Guest guest Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Learning to Love problems Like the storm brings the rain, so necessary for the fields, problems brings something useful that we need, in form of a teaching or a change. Aprendiendo a amar los problemas Al igual que la tormenta trae la lluvia, tan necesaria para los campos, los problemas traen consigo algo útil que necesitamos, ya sea una enseñanza o un cambio. http://www.caminamos.net ________ Correo - 6MB de espacio ¡Gratis! http://correo..es Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , Caminamos <caminamosnet> wrote: > > Learning to Love problems > > Like the storm brings the rain, so necessary for the > fields, problems brings something useful that we need, > in form of a teaching or a change. Who needs problems other than the thinking mind? And who needs to take these problems as being real: the thinking mind. Identify with the thinking mind and you are lost. *Observe* your thinking mind as if it is something in you, but not *being* you. Your thinking mind is that part of you that is always in the past or in the future. Only the thinking mind believs there actually is a past and future separate from this moment. Where are your problems without the thinking mind? There is only one real problem: the thinking mind itself. But, as Ramesh Balsekar says: to let go of your thinking mind, is not in your control. How can you get rid of the thinking mind by using the thinking mind? You can't! :-) But you can use the thinking mind to see that it itself is what is creating what you think of as being problems. By seeing its own illusions it can be transformed into what Ramesh calls the working mind. The working mind is not concerned about the future. The working mind uses the past in order to do things in the moment, but since it is not concerned about the future it has no problems to take care of. /AL > > > Aprendiendo a amar los problemas > > Al igual que la tormenta trae la lluvia, tan necesaria > para los campos, los problemas traen consigo algo útil > que necesitamos, ya sea una enseñanza o un cambio. > > http://www.caminamos.net > > > > > > ________ > Correo - 6MB de espacio ¡Gratis! > http://correo..es Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 What I said is not separated from your words. I just showed the nuance of the not necessarily negative character of the so-called " problems " . Fri, 21 May 2004 22:22:40 -0000 " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman Re: Learning to Love problems Nisargadatta , Caminamos <caminamosnet> wrote: > > Learning to Love problems > > Like the storm brings the rain, so necessary for the > fields, problems brings something useful that we need, > in form of a teaching or a change. Who needs problems other than the thinking mind? And who needs to take these problems as being real: the thinking mind. Identify with the thinking mind and you are lost. *Observe* your thinking mind as if it is something in you, but not *being* you. Your thinking mind is that part of you that is always in the past or in the future. Only the thinking mind believs there actually is a past and future separate from this moment. Where are your problems without the thinking mind? There is only one real problem: the thinking mind itself. But, as Ramesh Balsekar says: to let go of your thinking mind, is not in your control. How can you get rid of the thinking mind by using the thinking mind? You can't! :-) But you can use the thinking mind to see that it itself is what is creating what you think of as being problems. By seeing its own illusions it can be transformed into what Ramesh calls the working mind. The working mind is not concerned about the future. The working mind uses the past in order to do things in the moment, but since it is not concerned about the future it has no problems to take care of. /AL ________ Correo - 6MB de espacio ¡Gratis! http://correo..es Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , Caminamos <caminamosnet> wrote: > > What I said is not separated from your words. I just > showed the nuance of the not necessarily negative > character of the so-called " problems " . Ok, I think I know what you mean. Problems are only negative when we think of them as negative. Yes, that's true. A radical shift in the mind can turn all negative problems into positive problems. At least in theory that could really be possible. /AL > > Fri, 21 May 2004 22:22:40 -0000 > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > Re: Learning to Love problems > > Nisargadatta , Caminamos > <caminamosnet> > wrote: > > > > Learning to Love problems > > > > Like the storm brings the rain, so necessary for the > > fields, problems brings something useful that we > need, > > in form of a teaching or a change. > > Who needs problems other than the thinking mind? And > who needs to > take these problems as being real: the thinking mind. > Identify with > the thinking mind and you are lost. *Observe* your > thinking mind as > if it is something in you, but not *being* you. Your > thinking mind is > that part of you that is always in the past or in the > future. Only > the thinking mind believs there actually is a past and > future > separate from this moment. Where are your problems > without the > thinking mind? There is only one real problem: the > thinking mind > itself. But, as Ramesh Balsekar says: to let go of > your thinking > mind, is not in your control. How can you get rid of > the thinking > mind by using the thinking mind? You can't! :-) But > you can use the > thinking mind to see that it itself is what is > creating what you > think of as being problems. By seeing its own > illusions it can be > transformed into what Ramesh calls the working mind. > The working mind > is not concerned about the future. The working mind > uses the past in > order to do things in the moment, but since it is not > concerned about > the future it has no problems to take care of. > > /AL ________ > Correo - 6MB de espacio ¡Gratis! > http://correo..es Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 In practice as well. But the best is reserved to those who trascend the ego. Then, there will not be any more problems at all. Message: Sun, 23 May 2004 18:43:04 -0000 " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman Re: Learning to Love problems Nisargadatta , Caminamos <caminamosnet> wrote: > > What I said is not separated from your words. I just > showed the nuance of the not necessarily negative > character of the so-called " problems " . Ok, I think I know what you mean. Problems are only negative when we think of them as negative. Yes, that's true. A radical shift in the mind can turn all negative problems into positive problems. At least in theory that could really be possible. /AL ____________________ Correo - 6MB, más protección contra el spam ¡Gratis! http://correo..es Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , Caminamos <caminamosnet> wrote: > > In practice as well. > > But the best is reserved to those who trascend the > ego. Then, there will not be any more problems at all. I would like to have no more problems. But the " me " who has problems must be the ego. And trying to get rid of my problems is a problem itself, so it too must be the ego. Can the ego get rid of the ego? Even to try to *stop* getting rid of my problems is a problem! I must surrender my ego, but fortenately, if I am to believe Ramesh Balsekar, to surrender my ego is not in my control, and as Ramana Maharshi said, my head is already in the tiger's mouth, there is no escape. At least I can hope so. /AL > > > Message: > Sun, 23 May 2004 18:43:04 -0000 > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > Re: Learning to Love problems > > Nisargadatta , Caminamos > <caminamosnet> > wrote: > > > > What I said is not separated from your words. I just > > showed the nuance of the not necessarily negative > > character of the so-called " problems " . > > Ok, I think I know what you mean. Problems are only > negative when we > think of them as negative. Yes, that's true. A radical > shift in the > mind can turn all negative problems into positive > problems. At least > in theory that could really be possible. > > /AL > > > > > ____________________ > Correo - 6MB, más protección contra el spam ¡Gratis! > http://correo..es Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 With Love, tolerance, calm, patience and no-action the most wonderful things happen. > > Message: > Tue, 25 May 2004 16:37:09 -0000 > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman > Re: Learning to Love problems > > Nisargadatta , Caminamos > <caminamosnet> > wrote: > > > > In practice as well. > > > > But the best is reserved to those who trascend the > > ego. Then, there will not be any more problems at > all. > > I would like to have no more problems. But the " me " > who has problems > must be the ego. And trying to get rid of my > problems is a problem > itself, so it too must be the ego. Can the ego get > rid of the ego? > Even to try to *stop* getting rid of my problems is > a problem! I must > surrender my ego, but fortenately, if I am to > believe Ramesh > Balsekar, to surrender my ego is not in my control, > and as Ramana > Maharshi said, my head is already in the tiger's > mouth, there is no > escape. At least I can hope so. > > /AL > > > > > > > Message: > > Sun, 23 May 2004 18:43:04 -0000 > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > Re: Learning to Love problems > > > > Nisargadatta , Caminamos > > <caminamosnet> > > wrote: > > > > > > What I said is not separated from your words. I > just > > > showed the nuance of the not necessarily > negative > > > character of the so-called " problems " . > > > > Ok, I think I know what you mean. Problems are > only > > negative when we > > think of them as negative. Yes, that's true. A > radical > > shift in the > > mind can turn all negative problems into positive > > problems. At least > > in theory that could really be possible. > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > > Correo - 6MB, más protección contra el spam > ¡Gratis! > > http://correo..es > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > > ** > > 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 May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Nisargadatta , Caminamos <caminamosnet> wrote: > > With Love, tolerance, calm, patience and no-action the > most wonderful things happen. The funny thing is that I see only the past. Senses, thoughts and feelings, they are all from the past. When awareness observes all these things, they have already been created. So there is no-action taking place as a " me " , even when struggle and fear about the future is in my mind, because all this suffering is _also_ only from the past. I cannot do anything about what appears in my mind. How could I possibly alter the past? Even what I see as the " future " is only the past. So when I have thoughts about me only seeing the past, these thoughts are _also_ the past. So the seeing and knowledge that I see only the past is not " me " doing anything, all this is only what appears in my mind, and all that the mind is aware of is only the past. So the idea that there is a " me " doing the thinking is a totally upside-down view of reality. Yet, this idea - even if it is an illusion - will be in me during my day, and I will think and believe that I am the doer. I am not in control over when I feel like I am a doer, nor am I in control over when I come back to the idea that all thoughts are created _before_ I become aware of them. Ramesh Balsekar sometimes quotes an author named Jon something if I remember correctly: " The human being is a mechanism, and in this mechanism there is a mechanism which prevents the human mechanism from seeing its mechanistic nature. " /AL > > > > > Message: > > Tue, 25 May 2004 16:37:09 -0000 > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > Re: Learning to Love problems > > > > Nisargadatta , Caminamos > > <caminamosnet> > > wrote: > > > > > > In practice as well. > > > > > > But the best is reserved to those who trascend the > > > ego. Then, there will not be any more problems at > > all. > > > > I would like to have no more problems. But the " me " > > who has problems > > must be the ego. And trying to get rid of my > > problems is a problem > > itself, so it too must be the ego. Can the ego get > > rid of the ego? > > Even to try to *stop* getting rid of my problems is > > a problem! I must > > surrender my ego, but fortenately, if I am to > > believe Ramesh > > Balsekar, to surrender my ego is not in my control, > > and as Ramana > > Maharshi said, my head is already in the tiger's > > mouth, there is no > > escape. At least I can hope so. > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > Message: > > > Sun, 23 May 2004 18:43:04 -0000 > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > > Re: Learning to Love problems > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Caminamos > > > <caminamosnet> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > What I said is not separated from your words. I > > just > > > > showed the nuance of the not necessarily > > negative > > > > character of the so-called " problems " . > > > > > > Ok, I think I know what you mean. Problems are > > only > > > negative when we > > > think of them as negative. Yes, that's true. A > > radical > > > shift in the > > > mind can turn all negative problems into positive > > > problems. At least > > > in theory that could really be possible. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > > > Correo - 6MB, más protección contra el spam > > ¡Gratis! > > > http://correo..es > > > > > > > > > ____________________ __ > > > ____________________ __ > > > > > > ** > > > > 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 May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Dear Anders, Allow me to sidetrack into the following question: If everything happens already some hundred mSecs before we get conscious of it and the body and mind work autonomous without an doer, without an entity, why ís there consciousness at all ? We could function perfectly without it. My idea is, that consciousness is needed for communication. We are social, tribal beings and are communcating and sharing by means of the contecnt of consciousness our contribution to the tribe. Which means that consciousness is just a social function and is therefore an " Allround Me " . Consciousness is the " me " . To get rid of the me is to get rid of consciousness. What do you think about that ? Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , Caminamos <caminamosnet> > wrote: > > > > With Love, tolerance, calm, patience and no-action the > > most wonderful things happen. > > The funny thing is that I see only the past. Senses, thoughts and > feelings, they are all from the past. When awareness observes all > these things, they have already been created. So there is no-action > taking place as a " me " , even when struggle and fear about the future > is in my mind, because all this suffering is _also_ only from the > past. I cannot do anything about what appears in my mind. How could I > possibly alter the past? Even what I see as the " future " is only the > past. So when I have thoughts about me only seeing the past, these > thoughts are _also_ the past. So the seeing and knowledge that I see > only the past is not " me " doing anything, all this is only what > appears in my mind, and all that the mind is aware of is only the > past. > > So the idea that there is a " me " doing the thinking is a totally > upside-down view of reality. Yet, this idea - even if it is an > illusion - will be in me during my day, and I will think and believe > that I am the doer. I am not in control over when I feel like I am a > doer, nor am I in control over when I come back to the idea that all > thoughts are created _before_ I become aware of them. > > Ramesh Balsekar sometimes quotes an author named Jon something if I > remember correctly: " The human being is a mechanism, and in this > mechanism there is a mechanism which prevents the human mechanism > from seeing its mechanistic nature. " > > /AL > > > > > > > > > Message: > > > Tue, 25 May 2004 16:37:09 -0000 > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > > Re: Learning to Love problems > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Caminamos > > > <caminamosnet> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > In practice as well. > > > > > > > > But the best is reserved to those who trascend the > > > > ego. Then, there will not be any more problems at > > > all. > > > > > > I would like to have no more problems. But the " me " > > > who has problems > > > must be the ego. And trying to get rid of my > > > problems is a problem > > > itself, so it too must be the ego. Can the ego get > > > rid of the ego? > > > Even to try to *stop* getting rid of my problems is > > > a problem! I must > > > surrender my ego, but fortenately, if I am to > > > believe Ramesh > > > Balsekar, to surrender my ego is not in my control, > > > and as Ramana > > > Maharshi said, my head is already in the tiger's > > > mouth, there is no > > > escape. At least I can hope so. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message: > > > > Sun, 23 May 2004 18:43:04 -0000 > > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > > > Re: Learning to Love problems > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Caminamos > > > > <caminamosnet> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What I said is not separated from your words. I > > > just > > > > > showed the nuance of the not necessarily > > > negative > > > > > character of the so-called " problems " . > > > > > > > > Ok, I think I know what you mean. Problems are > > > only > > > > negative when we > > > > think of them as negative. Yes, that's true. A > > > radical > > > > shift in the > > > > mind can turn all negative problems into positive > > > > problems. At least > > > > in theory that could really be possible. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > > > > Correo - 6MB, más protección contra el spam > > > ¡Gratis! > > > > http://correo..es > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > __ > > > > > > ____________________ > __ > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > 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 May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Dear Anders, > > Allow me to sidetrack into the following question: > > If everything happens already some hundred mSecs before we get > conscious of it and the body and mind work autonomous without an > doer, without an entity, why ís there consciousness at all ? We could > function perfectly without it. > > My idea is, that consciousness is needed for communication. We are > social, tribal beings and are communcating and sharing by means of > the contecnt of consciousness our contribution to the tribe. > > Which means that consciousness is just a social function and is > therefore an " Allround Me " . Consciousness is the " me " . To get rid of > the me is to get rid of consciousness. > > What do you think about that ? > > Werner The human body does not exist in the present moment. Every sensation in the body, outside the body, and of the body itself, has already been created when the mind becomes aware of the sensation. Therefore you can never experience the body other than as the past. The body is nothing but the past. So are also thoughts and feelings in the mind itself. This is absolutely true, even from a scientific perspective. This means that in reality nothing can hurt the physical body, because the physical body is already dead, it is only the past, and what is the past other than an appearance in the mind? You will never experience your physical body now, in this present moment, because the physical body is never where the mind is. The mind is now, the physical body is in the past and the past is only memories in the present moment. Since the body is so close to your mind, the body is also very, very close in terms of time to your mind. From a scientific viewpoint we are talking milliseconds and nanoseconds, _yet_, the physical body is _always_ only the past, even though a very, very near past. So it is not difficult to see how the idea " I am the body " can appear in the mind. So what is real is the mind which we can call consciousness, not the changing images in it (body, communication, feelings, thoughts, physical objects e t c). The film projector (consciousness) does not need the moving images on the movie screen - the projector is what _creates_ the images. To get rid of the me is to get rid of consciousness, because they are connected as one wholeness, yet since they are one, the idea of a _separate_ small me (the ego) is an illusion. And as we have seen, the mind itself is what is solid in the present moment and the physical body always only a changing memory. You wrote: " We are social, tribal beings and are communcating and sharing by means of the content of consciousness our contribution to the tribe. " This is true, but all of this you describe is only the past, and will never be anything but the past; memories in the present moment. This means that there never has been, and never will be a human being or society that can act on its own volition. How can the past act? " If only you will remain resting in consciousness, seeing yourself as distinct from the body, then even now you will become happy, peaceful and free from bonds. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.4 /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Ok Anders, Lets repeat: 1. Consciousness is just a social function and not something " higher " . 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. Because there is no consciousness without a content (the so called " pure " consciousness) consciousness IS the past. 3. Consciousness is the " me " and so the me is the past. Which means within the realm of consciousness one can do nothing, everything just happens which gets conscious 300 mSecs later. It is already the past - that's pretty clear. And now, what will you do ? Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > Dear Anders, > > > > Allow me to sidetrack into the following question: > > > > If everything happens already some hundred mSecs before we get > > conscious of it and the body and mind work autonomous without an > > doer, without an entity, why ís there consciousness at all ? We > could > > function perfectly without it. > > > > My idea is, that consciousness is needed for communication. We are > > social, tribal beings and are communcating and sharing by means of > > the contecnt of consciousness our contribution to the tribe. > > > > Which means that consciousness is just a social function and is > > therefore an " Allround Me " . Consciousness is the " me " . To get rid > of > > the me is to get rid of consciousness. > > > > What do you think about that ? > > > > Werner > > The human body does not exist in the present moment. Every sensation > in the body, outside the body, and of the body itself, has already > been created when the mind becomes aware of the sensation. Therefore > you can never experience the body other than as the past. The body is > nothing but the past. So are also thoughts and feelings in the mind > itself. This is absolutely true, even from a scientific perspective. > > This means that in reality nothing can hurt the physical body, > because the physical body is already dead, it is only the past, and > what is the past other than an appearance in the mind? You will never > experience your physical body now, in this present moment, because > the physical body is never where the mind is. The mind is now, the > physical body is in the past and the past is only memories in the > present moment. > > Since the body is so close to your mind, the body is also very, very > close in terms of time to your mind. From a scientific viewpoint we > are talking milliseconds and nanoseconds, _yet_, the physical body is > _always_ only the past, even though a very, very near past. So it is > not difficult to see how the idea " I am the body " can appear in the > mind. > > So what is real is the mind which we can call consciousness, not the > changing images in it (body, communication, feelings, thoughts, > physical objects e t c). The film projector (consciousness) does not > need the moving images on the movie screen - the projector is what > _creates_ the images. > > To get rid of the me is to get rid of consciousness, because they are > connected as one wholeness, yet since they are one, the idea of a > _separate_ small me (the ego) is an illusion. And as we have seen, > the mind itself is what is solid in the present moment and the > physical body always only a changing memory. > > You wrote: " We are social, tribal beings and are communcating and > sharing by means of the content of consciousness our contribution to > the tribe. " This is true, but all of this you describe is only the > past, and will never be anything but the past; memories in the > present moment. This means that there never has been, and never will > be a human being or society that can act on its own volition. How can > the past act? > > " If only you will remain resting in consciousness, seeing yourself as > distinct from the body, then even now you will become happy, peaceful > and free from bonds. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.4 > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 " Ramesh Balsekar sometimes quotes an author named Jon something if I remember correctly: " The human being is a mechanism, and in this mechanism there is a mechanism which prevents the human mechanism from seeing its mechanistic nature. " If I understand you correctly, I think this may refer to the illusion the brain creates such that we believe our actions and volitions (will) are co-ordinated (simultaneous) rather than 400ms apart which in reality they are. I think this was the conclusion of thr Libet experiments cheers Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Ok Anders, > > Lets repeat: > > 1. Consciousness is just a social function and not something " higher " . Consciousness is what is self-aware. This is not something higher, it is the supreme miracle. This state of being self-aware includes a social function, but is not limited to it. Even though pure consciousness is connected to its content, it is not of it. They are one, yet consciousness is that timeless state which observes time pass by. Only that which in relation to time does not move can observe time. This timeless state of being self-aware is the real solid Self. What is in time is only a passing show. Without the silent still observer there would not be anyone there enjoying the show. > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. Because there is > no consciousness without a content (the so called " pure " > consciousness) consciousness IS the past. That which is aware of the past is pure consciousness. The past is also pure consciousness, so yes they are one. In this present moment timeless consciousness is the observer of a changing past, the observer of itself passing through itself. Hmm... That was a bit hard to understand. I don't really understand it myself. :-) > > 3. Consciousness is the " me " and so the me is the past. > > Which means within the realm of consciousness one can do nothing, > everything just happens which gets conscious 300 mSecs later. It is > already the past - that's pretty clear. > > And now, what will you do ? > > Werner Become free! :-) What I am is the timeless part of consciousness, always in front of the past, right in this very now which is the transition zone to the future. Yet, the future does not exist, and never will exist other than as projections, ideas based on the past. Everything I experience is dead (the past) except my self-awareness in the present moment. Nothing can hurt me. How can a dead past hurt me? It can't! I observe my own body, thoughts and feelings, but all of those things are already dead. They cannot harm me. EVERYTHING I am aware of except self-awareness itself is already dead. Let the dead bury the dead. Even that which I call the future is also dead. There is no future other than ideas. How can ideas hurt me? How about consequences? If I do something stupid, I will have to pay the price. But you see, I can never do *anything* because I cannot alter the past, and the past is all I see! And when will I pay the price? In the future? What future? :-) But if all I see is a dead past, am I then all alone? Yes! We are all utterly totally alone. To the ego, this is total loneliness. To the Self it is the blissful reality. /AL > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > Dear Anders, > > > > > > Allow me to sidetrack into the following question: > > > > > > If everything happens already some hundred mSecs before we get > > > conscious of it and the body and mind work autonomous without an > > > doer, without an entity, why ís there consciousness at all ? We > > could > > > function perfectly without it. > > > > > > My idea is, that consciousness is needed for communication. We > are > > > social, tribal beings and are communcating and sharing by means > of > > > the contecnt of consciousness our contribution to the tribe. > > > > > > Which means that consciousness is just a social function and is > > > therefore an " Allround Me " . Consciousness is the " me " . To get rid > > of > > > the me is to get rid of consciousness. > > > > > > What do you think about that ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > The human body does not exist in the present moment. Every > sensation > > in the body, outside the body, and of the body itself, has already > > been created when the mind becomes aware of the sensation. > Therefore > > you can never experience the body other than as the past. The body > is > > nothing but the past. So are also thoughts and feelings in the mind > > itself. This is absolutely true, even from a scientific perspective. > > > > This means that in reality nothing can hurt the physical body, > > because the physical body is already dead, it is only the past, and > > what is the past other than an appearance in the mind? You will > never > > experience your physical body now, in this present moment, because > > the physical body is never where the mind is. The mind is now, the > > physical body is in the past and the past is only memories in the > > present moment. > > > > Since the body is so close to your mind, the body is also very, > very > > close in terms of time to your mind. From a scientific viewpoint we > > are talking milliseconds and nanoseconds, _yet_, the physical body > is > > _always_ only the past, even though a very, very near past. So it > is > > not difficult to see how the idea " I am the body " can appear in the > > mind. > > > > So what is real is the mind which we can call consciousness, not > the > > changing images in it (body, communication, feelings, thoughts, > > physical objects e t c). The film projector (consciousness) does > not > > need the moving images on the movie screen - the projector is what > > _creates_ the images. > > > > To get rid of the me is to get rid of consciousness, because they > are > > connected as one wholeness, yet since they are one, the idea of a > > _separate_ small me (the ego) is an illusion. And as we have seen, > > the mind itself is what is solid in the present moment and the > > physical body always only a changing memory. > > > > You wrote: " We are social, tribal beings and are communcating and > > sharing by means of the content of consciousness our contribution > to > > the tribe. " This is true, but all of this you describe is only the > > past, and will never be anything but the past; memories in the > > present moment. This means that there never has been, and never > will > > be a human being or society that can act on its own volition. How > can > > the past act? > > > > " If only you will remain resting in consciousness, seeing yourself > as > > distinct from the body, then even now you will become happy, > peaceful > > and free from bonds. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.4 > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Dear Anders, There are millions of people who teach others their concepts which they believe to be the " truth " . Every priest does it, every person following the so called spiritual path does it, the terrorist preach their concepts in a rather brutal way. Concepts, concepts, concepts .. So I am asking you - are you realized, have you attained, are you in the timeless state, are you freed or liberated ? Or are you just telling your concepts which you have read and believe to be the truth and which give you hope, sstisfaction and meaning ? Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > Ok Anders, > > > > Lets repeat: > > > > 1. Consciousness is just a social function and not > something " higher " . > > Consciousness is what is self-aware. This is not something higher, it > is the supreme miracle. This state of being self-aware includes a > social function, but is not limited to it. Even though pure > consciousness is connected to its content, it is not of it. They are > one, yet consciousness is that timeless state which observes time > pass by. Only that which in relation to time does not move can > observe time. This timeless state of being self-aware is the real > solid Self. What is in time is only a passing show. Without the > silent still observer there would not be anyone there enjoying the > show. > > > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. Because there is > > no consciousness without a content (the so called " pure " > > consciousness) consciousness IS the past. > > That which is aware of the past is pure consciousness. The past is > also pure consciousness, so yes they are one. In this present moment > timeless consciousness is the observer of a changing past, the > observer of itself passing through itself. Hmm... That was a bit hard > to understand. I don't really understand it myself. :-) > > > > > 3. Consciousness is the " me " and so the me is the past. > > > > Which means within the realm of consciousness one can do nothing, > > everything just happens which gets conscious 300 mSecs later. It is > > already the past - that's pretty clear. > > > > And now, what will you do ? > > > > Werner > > Become free! :-) What I am is the timeless part of consciousness, > always in front of the past, right in this very now which is the > transition zone to the future. Yet, the future does not exist, and > never will exist other than as projections, ideas based on the past. > > Everything I experience is dead (the past) except my self-awareness > in the present moment. Nothing can hurt me. How can a dead past hurt > me? It can't! I observe my own body, thoughts and feelings, but all > of those things are already dead. They cannot harm me. EVERYTHING I > am aware of except self-awareness itself is already dead. Let the > dead bury the dead. Even that which I call the future is also dead. > There is no future other than ideas. How can ideas hurt me? > > How about consequences? If I do something stupid, I will have to pay > the price. But you see, I can never do *anything* because I cannot > alter the past, and the past is all I see! And when will I pay the > price? In the future? What future? :-) > > But if all I see is a dead past, am I then all alone? Yes! We are all > utterly totally alone. To the ego, this is total loneliness. To the > Self it is the blissful reality. > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Anders, > > > > > > > > Allow me to sidetrack into the following question: > > > > > > > > If everything happens already some hundred mSecs before we get > > > > conscious of it and the body and mind work autonomous without > an > > > > doer, without an entity, why ís there consciousness at all ? We > > > could > > > > function perfectly without it. > > > > > > > > My idea is, that consciousness is needed for communication. We > > are > > > > social, tribal beings and are communcating and sharing by means > > of > > > > the contecnt of consciousness our contribution to the tribe. > > > > > > > > Which means that consciousness is just a social function and is > > > > therefore an " Allround Me " . Consciousness is the " me " . To get > rid > > > of > > > > the me is to get rid of consciousness. > > > > > > > > What do you think about that ? > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > The human body does not exist in the present moment. Every > > sensation > > > in the body, outside the body, and of the body itself, has > already > > > been created when the mind becomes aware of the sensation. > > Therefore > > > you can never experience the body other than as the past. The > body > > is > > > nothing but the past. So are also thoughts and feelings in the > mind > > > itself. This is absolutely true, even from a scientific > perspective. > > > > > > This means that in reality nothing can hurt the physical body, > > > because the physical body is already dead, it is only the past, > and > > > what is the past other than an appearance in the mind? You will > > never > > > experience your physical body now, in this present moment, > because > > > the physical body is never where the mind is. The mind is now, > the > > > physical body is in the past and the past is only memories in the > > > present moment. > > > > > > Since the body is so close to your mind, the body is also very, > > very > > > close in terms of time to your mind. From a scientific viewpoint > we > > > are talking milliseconds and nanoseconds, _yet_, the physical > body > > is > > > _always_ only the past, even though a very, very near past. So it > > is > > > not difficult to see how the idea " I am the body " can appear in > the > > > mind. > > > > > > So what is real is the mind which we can call consciousness, not > > the > > > changing images in it (body, communication, feelings, thoughts, > > > physical objects e t c). The film projector (consciousness) does > > not > > > need the moving images on the movie screen - the projector is > what > > > _creates_ the images. > > > > > > To get rid of the me is to get rid of consciousness, because they > > are > > > connected as one wholeness, yet since they are one, the idea of a > > > _separate_ small me (the ego) is an illusion. And as we have > seen, > > > the mind itself is what is solid in the present moment and the > > > physical body always only a changing memory. > > > > > > You wrote: " We are social, tribal beings and are communcating and > > > sharing by means of the content of consciousness our contribution > > to > > > the tribe. " This is true, but all of this you describe is only > the > > > past, and will never be anything but the past; memories in the > > > present moment. This means that there never has been, and never > > will > > > be a human being or society that can act on its own volition. How > > can > > > the past act? > > > > > > " If only you will remain resting in consciousness, seeing > yourself > > as > > > distinct from the body, then even now you will become happy, > > peaceful > > > and free from bonds. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.4 > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. Because there is > no consciousness without a content (the so called " pure " > consciousness) consciousness IS the past. That which is aware of the past is pure consciousness. The past is also pure consciousness, so yes they are one. In this present moment timeless consciousness is the observer of a changing past, the observer of itself passing through itself. Hmm... That was a bit hard to understand. I don't really understand it myself. :-) 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. >>>> WHen u say Past , Future, u are moving away from the state of pure consciousness... so the above statement is invalid. Murali, anders_lindman [anders_lindman] Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:45 AM Nisargadatta Re: Learning to Love problems Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Ok Anders, > > Lets repeat: > > 1. Consciousness is just a social function and not something " higher " . Consciousness is what is self-aware. This is not something higher, it is the supreme miracle. This state of being self-aware includes a social function, but is not limited to it. Even though pure consciousness is connected to its content, it is not of it. They are one, yet consciousness is that timeless state which observes time pass by. Only that which in relation to time does not move can observe time. This timeless state of being self-aware is the real solid Self. What is in time is only a passing show. Without the silent still observer there would not be anyone there enjoying the show. > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. Because there is > no consciousness without a content (the so called " pure " > consciousness) consciousness IS the past. That which is aware of the past is pure consciousness. The past is also pure consciousness, so yes they are one. In this present moment timeless consciousness is the observer of a changing past, the observer of itself passing through itself. Hmm... That was a bit hard to understand. I don't really understand it myself. :-) > > 3. Consciousness is the " me " and so the me is the past. > > Which means within the realm of consciousness one can do nothing, > everything just happens which gets conscious 300 mSecs later. It is > already the past - that's pretty clear. > > And now, what will you do ? > > Werner Become free! :-) What I am is the timeless part of consciousness, always in front of the past, right in this very now which is the transition zone to the future. Yet, the future does not exist, and never will exist other than as projections, ideas based on the past. Everything I experience is dead (the past) except my self-awareness in the present moment. Nothing can hurt me. How can a dead past hurt me? It can't! I observe my own body, thoughts and feelings, but all of those things are already dead. They cannot harm me. EVERYTHING I am aware of except self-awareness itself is already dead. Let the dead bury the dead. Even that which I call the future is also dead. There is no future other than ideas. How can ideas hurt me? How about consequences? If I do something stupid, I will have to pay the price. But you see, I can never do *anything* because I cannot alter the past, and the past is all I see! And when will I pay the price? In the future? What future? :-) But if all I see is a dead past, am I then all alone? Yes! We are all utterly totally alone. To the ego, this is total loneliness. To the Self it is the blissful reality. /AL > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > Dear Anders, > > > > > > Allow me to sidetrack into the following question: > > > > > > If everything happens already some hundred mSecs before we get > > > conscious of it and the body and mind work autonomous without an > > > doer, without an entity, why ís there consciousness at all ? We > > could > > > function perfectly without it. > > > > > > My idea is, that consciousness is needed for communication. We > are > > > social, tribal beings and are communcating and sharing by means > of > > > the contecnt of consciousness our contribution to the tribe. > > > > > > Which means that consciousness is just a social function and is > > > therefore an " Allround Me " . Consciousness is the " me " . To get rid > > of > > > the me is to get rid of consciousness. > > > > > > What do you think about that ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > The human body does not exist in the present moment. Every > sensation > > in the body, outside the body, and of the body itself, has already > > been created when the mind becomes aware of the sensation. > Therefore > > you can never experience the body other than as the past. The body > is > > nothing but the past. So are also thoughts and feelings in the mind > > itself. This is absolutely true, even from a scientific perspective. > > > > This means that in reality nothing can hurt the physical body, > > because the physical body is already dead, it is only the past, and > > what is the past other than an appearance in the mind? You will > never > > experience your physical body now, in this present moment, because > > the physical body is never where the mind is. The mind is now, the > > physical body is in the past and the past is only memories in the > > present moment. > > > > Since the body is so close to your mind, the body is also very, > very > > close in terms of time to your mind. From a scientific viewpoint we > > are talking milliseconds and nanoseconds, _yet_, the physical body > is > > _always_ only the past, even though a very, very near past. So it > is > > not difficult to see how the idea " I am the body " can appear in the > > mind. > > > > So what is real is the mind which we can call consciousness, not > the > > changing images in it (body, communication, feelings, thoughts, > > physical objects e t c). The film projector (consciousness) does > not > > need the moving images on the movie screen - the projector is what > > _creates_ the images. > > > > To get rid of the me is to get rid of consciousness, because they > are > > connected as one wholeness, yet since they are one, the idea of a > > _separate_ small me (the ego) is an illusion. And as we have seen, > > the mind itself is what is solid in the present moment and the > > physical body always only a changing memory. > > > > You wrote: " We are social, tribal beings and are communcating and > > sharing by means of the content of consciousness our contribution > to > > the tribe. " This is true, but all of this you describe is only the > > past, and will never be anything but the past; memories in the > > present moment. This means that there never has been, and never > will > > be a human being or society that can act on its own volition. How > can > > the past act? > > > > " If only you will remain resting in consciousness, seeing yourself > as > > distinct from the body, then even now you will become happy, > peaceful > > and free from bonds. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.4 > > > > /AL ** 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 May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 anders_lindman [anders_lindman] Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:24 AM Nisargadatta Re: Learning to Love problems Nisargadatta , Caminamos <caminamosnet> wrote: > > With Love, tolerance, calm, patience and no-action the > most wonderful things happen. The funny thing is that I see only the past. Senses, thoughts and feelings, they are all from the past. When awareness observes all these things, they have already been created. So there is no-action taking place as a " me " , even when struggle and fear about the future is in my mind, because all this suffering is _also_ only from the past. I cannot do anything about what appears in my mind. How could I possibly alter the past? Even what I see as the " future " is only the past. [Ramanath, Murali H (MED)] Real -- Truth . So all those statements " Bright Future " etc r wrong ! Right ?? WHen there is no future , where is the Brightness,,,, is it not ?? So when I have thoughts about me only seeing the past, these thoughts are _also_ the past. So the seeing and knowledge that I see only the past is not " me " doing anything, all this is only what appears in my mind, and all that the mind is aware of is only the past. So the idea that there is a " me " doing the thinking is a totally upside-down view of reality. Yet, this idea - even if it is an illusion - will be in me during my day, and I will think and believe that I am the doer. I am not in control over when I feel like I am a doer, nor am I in control over when I come back to the idea that all thoughts are created _before_ I become aware of them. Ramesh Balsekar sometimes quotes an author named Jon something if I remember correctly: " The human being is a mechanism, and in this mechanism there is a mechanism which prevents the human mechanism from seeing its mechanistic nature. " /AL > > > > > Message: > > Tue, 25 May 2004 16:37:09 -0000 > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > Re: Learning to Love problems > > > > Nisargadatta , Caminamos > > <caminamosnet> > > wrote: > > > > > > In practice as well. > > > > > > But the best is reserved to those who trascend the > > > ego. Then, there will not be any more problems at > > all. > > > > I would like to have no more problems. But the " me " > > who has problems > > must be the ego. And trying to get rid of my > > problems is a problem > > itself, so it too must be the ego. Can the ego get > > rid of the ego? > > Even to try to *stop* getting rid of my problems is > > a problem! I must > > surrender my ego, but fortenately, if I am to > > believe Ramesh > > Balsekar, to surrender my ego is not in my control, > > and as Ramana > > Maharshi said, my head is already in the tiger's > > mouth, there is no > > escape. At least I can hope so. > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > Message: > > > Sun, 23 May 2004 18:43:04 -0000 > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > > Re: Learning to Love problems > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Caminamos > > > <caminamosnet> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > What I said is not separated from your words. I > > just > > > > showed the nuance of the not necessarily > > negative > > > > character of the so-called " problems " . > > > > > > Ok, I think I know what you mean. Problems are > > only > > > negative when we > > > think of them as negative. Yes, that's true. A > > radical > > > shift in the > > > mind can turn all negative problems into positive > > > problems. At least > > > in theory that could really be possible. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > > > Correo - 6MB, más protección contra el spam > > ¡Gratis! > > > http://correo..es > > > > > > > > > ____________________ __ > > > ____________________ __ > > > > > > ** > > > > 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 May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Hi Murali, In my understanding there is no " pure " consicousness (consciousness without a content). Consciousness is its content. But I can understand if one is already conscious of something before it passed the associative, interpreting process of the mind that one can get the impression of purity and timelessness (there are no longer any interpretations in terms of past and future). To be able to live in this world you need associations and to use what you have learned - without it you would lose orientation. The " purer " the content of consciousness the more you will lose orientation. Thanks heavens it is not given into our hands to " purify " consciousness. And - there is also no observer. The observer is the observed, is the content of consciousness which he seemingly is observing. But: One can get into that state where one no longer exists - where the illusion of a me or a doing entity is gone. And that state is independend of purity and impurity, of sense and nonsense. That state is liberation. Werner Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H \(MED\) " <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. Because there is > > no consciousness without a content (the so called " pure " > > consciousness) consciousness IS the past. > > That which is aware of the past is pure consciousness. The past is > also pure consciousness, so yes they are one. In this present moment > timeless consciousness is the observer of a changing past, the > observer of itself passing through itself. Hmm... That was a bit hard > to understand. I don't really understand it myself. :-) > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. > >>>> WHen u say Past , Future, u are moving away from the state of pure consciousness... > so the above statement is invalid. > Murali, > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > " Ramesh Balsekar sometimes quotes an author named Jon something if I > remember correctly: " The human being is a mechanism, and in this > mechanism there is a mechanism which prevents the human mechanism > from seeing its mechanistic nature. " > > If I understand you correctly, I think this may refer to the illusion > the brain creates such that we believe our actions and volitions > (will) are co-ordinated (simultaneous) rather than 400ms apart which > in reality they are. I think this was the conclusion of thr Libet > experiments > > cheers > > > Eric Interesting to see that science has shown that thoughts has already been created when they are observed in the mind. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Dear Anders, > > There are millions of people who teach others their concepts which > they believe to be the " truth " . Every priest does it, every person > following the so called spiritual path does it, the terrorist preach > their concepts in a rather brutal way. Concepts, concepts, concepts .. > > So I am asking you - are you realized, have you attained, are you in > the timeless state, are you freed or liberated ? Or are you just > telling your concepts which you have read and believe to be the truth > and which give you hope, sstisfaction and meaning ? > > Werner Just the recent days I have seen that conciousness must be what is real, what is life. Everything I observe as me, my thoughts, feelings, and all of what I observe as the world is only the past. Everything that happens has already happen! And this must be so for every person. No one sees anything else than something that has already happen and therefore is the past. Only pure consciousness is life in the present moment. Everything else has already happened and cannot be altered. This is for me now a bit more than mere intellectual understanding. And I see more and more that this is not " me " doing anything to understand this. Understanding happens. I can also see that it may be possible to be utterly free. Yet I am still my fearful me. But I can hope that this understanding will continue to deepen. There is something utterly fearless and free behind all my worries. There is something very real in this idea that everything that happens has already happened. /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > Ok Anders, > > > > > > Lets repeat: > > > > > > 1. Consciousness is just a social function and not > > something " higher " . > > > > Consciousness is what is self-aware. This is not something higher, > it > > is the supreme miracle. This state of being self-aware includes a > > social function, but is not limited to it. Even though pure > > consciousness is connected to its content, it is not of it. They > are > > one, yet consciousness is that timeless state which observes time > > pass by. Only that which in relation to time does not move can > > observe time. This timeless state of being self-aware is the real > > solid Self. What is in time is only a passing show. Without the > > silent still observer there would not be anyone there enjoying the > > show. > > > > > > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. Because there > is > > > no consciousness without a content (the so called " pure " > > > consciousness) consciousness IS the past. > > > > That which is aware of the past is pure consciousness. The past is > > also pure consciousness, so yes they are one. In this present > moment > > timeless consciousness is the observer of a changing past, the > > observer of itself passing through itself. Hmm... That was a bit > hard > > to understand. I don't really understand it myself. :-) > > > > > > > > 3. Consciousness is the " me " and so the me is the past. > > > > > > Which means within the realm of consciousness one can do nothing, > > > everything just happens which gets conscious 300 mSecs later. It > is > > > already the past - that's pretty clear. > > > > > > And now, what will you do ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > Become free! :-) What I am is the timeless part of consciousness, > > always in front of the past, right in this very now which is the > > transition zone to the future. Yet, the future does not exist, and > > never will exist other than as projections, ideas based on the past. > > > > Everything I experience is dead (the past) except my self- awareness > > in the present moment. Nothing can hurt me. How can a dead past > hurt > > me? It can't! I observe my own body, thoughts and feelings, but all > > of those things are already dead. They cannot harm me. EVERYTHING I > > am aware of except self-awareness itself is already dead. Let the > > dead bury the dead. Even that which I call the future is also dead. > > There is no future other than ideas. How can ideas hurt me? > > > > How about consequences? If I do something stupid, I will have to > pay > > the price. But you see, I can never do *anything* because I cannot > > alter the past, and the past is all I see! And when will I pay the > > price? In the future? What future? :-) > > > > But if all I see is a dead past, am I then all alone? Yes! We are > all > > utterly totally alone. To the ego, this is total loneliness. To the > > Self it is the blissful reality. > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Dear Anders, > > > > > > > > > > Allow me to sidetrack into the following question: > > > > > > > > > > If everything happens already some hundred mSecs before we > get > > > > > conscious of it and the body and mind work autonomous without > > an > > > > > doer, without an entity, why ís there consciousness at all ? > We > > > > could > > > > > function perfectly without it. > > > > > > > > > > My idea is, that consciousness is needed for communication. > We > > > are > > > > > social, tribal beings and are communcating and sharing by > means > > > of > > > > > the contecnt of consciousness our contribution to the tribe. > > > > > > > > > > Which means that consciousness is just a social function and > is > > > > > therefore an " Allround Me " . Consciousness is the " me " . To get > > rid > > > > of > > > > > the me is to get rid of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think about that ? > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > The human body does not exist in the present moment. Every > > > sensation > > > > in the body, outside the body, and of the body itself, has > > already > > > > been created when the mind becomes aware of the sensation. > > > Therefore > > > > you can never experience the body other than as the past. The > > body > > > is > > > > nothing but the past. So are also thoughts and feelings in the > > mind > > > > itself. This is absolutely true, even from a scientific > > perspective. > > > > > > > > This means that in reality nothing can hurt the physical body, > > > > because the physical body is already dead, it is only the past, > > and > > > > what is the past other than an appearance in the mind? You will > > > never > > > > experience your physical body now, in this present moment, > > because > > > > the physical body is never where the mind is. The mind is now, > > the > > > > physical body is in the past and the past is only memories in > the > > > > present moment. > > > > > > > > Since the body is so close to your mind, the body is also very, > > > very > > > > close in terms of time to your mind. From a scientific > viewpoint > > we > > > > are talking milliseconds and nanoseconds, _yet_, the physical > > body > > > is > > > > _always_ only the past, even though a very, very near past. So > it > > > is > > > > not difficult to see how the idea " I am the body " can appear in > > the > > > > mind. > > > > > > > > So what is real is the mind which we can call consciousness, > not > > > the > > > > changing images in it (body, communication, feelings, thoughts, > > > > physical objects e t c). The film projector (consciousness) > does > > > not > > > > need the moving images on the movie screen - the projector is > > what > > > > _creates_ the images. > > > > > > > > To get rid of the me is to get rid of consciousness, because > they > > > are > > > > connected as one wholeness, yet since they are one, the idea of > a > > > > _separate_ small me (the ego) is an illusion. And as we have > > seen, > > > > the mind itself is what is solid in the present moment and the > > > > physical body always only a changing memory. > > > > > > > > You wrote: " We are social, tribal beings and are communcating > and > > > > sharing by means of the content of consciousness our > contribution > > > to > > > > the tribe. " This is true, but all of this you describe is only > > the > > > > past, and will never be anything but the past; memories in the > > > > present moment. This means that there never has been, and never > > > will > > > > be a human being or society that can act on its own volition. > How > > > can > > > > the past act? > > > > > > > > " If only you will remain resting in consciousness, seeing > > yourself > > > as > > > > distinct from the body, then even now you will become happy, > > > peaceful > > > > and free from bonds. " -- Ashtavakra Gita 1.4 > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H \(MED\) " <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. Because there is > > no consciousness without a content (the so called " pure " > > consciousness) consciousness IS the past. > > That which is aware of the past is pure consciousness. The past is > also pure consciousness, so yes they are one. In this present moment > timeless consciousness is the observer of a changing past, the > observer of itself passing through itself. Hmm... That was a bit hard > to understand. I don't really understand it myself. :-) > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. > >>>> WHen u say Past , Future, u are moving away from the state of pure consciousness... > so the above statement is invalid. > Murali, Yes, I can agree that consciousness, when we are talking about it as the awareness of things, is the only subject. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Hi Murali, > > In my understanding there is no " pure " consicousness (consciousness > without a content). Consciousness is its content. But I can > understand if one is already conscious of something before it passed > the associative, interpreting process of the mind that one can get > the impression of purity and timelessness (there are no longer any > interpretations in terms of past and future). > > To be able to live in this world you need associations and to use > what you have learned - without it you would lose orientation. As I see it, to use what we have learned is a part of the process of creating a sequence in time that holds together in a beautiful pattern, but there has never been any individual being who has done anything to be able to hold this orientation in life together. All happens by itself. Everything that happens has already happened. There has never been any individual doer. Awareness as the pure observer is the only thing that is alive. Everything that appears in this pure awareness has already happened. The world is truly Maya, a Matrix without any substance in itself. The " me " has already happened, including that part of the " me " containing the idea of being a separate doer. It is extremely clear and simple: everything has already happened. But this becomes extraordinary difficult to see when we take the future as somthing else than a past that has already happened. Everything we call the future is only ideas in the mind, and these ideas have already happened when observed. > > The " purer " the content of consciousness the more you will lose > orientation. Thanks heavens it is not given into our hands > to " purify " consciousness. Awareness is already totally clear and pure. It is the idea of being a separate doer that hides this obvious fact. When awareness is freed from constanly looking at a false " me " -idea, then awareness is unplugged from a prison, a prison for your mind. > > And - there is also no observer. The observer is the observed, is the > content of consciousness which he seemingly is observing. > > But: > One can get into that state where one no longer exists - where the > illusion of a me or a doing entity is gone. And that state is > independend of purity and impurity, of sense and nonsense. That state > is liberation. > > Werner When the Self becomes Total, then there is liberation. This is the Final Outsourcing of all problems. Or so I guess/feel. :-) /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H \(MED\) " > <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > > > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. Because there > is > > > no consciousness without a content (the so called " pure " > > > consciousness) consciousness IS the past. > > > > That which is aware of the past is pure consciousness. The past is > > also pure consciousness, so yes they are one. In this present > moment > > timeless consciousness is the observer of a changing past, the > > observer of itself passing through itself. Hmm... That was a bit > hard > > to understand. I don't really understand it myself. :-) > > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. > > >>>> WHen u say Past , Future, u are moving away from the state of > pure consciousness... > > so the above statement is invalid. > > Murali, > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Dear Anders, Thanks for your reply. I have no problems with it. Besides one thing: Pure consciousness or pure awareness. Do you know what " pure consciousness " is standing for ? Very simple - it is THE hope of the me which doesn't want to leave, to die. It has found a new home: Pure consciousness ! Fine to know that I don't have to disappear totally into nothingness because there is stil a residue where I will survive: Pure consciousness. And therefore so many seekers are interested in pure consciousness - it is their escape. Can you accept that ? Werner " I was standing at the abyss ready to jump. And when I started to jump there was no one to jump and no abyss " Wayne Liquorman Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > Hi Murali, > > > > In my understanding there is no " pure " consicousness (consciousness > > without a content). Consciousness is its content. But I can > > understand if one is already conscious of something before it > passed > > the associative, interpreting process of the mind that one can get > > the impression of purity and timelessness (there are no longer any > > interpretations in terms of past and future). > > > > To be able to live in this world you need associations and to use > > what you have learned - without it you would lose orientation. > > As I see it, to use what we have learned is a part of the process of > creating a sequence in time that holds together in a beautiful > pattern, but there has never been any individual being who has done > anything to be able to hold this orientation in life together. All > happens by itself. Everything that happens has already happened. > There has never been any individual doer. Awareness as the pure > observer is the only thing that is alive. Everything that appears in > this pure awareness has already happened. The world is truly Maya, a > Matrix without any substance in itself. The " me " has already > happened, including that part of the " me " containing the idea of > being a separate doer. It is extremely clear and simple: everything > has already happened. But this becomes extraordinary difficult to see > when we take the future as somthing else than a past that has already > happened. Everything we call the future is only ideas in the mind, > and these ideas have already happened when observed. > > > > > The " purer " the content of consciousness the more you will lose > > orientation. Thanks heavens it is not given into our hands > > to " purify " consciousness. > > Awareness is already totally clear and pure. It is the idea of being > a separate doer that hides this obvious fact. When awareness is freed > from constanly looking at a false " me " -idea, then awareness is > unplugged from a prison, a prison for your mind. > > > > > And - there is also no observer. The observer is the observed, is > the > > content of consciousness which he seemingly is observing. > > > > But: > > One can get into that state where one no longer exists - where the > > illusion of a me or a doing entity is gone. And that state is > > independend of purity and impurity, of sense and nonsense. That > state > > is liberation. > > > > Werner > > When the Self becomes Total, then there is liberation. This is the > Final Outsourcing of all problems. Or so I guess/feel. :-) > > /AL > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H \(MED\) " > > <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. Because > there > > is > > > > no consciousness without a content (the so called " pure " > > > > consciousness) consciousness IS the past. > > > > > > That which is aware of the past is pure consciousness. The past > is > > > also pure consciousness, so yes they are one. In this present > > moment > > > timeless consciousness is the observer of a changing past, the > > > observer of itself passing through itself. Hmm... That was a bit > > hard > > > to understand. I don't really understand it myself. :-) > > > > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. > > > >>>> WHen u say Past , Future, u are moving away from the state > of > > pure consciousness... > > > so the above statement is invalid. > > > Murali, > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Dear Anders, > > Thanks for your reply. I have no problems with it. Besides one > thing: Pure consciousness or pure awareness. > > Do you know what " pure consciousness " is standing for ? Very simple - > it is THE hope of the me which doesn't want to leave, to die. It has > found a new home: Pure consciousness ! Fine to know that I don't have > to disappear totally into nothingness because there is stil a residue > where I will survive: Pure consciousness. And therefore so many > seekers are interested in pure consciousness - it is their escape. > > Can you accept that ? > > Werner > > " I was standing at the abyss ready to jump. And when I started to > jump there was no one to jump and no abyss " > > Wayne Liquorman Pure awareness is just like a video camera: it observes things but cannot by itself do anything. Every person has this video camera. This camera is pure awareness itself. What registers as images in this camera (thoughts, feelings and the senses that observes the world) has already happened! How can a video camera jump into the abyss by itself? How can the past jump into the abyss? For fun: when you observe people, notice that they have already happened and that there is nothing that can hurt the camera which is your present awareness. Even you own body has already happened. /AL > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > Hi Murali, > > > > > > In my understanding there is no " pure " consicousness > (consciousness > > > without a content). Consciousness is its content. But I can > > > understand if one is already conscious of something before it > > passed > > > the associative, interpreting process of the mind that one can > get > > > the impression of purity and timelessness (there are no longer > any > > > interpretations in terms of past and future). > > > > > > To be able to live in this world you need associations and to use > > > what you have learned - without it you would lose orientation. > > > > As I see it, to use what we have learned is a part of the process > of > > creating a sequence in time that holds together in a beautiful > > pattern, but there has never been any individual being who has done > > anything to be able to hold this orientation in life together. All > > happens by itself. Everything that happens has already happened. > > There has never been any individual doer. Awareness as the pure > > observer is the only thing that is alive. Everything that appears > in > > this pure awareness has already happened. The world is truly Maya, > a > > Matrix without any substance in itself. The " me " has already > > happened, including that part of the " me " containing the idea of > > being a separate doer. It is extremely clear and simple: everything > > has already happened. But this becomes extraordinary difficult to > see > > when we take the future as somthing else than a past that has > already > > happened. Everything we call the future is only ideas in the mind, > > and these ideas have already happened when observed. > > > > > > > > The " purer " the content of consciousness the more you will lose > > > orientation. Thanks heavens it is not given into our hands > > > to " purify " consciousness. > > > > Awareness is already totally clear and pure. It is the idea of > being > > a separate doer that hides this obvious fact. When awareness is > freed > > from constanly looking at a false " me " -idea, then awareness is > > unplugged from a prison, a prison for your mind. > > > > > > > > And - there is also no observer. The observer is the observed, is > > the > > > content of consciousness which he seemingly is observing. > > > > > > But: > > > One can get into that state where one no longer exists - where > the > > > illusion of a me or a doing entity is gone. And that state is > > > independend of purity and impurity, of sense and nonsense. That > > state > > > is liberation. > > > > > > Werner > > > > When the Self becomes Total, then there is liberation. This is the > > Final Outsourcing of all problems. Or so I guess/feel. :-) > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H \(MED\) " > > > <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. Because > > there > > > is > > > > > no consciousness without a content (the so called " pure " > > > > > consciousness) consciousness IS the past. > > > > > > > > That which is aware of the past is pure consciousness. The past > > is > > > > also pure consciousness, so yes they are one. In this present > > > moment > > > > timeless consciousness is the observer of a changing past, the > > > > observer of itself passing through itself. Hmm... That was a > bit > > > hard > > > > to understand. I don't really understand it myself. :-) > > > > > > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. > > > > >>>> WHen u say Past , Future, u are moving away from the state > > of > > > pure consciousness... > > > > so the above statement is invalid. > > > > Murali, > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Hi Anders, Yes I see, you like that pure awareness very much. Can you at least accept that pure awareness and nothingness is the same ? Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > Dear Anders, > > > > Thanks for your reply. I have no problems with it. Besides one > > thing: Pure consciousness or pure awareness. > > > > Do you know what " pure consciousness " is standing for ? Very > simple - > > it is THE hope of the me which doesn't want to leave, to die. It has > > found a new home: Pure consciousness ! Fine to know that I don't > have > > to disappear totally into nothingness because there is stil a > residue > > where I will survive: Pure consciousness. And therefore so many > > seekers are interested in pure consciousness - it is their escape. > > > > Can you accept that ? > > > > Werner > > > > " I was standing at the abyss ready to jump. And when I started to > > jump there was no one to jump and no abyss " > > > > Wayne Liquorman > > Pure awareness is just like a video camera: it observes things but > cannot by itself do anything. Every person has this video camera. > This camera is pure awareness itself. What registers as images in > this camera (thoughts, feelings and the senses that observes the > world) has already happened! How can a video camera jump into the > abyss by itself? How can the past jump into the abyss? > > For fun: when you observe people, notice that they have already > happened and that there is nothing that can hurt the camera which is > your present awareness. Even you own body has already happened. > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Murali, > > > > > > > > In my understanding there is no " pure " consicousness > > (consciousness > > > > without a content). Consciousness is its content. But I can > > > > understand if one is already conscious of something before it > > > passed > > > > the associative, interpreting process of the mind that one can > > get > > > > the impression of purity and timelessness (there are no longer > > any > > > > interpretations in terms of past and future). > > > > > > > > To be able to live in this world you need associations and to > use > > > > what you have learned - without it you would lose orientation. > > > > > > As I see it, to use what we have learned is a part of the process > > of > > > creating a sequence in time that holds together in a beautiful > > > pattern, but there has never been any individual being who has > done > > > anything to be able to hold this orientation in life together. > All > > > happens by itself. Everything that happens has already happened. > > > There has never been any individual doer. Awareness as the pure > > > observer is the only thing that is alive. Everything that appears > > in > > > this pure awareness has already happened. The world is truly > Maya, > > a > > > Matrix without any substance in itself. The " me " has already > > > happened, including that part of the " me " containing the idea of > > > being a separate doer. It is extremely clear and simple: > everything > > > has already happened. But this becomes extraordinary difficult to > > see > > > when we take the future as somthing else than a past that has > > already > > > happened. Everything we call the future is only ideas in the > mind, > > > and these ideas have already happened when observed. > > > > > > > > > > > The " purer " the content of consciousness the more you will lose > > > > orientation. Thanks heavens it is not given into our hands > > > > to " purify " consciousness. > > > > > > Awareness is already totally clear and pure. It is the idea of > > being > > > a separate doer that hides this obvious fact. When awareness is > > freed > > > from constanly looking at a false " me " -idea, then awareness is > > > unplugged from a prison, a prison for your mind. > > > > > > > > > > > And - there is also no observer. The observer is the observed, > is > > > the > > > > content of consciousness which he seemingly is observing. > > > > > > > > But: > > > > One can get into that state where one no longer exists - where > > the > > > > illusion of a me or a doing entity is gone. And that state is > > > > independend of purity and impurity, of sense and nonsense. That > > > state > > > > is liberation. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > When the Self becomes Total, then there is liberation. This is > the > > > Final Outsourcing of all problems. Or so I guess/feel. :-) > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H > \(MED\) " > > > > <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. Because > > > there > > > > is > > > > > > no consciousness without a content (the so called " pure " > > > > > > consciousness) consciousness IS the past. > > > > > > > > > > That which is aware of the past is pure consciousness. The > past > > > is > > > > > also pure consciousness, so yes they are one. In this present > > > > moment > > > > > timeless consciousness is the observer of a changing past, > the > > > > > observer of itself passing through itself. Hmm... That was a > > bit > > > > hard > > > > > to understand. I don't really understand it myself. :-) > > > > > > > > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. > > > > > >>>> WHen u say Past , Future, u are moving away from the > state > > > of > > > > pure consciousness... > > > > > so the above statement is invalid. > > > > > Murali, > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Hi Anders, > > Yes I see, you like that pure awareness very much. > > Can you at least accept that pure awareness and nothingness is the > same ? > > Werner Pure awareness is that clear, timeless, pure and brilliant radiance that makes the world come alive. When we see that the world is nothing but a movie in pure awareness then we see that the world has no substace of its own. What we call the world is nothing but the past, a memory within pure awareness. A memory is not alive and has no reality without the beholder. In that sense the world is nothingness. /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > Dear Anders, > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. I have no problems with it. Besides one > > > thing: Pure consciousness or pure awareness. > > > > > > Do you know what " pure consciousness " is standing for ? Very > > simple - > > > it is THE hope of the me which doesn't want to leave, to die. It > has > > > found a new home: Pure consciousness ! Fine to know that I don't > > have > > > to disappear totally into nothingness because there is stil a > > residue > > > where I will survive: Pure consciousness. And therefore so many > > > seekers are interested in pure consciousness - it is their escape. > > > > > > Can you accept that ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > " I was standing at the abyss ready to jump. And when I started to > > > jump there was no one to jump and no abyss " > > > > > > Wayne Liquorman > > > > Pure awareness is just like a video camera: it observes things but > > cannot by itself do anything. Every person has this video camera. > > This camera is pure awareness itself. What registers as images in > > this camera (thoughts, feelings and the senses that observes the > > world) has already happened! How can a video camera jump into the > > abyss by itself? How can the past jump into the abyss? > > > > For fun: when you observe people, notice that they have already > > happened and that there is nothing that can hurt the camera which > is > > your present awareness. Even you own body has already happened. > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Murali, > > > > > > > > > > In my understanding there is no " pure " consicousness > > > (consciousness > > > > > without a content). Consciousness is its content. But I can > > > > > understand if one is already conscious of something before it > > > > passed > > > > > the associative, interpreting process of the mind that one > can > > > get > > > > > the impression of purity and timelessness (there are no > longer > > > any > > > > > interpretations in terms of past and future). > > > > > > > > > > To be able to live in this world you need associations and to > > use > > > > > what you have learned - without it you would lose orientation. > > > > > > > > As I see it, to use what we have learned is a part of the > process > > > of > > > > creating a sequence in time that holds together in a beautiful > > > > pattern, but there has never been any individual being who has > > done > > > > anything to be able to hold this orientation in life together. > > All > > > > happens by itself. Everything that happens has already > happened. > > > > There has never been any individual doer. Awareness as the pure > > > > observer is the only thing that is alive. Everything that > appears > > > in > > > > this pure awareness has already happened. The world is truly > > Maya, > > > a > > > > Matrix without any substance in itself. The " me " has already > > > > happened, including that part of the " me " containing the idea > of > > > > being a separate doer. It is extremely clear and simple: > > everything > > > > has already happened. But this becomes extraordinary difficult > to > > > see > > > > when we take the future as somthing else than a past that has > > > already > > > > happened. Everything we call the future is only ideas in the > > mind, > > > > and these ideas have already happened when observed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The " purer " the content of consciousness the more you will > lose > > > > > orientation. Thanks heavens it is not given into our hands > > > > > to " purify " consciousness. > > > > > > > > Awareness is already totally clear and pure. It is the idea of > > > being > > > > a separate doer that hides this obvious fact. When awareness is > > > freed > > > > from constanly looking at a false " me " -idea, then awareness is > > > > unplugged from a prison, a prison for your mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And - there is also no observer. The observer is the > observed, > > is > > > > the > > > > > content of consciousness which he seemingly is observing. > > > > > > > > > > But: > > > > > One can get into that state where one no longer exists - > where > > > the > > > > > illusion of a me or a doing entity is gone. And that state is > > > > > independend of purity and impurity, of sense and nonsense. > That > > > > state > > > > > is liberation. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > When the Self becomes Total, then there is liberation. This is > > the > > > > Final Outsourcing of all problems. Or so I guess/feel. :-) > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H > > \(MED\) " > > > > > <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. > Because > > > > there > > > > > is > > > > > > > no consciousness without a content (the so called " pure " > > > > > > > consciousness) consciousness IS the past. > > > > > > > > > > > > That which is aware of the past is pure consciousness. The > > past > > > > is > > > > > > also pure consciousness, so yes they are one. In this > present > > > > > moment > > > > > > timeless consciousness is the observer of a changing past, > > the > > > > > > observer of itself passing through itself. Hmm... That was > a > > > bit > > > > > hard > > > > > > to understand. I don't really understand it myself. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Consciousness is its content which is the past. > > > > > > >>>> WHen u say Past , Future, u are moving away from the > > state > > > > of > > > > > pure consciousness... > > > > > > so the above statement is invalid. > > > > > > Murali, > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.