched by time! If > the > > screen was to move with time, then what appears on the screen would > > not move. So, consciousness does not move with time. Consciousness > is > > the timeless screen. You are pure consciousness. You are forever > > safe. Fear is about the future. You can never experience the > future. > > Never have. Never will. Even if you could travel in time you would > be > > only Now. This means that fear is an illusion, because fear is > about > > something that never and ever can touch you; the future. The future > > exists only as dream world created by fear, and in turn the dream > > world generates more fear which fuels more dreams, and so on... > It's > > a vicious self-generating loop. Your body is not afraid of the > future > > for it can only exist in the now. Only the thinking mind can create > a > > dream world called the future, which it takes to be reality. > > > > /AL > > > totally awesome... > > who or what is it that is conscious of consciousness??? who is > talking about consciousness??? Consciousness is a word, a concept. Consciousness is aware of concepts, even concepts about itself. /AL 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.