Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 The intellect is what we normally call our personal thinking. This personal thinking is created by the Universe and not by any separate individual. The intellect is only needed as an anchor for awareness to find itself from a state of separation (like the Big Bang) back into oneness. Why is this separation and union back to oneness needed? The answer is that before separation there is only consciousness unseparated. Something aware of itself. Endlessly. How boring is that? So the separation creates unique seemingly separate individuals in the form of human beings. And when these seemingly separate individuals goes back to unity; it is not back to unity as one big thing aware of itself, the supremely boring state, but instead as wholeness enjoying itself in an explosion of form and colors without losing the sense of unique beingness - then we have the One and the Many. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Anders, You write as if you really know. Are you enlightened ? If not, I must tell you whatever I have read from you til now I already have read in some hundred books some hundred times before, since 40 years - and I think most of the members here too. Are you writing for newcomers, is that what you feel your job ? Or are you just proud of your intellect filled with all that spiritual crap you have read ? Do you have the clarity and seriosity of a mind to be able to differ between what is genuine experience or just knowlegde from books - or are you so much impressed about yourself that you already have lost any honesty towards yourself and others ? I can understand that these ideas and concepts are so exiting and promising that one really and easily will get into the hope one sooner or later will realize, will get enlightened and so one already starts telling others all these wonderous concepts which seem so true. But at the moment they just are ideas, hopes and promising concepts and not the real - bubbles. Vanity, vanity .. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > The intellect is what we normally call our personal thinking. This > personal thinking is created by the Universe and not by any separate > individual. The intellect is only needed as an anchor for awareness > to find itself from a state of separation (like the Big Bang) back > into oneness. Why is this separation and union back to oneness > needed? The answer is that before separation there is only > consciousness unseparated. Something aware of itself. Endlessly. How > boring is that? So the separation creates unique seemingly separate > individuals in the form of human beings. And when these seemingly > separate individuals goes back to unity; it is not back to unity as > one big thing aware of itself, the supremely boring state, but > instead as wholeness enjoying itself in an explosion of form and > colors without losing the sense of unique beingness - then we have > the One and the Many. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Anders, > > You write as if you really know. Are you enlightened ? > > If not, I must tell you whatever I have read from you til now I > already have read in some hundred books some hundred times before, > since 40 years - and I think most of the members here too. > > Are you writing for newcomers, is that what you feel your job ? Or > are you just proud of your intellect filled with all that spiritual > crap you have read ? > > Do you have the clarity and seriosity of a mind to be able to differ > between what is genuine experience or just knowlegde from books - or > are you so much impressed about yourself that you already have lost > any honesty towards yourself and others ? > > I can understand that these ideas and concepts are so exiting and > promising that one really and easily will get into the hope one > sooner or later will realize, will get enlightened and so one already > starts telling others all these wonderous concepts which seem so true. > > But at the moment they just are ideas, hopes and promising concepts > and not the real - bubbles. > > Vanity, vanity .. > > Werner Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, but this simple fact will lead to enlightenment. Of this there is no doubt in my mind. What will be left of vanity and pride once this is really seen other than as a form of entertainment? /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > The intellect is what we normally call our personal thinking. This > > personal thinking is created by the Universe and not by any > separate > > individual. The intellect is only needed as an anchor for awareness > > to find itself from a state of separation (like the Big Bang) back > > into oneness. Why is this separation and union back to oneness > > needed? The answer is that before separation there is only > > consciousness unseparated. Something aware of itself. Endlessly. > How > > boring is that? So the separation creates unique seemingly separate > > individuals in the form of human beings. And when these seemingly > > separate individuals goes back to unity; it is not back to unity as > > one big thing aware of itself, the supremely boring state, but > > instead as wholeness enjoying itself in an explosion of form and > > colors without losing the sense of unique beingness - then we have > > the One and the Many. > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Anders, I have read about theses experiments of Libet which Eric already had mentioned. But these experiments were made 25 years ago and in the meantime English neurologists repeated those experiments and proved them to be true. All these things were known to me and I think to other members of this list too. Maybe for you it is new and exiciting to have met those thoughts that everything is already the past but for me it is already dead ashes - yawn. And it is ok that you get so excited about it - that is not my point. And to repat again: You have to be constantly aware what are ideas and what is real. You can discuss and maintain til doomsday that your concepts are true but that will just throw you deeper and deeper into the illusion of your own mind. What remains is just vanity and not the real. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Anders, > > > > You write as if you really know. Are you enlightened ? > > > > If not, I must tell you whatever I have read from you til now I > > already have read in some hundred books some hundred times before, > > since 40 years - and I think most of the members here too. > > > > Are you writing for newcomers, is that what you feel your job ? Or > > are you just proud of your intellect filled with all that spiritual > > crap you have read ? > > > > Do you have the clarity and seriosity of a mind to be able to differ > > between what is genuine experience or just knowlegde from books - or > > are you so much impressed about yourself that you already have lost > > any honesty towards yourself and others ? > > > > I can understand that these ideas and concepts are so exiting and > > promising that one really and easily will get into the hope one > > sooner or later will realize, will get enlightened and so one > already > > starts telling others all these wonderous concepts which seem so > true. > > > > But at the moment they just are ideas, hopes and promising concepts > > and not the real - bubbles. > > > > Vanity, vanity .. > > > > Werner > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, but > this simple fact will lead to enlightenment. Of this there is no > doubt in my mind. What will be left of vanity and pride once this is > really seen other than as a form of entertainment? > > /AL > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 At 08:30 AM 5/29/2004, you wrote: >* Replies will be sent through Spamex to Nisargadatta >* For additional info click -> http://www.spamex.com/i/?v=4044924 > >Anders, > >I have read about theses experiments of Libet which Eric already had >mentioned. But these experiments were made 25 years ago and in the >meantime English neurologists repeated those experiments and proved >them to be true. All these things were known to me and I think to >other members of this list too. Maybe for you it is new and exiciting >to have met those thoughts that everything is already the past but >for me it is already dead ashes - yawn. And it is ok that you get so >excited about it - that is not my point. > >And to repat again: >You have to be constantly aware what are ideas and what is real. You >can discuss and maintain til doomsday that your concepts are true but >that will just throw you deeper and deeper into the illusion of your >own mind. What remains is just vanity and not the real. > >Werner Hi Werner, " You have to be constantly aware of what are ideas and what is real " ? So who is the 'you' that is being addressed? Is that 'you' an 'idea' or 'real'? RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Anders, > > > > You write as if you really know. Are you enlightened ? > > > > If not, I must tell you whatever I have read from you til now I > > already have read in some hundred books some hundred times before, > > since 40 years - and I think most of the members here too. > > > > Are you writing for newcomers, is that what you feel your job ? Or > > are you just proud of your intellect filled with all that spiritual > > crap you have read ? > > > > Do you have the clarity and seriosity of a mind to be able to differ > > between what is genuine experience or just knowlegde from books - or > > are you so much impressed about yourself that you already have lost > > any honesty towards yourself and others ? > > > > I can understand that these ideas and concepts are so exiting and > > promising that one really and easily will get into the hope one > > sooner or later will realize, will get enlightened and so one > already > > starts telling others all these wonderous concepts which seem so > true. > > > > But at the moment they just are ideas, hopes and promising concepts > > and not the real - bubbles. > > > > Vanity, vanity .. > > > > Werner > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, but > this simple fact will lead to enlightenment. Of this there is no > doubt in my mind. What will be left of vanity and pride once this is > really seen other than as a form of entertainment? Al, I have read about that in neurology books. It's not as obscure a discovery as you think. Besides we are talking about 150 microseconds here. I don't think you can built a beyond reasonable doubt indictment of the present with that. That the present is delayed by 150 microseconds doesn't make it less of a present. The present is what you are aware of as now, no matter how slippered that now is. Still people can manipulate subatomics particles that last only nanoseconds. And you would not step in front of a speeding truck thinking it is the past and it won't kill you. That, that simple fact would lead to enlightenment is your wishfull thinking. I better pull a chair to wait for the good news . LOL. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Pete The delay is half a second (500,000 not 150 microseconds) which is signifcant. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz3a.htm Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > You write as if you really know. Are you enlightened ? > > > > > > If not, I must tell you whatever I have read from you til now I > > > already have read in some hundred books some hundred times before, > > > since 40 years - and I think most of the members here too. > > > > > > Are you writing for newcomers, is that what you feel your job ? Or > > > are you just proud of your intellect filled with all that > spiritual > > > crap you have read ? > > > > > > Do you have the clarity and seriosity of a mind to be able to > differ > > > between what is genuine experience or just knowlegde from books - > or > > > are you so much impressed about yourself that you already have > lost > > > any honesty towards yourself and others ? > > > > > > I can understand that these ideas and concepts are so exiting and > > > promising that one really and easily will get into the hope one > > > sooner or later will realize, will get enlightened and so one > > already > > > starts telling others all these wonderous concepts which seem so > > true. > > > > > > But at the moment they just are ideas, hopes and promising > concepts > > > and not the real - bubbles. > > > > > > Vanity, vanity .. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, > but > > this simple fact will lead to enlightenment. Of this there is no > > doubt in my mind. What will be left of vanity and pride once this > is > > really seen other than as a form of entertainment? > > Al, I have read about that in neurology books. It's not as obscure a > discovery as you think. Besides we are talking about 150 microseconds > here. I don't think you can built a beyond reasonable doubt > indictment of the present with that. That the present is delayed by > 150 microseconds doesn't make it less of a present. The present is > what you are aware of as now, no matter how slippered that now is. > Still people can manipulate subatomics particles that last only > nanoseconds. And you would not step in front of a speeding truck > thinking it is the past and it won't kill you. > > That, that simple fact would lead to enlightenment is your wishfull > thinking. I better pull a chair to wait for the good news . LOL. > > Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 - " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman <Nisargadatta > Saturday, May 29, 2004 8:34 PM Re: Transcending the intellect > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, -------------- I am always amused, when such a claim is made. How do you know you are not enlightened? What do you know about enlightenment, such that an affirmation " I am not enlightened " can be made? Such an affirmation is as much hilarious as the other affirmation................ " I am enlightened " . > but > this simple fact will lead to enlightenment. Nothing whatsoever will ever lead to enlightenment. That which can be led to,...............is always in the future. And the future, no matter how profoundly envisaged,..........right now is just imaginations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 > > >- > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman ><Nisargadatta > >Saturday, May 29, 2004 8:34 PM > Re: Transcending the intellect > > > > > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, This body mind organism has read this...not in any book....but specifically in a book entitled " Who Cares?! " Any statement " I am not enlightened " is technically correct....cordin to them what sposedly knows :-) I also am not enlightened and will remain so till the " I " takes a hike :-) RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Anders, > > I have read about theses experiments of Libet which Eric already had > mentioned. But these experiments were made 25 years ago and in the > meantime English neurologists repeated those experiments and proved > them to be true. All these things were known to me and I think to > other members of this list too. Maybe for you it is new and exiciting > to have met those thoughts that everything is already the past but > for me it is already dead ashes - yawn. And it is ok that you get so > excited about it - that is not my point. > > And to repat again: > You have to be constantly aware what are ideas and what is real. You > can discuss and maintain til doomsday that your concepts are true but > that will just throw you deeper and deeper into the illusion of your > own mind. What remains is just vanity and not the real. > > Werner But you see, the reason that you don't get excitet by this idea is because your intellect is hiding itself from the truth and is pretending to be you. Now, let's look a little closer at what the intellect is. It is a thinking machine. As long as this thinking machine is our engine we cannot see how we can be without it. We would become animals without the intellect, we think. And that is true if it was not for the higher truth about reality that exists: at any given moment in time, your present awareness exists closest to you. When you look at a star in the deep dark sky, it is not the present star you behold, but an old image of it. The star you see has already happened when you observe it. This is so because your present awarenes is zero (0) seconds away from you, while the light from the star could be several years away from you, so what you look at is how this star appeared years ago. When somebody calls your name you hear the sound from that person's voice only after it has been created, but now we are talking milliseconds and not years, but the principle is still exactly the same: your present awareness is zero seconds away from you, while the voice you hear is from the past. When you look at a tree it is only an old image of that tree you are aware of. The image of the tree formed in your visual cortext presented in your awareness is not of the tree in the present moment, but an image of how the tree looked in the past. We are of course talking here about a really recent past in terms of time, but short time, long time, it does not matter, what matters is that your present awareness only sees the past. When you look at your hand, it is not the present hand you see, but how the hand looked in the past. Again, the image of the hand _and_ the feeling of touch and temperature in the hand is present in your awareness in the form of the past. Your entire body is a sensation from the past. Your present awareness is zero seconds away from you. Your body and the world around you is not zero seconds away from you. You are awareness, pure consciousness is what you are, and the world including your body an expression in that consciousness. Since everything you observe is not zero seconds away from you it means that everything except your present awareness has already happened. In every instant what you observe has already happened, _including_ your intellect. So the intellect is not the doer, it is being done by the Universe. Everything has already been done by the Universe when you become aware of it in your present awareness. The real Universe is pure consciousness which is zero seconds away from you. The intellect is only a temporary bridge to higher wisdom. /AL > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > You write as if you really know. Are you enlightened ? > > > > > > If not, I must tell you whatever I have read from you til now I > > > already have read in some hundred books some hundred times before, > > > since 40 years - and I think most of the members here too. > > > > > > Are you writing for newcomers, is that what you feel your job ? Or > > > are you just proud of your intellect filled with all that > spiritual > > > crap you have read ? > > > > > > Do you have the clarity and seriosity of a mind to be able to > differ > > > between what is genuine experience or just knowlegde from books - > or > > > are you so much impressed about yourself that you already have > lost > > > any honesty towards yourself and others ? > > > > > > I can understand that these ideas and concepts are so exiting and > > > promising that one really and easily will get into the hope one > > > sooner or later will realize, will get enlightened and so one > > already > > > starts telling others all these wonderous concepts which seem so > > true. > > > > > > But at the moment they just are ideas, hopes and promising > concepts > > > and not the real - bubbles. > > > > > > Vanity, vanity .. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, > but > > this simple fact will lead to enlightenment. Of this there is no > > doubt in my mind. What will be left of vanity and pride once this > is > > really seen other than as a form of entertainment? > > > > /AL > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > You write as if you really know. Are you enlightened ? > > > > > > If not, I must tell you whatever I have read from you til now I > > > already have read in some hundred books some hundred times before, > > > since 40 years - and I think most of the members here too. > > > > > > Are you writing for newcomers, is that what you feel your job ? Or > > > are you just proud of your intellect filled with all that > spiritual > > > crap you have read ? > > > > > > Do you have the clarity and seriosity of a mind to be able to > differ > > > between what is genuine experience or just knowlegde from books - > or > > > are you so much impressed about yourself that you already have > lost > > > any honesty towards yourself and others ? > > > > > > I can understand that these ideas and concepts are so exiting and > > > promising that one really and easily will get into the hope one > > > sooner or later will realize, will get enlightened and so one > > already > > > starts telling others all these wonderous concepts which seem so > > true. > > > > > > But at the moment they just are ideas, hopes and promising > concepts > > > and not the real - bubbles. > > > > > > Vanity, vanity .. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, > but > > this simple fact will lead to enlightenment. Of this there is no > > doubt in my mind. What will be left of vanity and pride once this > is > > really seen other than as a form of entertainment? > > Al, I have read about that in neurology books. It's not as obscure a > discovery as you think. Besides we are talking about 150 microseconds > here. I don't think you can built a beyond reasonable doubt > indictment of the present with that. That the present is delayed by > 150 microseconds doesn't make it less of a present. The present is > what you are aware of as now, no matter how slippered that now is. > Still people can manipulate subatomics particles that last only > nanoseconds. And you would not step in front of a speeding truck > thinking it is the past and it won't kill you. > > That, that simple fact would lead to enlightenment is your wishfull > thinking. I better pull a chair to wait for the good news . LOL. > > Pete You will not step in front of a speeding truck unless the Universe makes it so. You are being _done_ by the Universe, including your intellect. The reason you make a difference between microseconds and years (the time it can take for light from a star to be visible in your awareness) is that you still need your intellect as your main engine of being. The intellect then hides the fact that time is time no matter how short or long. Gold is still gold even when there is only a few micrograms of it. Your present awareness is zero seconds away from you. The world including your body _and_ your intellect is _not_ zero seconds away from you. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > - > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > <Nisargadatta > > Saturday, May 29, 2004 8:34 PM > Re: Transcending the intellect > > > > > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, > > > -------------- > > > I am always amused, when such a claim is made. > > How do you know you are not enlightened? > > What do you know about enlightenment, such that an affirmation " I am not enlightened " can be made? > > Such an affirmation is as much hilarious as the other affirmation................ " I am enlightened " . We have to first define what elightenment is. My definition of enlightenment is when the intellect has been transcended. I see clearly that my intellect is not needed other than as an automatic process in _exacly_ the same way that most of the processes in my body are automatic processes which happen without there is any " me " making them happen. So when the intellect too becomes an automatic function, a higher engine than the intellect will appear in me. I see that higher engine, but only when I _become_ it will I be enlightened according to this definition. /AL > > > > > > > but > > this simple fact will lead to enlightenment. > > > > Nothing whatsoever will ever lead to enlightenment. > > That which can be led to,...............is always in the future. > > And the future, no matter how profoundly envisaged,..........right now is just imaginations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > Pete > > The delay is half a second (500,000 not 150 microseconds) which is > signifcant. > > http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz3a.htm Excuse me, I meant 150 milliseconds, not microseconds. Anyway, I believe you misinterpreted what you read. That a weak voltage current applied to the thalamus takes half a second to stimulate response doesn't mean that it takes the brain that long to process the stimulus, but that it ignores weak stimulae of shorter duration. Besides, stimulating the skin for only 25 miliseconds is sufficient to produce a response. Libet has shown that the conscious intention to act appears only after a delay of 350 msec from the onset of a specific cerebral activity that precedes a voluntary act. All this can be verified in the book " A universe of Consciousness " by nobel prize winner Gerald Edelman. It is interesting to note for the concept of no doer, that Libet found that the cerebral initiation of a spontaneous act can begin unconsciously before there is any awareness that the decision to act has already been initiated in the motor center of the brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 - " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman <Nisargadatta > Sunday, May 30, 2004 4:42 AM Re: Transcending the intellect > Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > > - > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > <Nisargadatta > > > Saturday, May 29, 2004 8:34 PM > > Re: Transcending the intellect > > > > > > > > > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > > > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, > > > > > > -------------- > > > > > > I am always amused, when such a claim is made. > > > > How do you know you are not enlightened? > > > > What do you know about enlightenment, such that an affirmation " I > am not enlightened " can be made? > > > > Such an affirmation is as much hilarious as the other > affirmation................ " I am enlightened " . > > We have to first define what elightenment is. ------ And that's exactly where baloney comes in. For any definition, does not go beyond the conditioning which believes in the definition. It's like a painted object is fully convinced about its definition of the painting style of the painter. Or a dreamed-up character of your last night sleep dream, defining the shape of your nose. > My definition of enlightenment is when the intellect has been transcended. Does the intellect have an existential reality in order to be transcended? A shadow does not exist where it does not fall. A shadow also does not exist, where it does fall. > I see clearly that my intellect is not needed other than as an automatic > process in _exacly_ the same way that most of the processes in my > body are automatic processes which happen without there is any " me " > making them happen. The prevailing sense of an intellect, the prevailing sense of a mind, are all nuances of the prevailing sense of entitification. All of it,............is a " sense of " > So when the intellect too becomes an automatic function, a higher engine than the intellect will appear in me. And what is hoping for that to happen?:-) >I see that higher engine, but only when I _become_ it will I be enlightened > according to this definition. Enlightenment is the very cessation of the prevailing sense of a " need " for enlightenment(whatever is the latest definition held in the moment),......... ....... to happen. And if that seems to be a defining of enlightenment,........ .......to point in another way,.........(as much as words can be used to point),..... ......the absence of the very concept of enlightenment .......and.......... the absence of the absence of the very concept of enlightenment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Dear Anders, When reading your explanations it gives me the impression as if a 5 years old boy is telling me with shiny eyes that the earth is turning arround the sun - great news. I will put my arm arround your shoulder and pat your cheeks - well done my friend, you have learned your lessons. We will make a walk and talk about the stars, the trees, bees and butterlfys. Many hugs ... Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > Anders, > > > > I have read about theses experiments of Libet which Eric already > had > > mentioned. But these experiments were made 25 years ago and in the > > meantime English neurologists repeated those experiments and proved > > them to be true. All these things were known to me and I think to > > other members of this list too. Maybe for you it is new and > exiciting > > to have met those thoughts that everything is already the past but > > for me it is already dead ashes - yawn. And it is ok that you get > so > > excited about it - that is not my point. > > > > And to repat again: > > You have to be constantly aware what are ideas and what is real. > You > > can discuss and maintain til doomsday that your concepts are true > but > > that will just throw you deeper and deeper into the illusion of > your > > own mind. What remains is just vanity and not the real. > > > > Werner > > But you see, the reason that you don't get excitet by this idea is > because your intellect is hiding itself from the truth and is > pretending to be you. > > Now, let's look a little closer at what the intellect is. It is a > thinking machine. As long as this thinking machine is our engine we > cannot see how we can be without it. We would become animals without > the intellect, we think. And that is true if it was not for the > higher truth about reality that exists: at any given moment in time, > your present awareness exists closest to you. When you look at a star > in the deep dark sky, it is not the present star you behold, but an > old image of it. The star you see has already happened when you > observe it. This is so because your present awarenes is zero (0) > seconds away from you, while the light from the star could be several > years away from you, so what you look at is how this star appeared > years ago. When somebody calls your name you hear the sound from that > person's voice only after it has been created, but now we are talking > milliseconds and not years, but the principle is still exactly the > same: your present awareness is zero seconds away from you, while the > voice you hear is from the past. When you look at a tree it is only > an old image of that tree you are aware of. The image of the tree > formed in your visual cortext presented in your awareness is not of > the tree in the present moment, but an image of how the tree looked > in the past. We are of course talking here about a really recent past > in terms of time, but short time, long time, it does not matter, what > matters is that your present awareness only sees the past. When you > look at your hand, it is not the present hand you see, but how the > hand looked in the past. Again, the image of the hand _and_ the > feeling of touch and temperature in the hand is present in your > awareness in the form of the past. Your entire body is a sensation > from the past. Your present awareness is zero seconds away from you. > Your body and the world around you is not zero seconds away from you. > You are awareness, pure consciousness is what you are, and the world > including your body an expression in that consciousness. > > Since everything you observe is not zero seconds away from you it > means that everything except your present awareness has already > happened. In every instant what you observe has already happened, > _including_ your intellect. So the intellect is not the doer, it is > being done by the Universe. Everything has already been done by the > Universe when you become aware of it in your present awareness. The > real Universe is pure consciousness which is zero seconds away from > you. The intellect is only a temporary bridge to higher wisdom. > > /AL > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > You write as if you really know. Are you enlightened ? > > > > > > > > If not, I must tell you whatever I have read from you til now I > > > > already have read in some hundred books some hundred times > before, > > > > since 40 years - and I think most of the members here too. > > > > > > > > Are you writing for newcomers, is that what you feel your job ? > Or > > > > are you just proud of your intellect filled with all that > > spiritual > > > > crap you have read ? > > > > > > > > Do you have the clarity and seriosity of a mind to be able to > > differ > > > > between what is genuine experience or just knowlegde from > books - > > or > > > > are you so much impressed about yourself that you already have > > lost > > > > any honesty towards yourself and others ? > > > > > > > > I can understand that these ideas and concepts are so exiting > and > > > > promising that one really and easily will get into the hope one > > > > sooner or later will realize, will get enlightened and so one > > > already > > > > starts telling others all these wonderous concepts which seem > so > > > true. > > > > > > > > But at the moment they just are ideas, hopes and promising > > concepts > > > > and not the real - bubbles. > > > > > > > > Vanity, vanity .. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > > > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, > > but > > > this simple fact will lead to enlightenment. Of this there is no > > > doubt in my mind. What will be left of vanity and pride once this > > is > > > really seen other than as a form of entertainment? > > > > > > /AL > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > - > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > <Nisargadatta > > Sunday, May 30, 2004 4:42 AM > Re: Transcending the intellect > > > > Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > > > > - > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > > <Nisargadatta > > > > Saturday, May 29, 2004 8:34 PM > > > Re: Transcending the intellect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > > > > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, > > > > > > > > > -------------- > > > > > > > > > I am always amused, when such a claim is made. > > > > > > How do you know you are not enlightened? > > > > > > What do you know about enlightenment, such that an affirmation " I > > am not enlightened " can be made? > > > > > > Such an affirmation is as much hilarious as the other > > affirmation................ " I am enlightened " . > > > > We have to first define what elightenment is. > > ------ > > And that's exactly where baloney comes in. > > For any definition, does not go beyond the conditioning which believes in the definition. > > It's like a painted object is fully convinced about its definition of the painting style of the painter. > > Or a dreamed-up character of your last night sleep dream, defining the shape of your nose. > > > > > > My definition of enlightenment is when the intellect has been transcended. > > > Does the intellect have an existential reality in order to be transcended? > > A shadow does not exist where it does not fall. > A shadow also does not exist, where it does fall. > > > > > I see clearly that my intellect is not needed other than as an automatic > > process in _exacly_ the same way that most of the processes in my > > body are automatic processes which happen without there is any " me " > > making them happen. > > > The prevailing sense of an intellect, the prevailing sense of a mind, are all nuances of the prevailing sense of entitification. > > All of it,............is a " sense of " > > > > > So when the intellect too becomes an automatic function, a higher engine than the intellect will appear in me. > > > And what is hoping for that to happen?:-) > > > > > >I see that higher engine, but only when I _become_ it will I be enlightened > > according to this definition. > > > Enlightenment is the very cessation of the prevailing sense of a " need " for enlightenment(whatever is the latest definition held in the moment),......... > > ...... to happen. > > > And if that seems to be a defining of enlightenment,........ > > ......to point in another way,.........(as much as words can be used to point),..... > > .....the absence of the very concept of enlightenment .......and.......... the absence of the absence of the very concept of enlightenment. > > Absence of concepts is only possible when the intellect has been transcended. The very idea of being a separate " thinker " comes from the intellect. When we begin to see that all thoughts has already been created when our present awareness becomes aware of them, then we also see that there really is no " me " doing any thinking, and if no " me " has ever really been there, then maybe the Universe will continue to remove this false idea of a separate " me " in the person. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Dear Anders, > > When reading your explanations it gives me the impression as if a 5 > years old boy is telling me with shiny eyes that the earth is turning > arround the sun - great news. > > I will put my arm arround your shoulder and pat your cheeks - well > done my friend, you have learned your lessons. We will make a walk > and talk about the stars, the trees, bees and butterlfys. > > Many hugs ... Werner Thanks Just remember that you are zero seconds away from pure consciousness. Where else are you? :-) /AL > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > Anders, > > > > > > I have read about theses experiments of Libet which Eric already > > had > > > mentioned. But these experiments were made 25 years ago and in > the > > > meantime English neurologists repeated those experiments and > proved > > > them to be true. All these things were known to me and I think to > > > other members of this list too. Maybe for you it is new and > > exiciting > > > to have met those thoughts that everything is already the past > but > > > for me it is already dead ashes - yawn. And it is ok that you get > > so > > > excited about it - that is not my point. > > > > > > And to repat again: > > > You have to be constantly aware what are ideas and what is real. > > You > > > can discuss and maintain til doomsday that your concepts are true > > but > > > that will just throw you deeper and deeper into the illusion of > > your > > > own mind. What remains is just vanity and not the real. > > > > > > Werner > > > > But you see, the reason that you don't get excitet by this idea is > > because your intellect is hiding itself from the truth and is > > pretending to be you. > > > > Now, let's look a little closer at what the intellect is. It is a > > thinking machine. As long as this thinking machine is our engine we > > cannot see how we can be without it. We would become animals > without > > the intellect, we think. And that is true if it was not for the > > higher truth about reality that exists: at any given moment in > time, > > your present awareness exists closest to you. When you look at a > star > > in the deep dark sky, it is not the present star you behold, but an > > old image of it. The star you see has already happened when you > > observe it. This is so because your present awarenes is zero (0) > > seconds away from you, while the light from the star could be > several > > years away from you, so what you look at is how this star appeared > > years ago. When somebody calls your name you hear the sound from > that > > person's voice only after it has been created, but now we are > talking > > milliseconds and not years, but the principle is still exactly the > > same: your present awareness is zero seconds away from you, while > the > > voice you hear is from the past. When you look at a tree it is only > > an old image of that tree you are aware of. The image of the tree > > formed in your visual cortext presented in your awareness is not of > > the tree in the present moment, but an image of how the tree looked > > in the past. We are of course talking here about a really recent > past > > in terms of time, but short time, long time, it does not matter, > what > > matters is that your present awareness only sees the past. When you > > look at your hand, it is not the present hand you see, but how the > > hand looked in the past. Again, the image of the hand _and_ the > > feeling of touch and temperature in the hand is present in your > > awareness in the form of the past. Your entire body is a sensation > > from the past. Your present awareness is zero seconds away from > you. > > Your body and the world around you is not zero seconds away from > you. > > You are awareness, pure consciousness is what you are, and the > world > > including your body an expression in that consciousness. > > > > Since everything you observe is not zero seconds away from you it > > means that everything except your present awareness has already > > happened. In every instant what you observe has already happened, > > _including_ your intellect. So the intellect is not the doer, it is > > being done by the Universe. Everything has already been done by the > > Universe when you become aware of it in your present awareness. The > > real Universe is pure consciousness which is zero seconds away from > > you. The intellect is only a temporary bridge to higher wisdom. > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > You write as if you really know. Are you enlightened ? > > > > > > > > > > If not, I must tell you whatever I have read from you til now > I > > > > > already have read in some hundred books some hundred times > > before, > > > > > since 40 years - and I think most of the members here too. > > > > > > > > > > Are you writing for newcomers, is that what you feel your > job ? > > Or > > > > > are you just proud of your intellect filled with all that > > > spiritual > > > > > crap you have read ? > > > > > > > > > > Do you have the clarity and seriosity of a mind to be able to > > > differ > > > > > between what is genuine experience or just knowlegde from > > books - > > > or > > > > > are you so much impressed about yourself that you already > have > > > lost > > > > > any honesty towards yourself and others ? > > > > > > > > > > I can understand that these ideas and concepts are so exiting > > and > > > > > promising that one really and easily will get into the hope > one > > > > > sooner or later will realize, will get enlightened and so one > > > > already > > > > > starts telling others all these wonderous concepts which seem > > so > > > > true. > > > > > > > > > > But at the moment they just are ideas, hopes and promising > > > concepts > > > > > and not the real - bubbles. > > > > > > > > > > Vanity, vanity .. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > > > > experience has already happened, have you? I am not > enlightened, > > > but > > > > this simple fact will lead to enlightenment. Of this there is > no > > > > doubt in my mind. What will be left of vanity and pride once > this > > > is > > > > really seen other than as a form of entertainment? > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 " I believe you misinterpreted what you read. That a weak voltage current applied to the thalamus takes half a second to stimulate response doesn't mean that it takes the brain that long to process the stimulus, but that it ignores weak stimulae of shorter duration. " I don't believe I misinterpreted anything, there is nothing in the article about weak signals. It says " What is the cortex doing in the 0.5 seconds between the start of stimulation and the report of awareness of the stimulation? It is probably synchronising its various processors and creating a waking dream, a structured set of events that accounts for the activity. " " It is interesting to note for the concept of no doer, that Libet found that the cerebral initiation of a spontaneous act can begin unconsciously before there is any awareness that the decision to act has already been initiated in the motor center of the brain. " Yes, and the (library) book I just finished reading says the gap is 500 milliseconds. This was experimentally confirmed. " Abstract There is an increasing body of evidence that only a minuscule proportion of the sensory dataprocessed by the unconscious mind (capable of processing approximately 11 million bits persecond) is referred to the conscious mind (capable of processing approximately 50 bits per second).It is also clear that conscious awareness of stimuli from the environment lags actual perception byapproximately half a second, but that a backward referral of subjective experience results in aindividual's perception of the stimulus and its conscious awareness as simultaneous. Thesefindings challenge the primacy and supremacy of conscious processing of information on which asubstantial proportion of educational practice and policy is based, and suggest a re-evaluation ofthe the nature of teacher competence and expertise " Dylan Wiliam King's College London School of Education http://www.google.co.uk/search? q=cache:kFwLXgA1MeUJ:www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/education/publications/ECER9 9.pdf+libet+%22half+second%22+delay & hl=en Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " erici44 " <erici44> wrote: > > Pete > > > > The delay is half a second (500,000 not 150 microseconds) which is > > signifcant. > > > > http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz3a.htm > > Excuse me, I meant 150 milliseconds, not microseconds. Anyway, > I believe you misinterpreted what you read. That a weak voltage > current applied to the thalamus takes half a second to stimulate > response doesn't mean that it takes the brain that long to process > the stimulus, but that it ignores weak stimulae of shorter duration. > > Besides, stimulating the skin for only 25 miliseconds is sufficient > to produce a response. Libet has shown that the conscious intention > to act appears only after a delay of 350 msec from the onset of a > specific cerebral activity that precedes a voluntary act. > > All this can be verified in the book " A universe of Consciousness " by > nobel prize winner Gerald Edelman. It is interesting to note for > the concept of no doer, that Libet found that the cerebral initiation > of a spontaneous act can begin unconsciously before there is any > awareness that the decision to act has already been initiated in the > motor center of the brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 I just want to add that I saw a BBC TV programme about brain damaged autistic children who could barely communicate but had incredible " artistic " abilities. One could reproduce any piece of music played to him, even parts from an orchestral score. Another was flown in a helicopter over London and was able to draw what he had seen in incredible detail. It seems that their consciousness had access to the raw incoming information in particular areas of the brain which the rest of us filter out. It may explain why some people have certain natural abilities. It may also provide some insight into why people have mystical expeiences while taking mescalin or LSD. Instead of the poor normal filtered picture , the universe is seen in all its 11 million bit per second spleandour . There is a pretty exact analogy in looking at an 8 bit (256 colour) picture compared with 24 bit (16 million colour). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 hm....how odd.......I know I don't exist, however, it seems that not even the product of the working mind exists :-) have sent two posts (of dubious quality) to the list on this very subject.....and yet.......they do not appear!!! Ramesh says that when you the " doer " disappears, there is enlightenment.....mmm......COULD IT BE?????????.....................COULD this body/mind organism have transcended the INTELLECT ONCE AND FOR ALL????..................rofl gee....if that is true, then the next post sent from this bmo on the subject may well be the definitive post on this subject :-) RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Nisargadatta , rookielynn@x wrote: > > > > > > >- > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > ><Nisargadatta > > >Saturday, May 29, 2004 8:34 PM > > Re: Transcending the intellect > > > > > > > > > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > > > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, > This body mind organism has read this...not in any book....but specifically > in a book entitled " Who Cares?! " Any statement " I am not enlightened " is > technically correct....cordin to them what sposedly knows :-) I also am not > enlightened and will remain so till the " I " takes a hike :-) > > > RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite > > The present moment must be pure consciousness my logic tells me, but my feelings and my experiences tell me that the physical world is real and is separate from my consciousness. But then my logic kicks in and says that consciousness and the physical world cannot be separate, because there is a _connection_ between consciousness and the physical world since consciousness is aware of the physical world. I will take the risk of being tedious here: my consciousness is zero seconds away from me, but according to science the physical world is _not_ zero seconds away from me. So, again my logic tells me that I really must be consciousness and that my body is always already dead. But I have not read about this idea that the body is already dead in any scientific papers. Have I missed some paper about this? Or is science blind to this obvious conclusion? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Dear RL, Thanks heavens you haven't started a discussion " what is real " but " what is the you " . With the " you " I meant " one " ... One has to be constantly aware ... " . In that sentence there are some more open questions like " constantly " or " aware " or the before mentioned " real " . That sentence alone gives already material for weeks of discussions (if one likes that). Even the " has to " could become a starting point for an anti-authoritarian. Werner Nisargadatta , rookielynn@x wrote: > At 08:30 AM 5/29/2004, you wrote: > >* Replies will be sent through Spamex to Nisargadatta > >* For additional info click -> http://www.spamex.com/i/?v=4044924 > > > >Anders, > > > >I have read about theses experiments of Libet which Eric already had > >mentioned. But these experiments were made 25 years ago and in the > >meantime English neurologists repeated those experiments and proved > >them to be true. All these things were known to me and I think to > >other members of this list too. Maybe for you it is new and exiciting > >to have met those thoughts that everything is already the past but > >for me it is already dead ashes - yawn. And it is ok that you get so > >excited about it - that is not my point. > > > >And to repat again: > >You have to be constantly aware what are ideas and what is real. You > >can discuss and maintain til doomsday that your concepts are true but > >that will just throw you deeper and deeper into the illusion of your > >own mind. What remains is just vanity and not the real. > > > >Werner > > Hi Werner, > > " You have to be constantly aware of what are ideas and what is real " ? So > who is the 'you' that is being addressed? Is that 'you' an 'idea' or 'real'? > > RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 > > > >- > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > ><Nisargadatta > > > >Saturday, May 29, 2004 8:34 PM > > > Re: Transcending the intellect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > > > > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, > > This body mind organism has read this...not in any book....but >specifically > > in a book entitled " Who Cares?! " Any statement " I am not >enlightened " is > > technically correct....cordin to them what sposedly knows :-) I >also am not > > enlightened and will remain so till the " I " takes a hike :-) > > > > > > RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite > > > > > >The present moment must be pure consciousness my logic tells me, but >my feelings and my experiences tell me that the physical world is >real and is separate from my consciousness. But then my logic kicks >in and says that consciousness and the physical world cannot be >separate, because there is a _connection_ between consciousness and >the physical world since consciousness is aware of the physical world. >I will take the risk of being tedious here: my consciousness is zero >seconds away from me, but according to science the physical world is >_not_ zero seconds away from me. >So, again my logic tells me that I >really must be consciousness and that my body is always already dead. >But I have not read about this idea that the body is already dead in >any scientific papers. Have I missed some paper about this? Or is >science blind to this obvious conclusion? > >/AL Sorry this isn't tracking....You're body might be dead, but this one is still active.... " appears " to be tapping out words on a keyboard at the moment :-) Sorry about your untimely demise....will there be a full on funeral or just a wake? enlightened or no.....am really curious how a dead body replies to posts on an e list. RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Nisargadatta , RL_FPI@x wrote: > > > > > > >- > > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > > ><Nisargadatta > > > > >Saturday, May 29, 2004 8:34 PM > > > > Re: Transcending the intellect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner, you have not read in any book that everything that you > > > > > experience has already happened, have you? I am not enlightened, > > > This body mind organism has read this...not in any book....but > >specifically > > > in a book entitled " Who Cares?! " Any statement " I am not > >enlightened " is > > > technically correct....cordin to them what sposedly knows :-) I > >also am not > > > enlightened and will remain so till the " I " takes a hike :-) > > > > > > > > > RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite > > > > > > > > > >The present moment must be pure consciousness my logic tells me, but > >my feelings and my experiences tell me that the physical world is > >real and is separate from my consciousness. But then my logic kicks > >in and says that consciousness and the physical world cannot be > >separate, because there is a _connection_ between consciousness and > >the physical world since consciousness is aware of the physical world. > > > >I will take the risk of being tedious here: my consciousness is zero > >seconds away from me, but according to science the physical world is > >_not_ zero seconds away from me. > >So, again my logic tells me that I > >really must be consciousness and that my body is always already dead. > >But I have not read about this idea that the body is already dead in > >any scientific papers. Have I missed some paper about this? Or is > >science blind to this obvious conclusion? > > > >/AL > > Sorry this isn't tracking....You're body might be dead, but this one is > still active.... " appears " to be tapping out words on a keyboard at the > moment :-) Sorry about your untimely demise....will there be a full on > funeral or just a wake? enlightened or no.....am really curious how a dead > body replies to posts on an e list. > > RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite > There has never been a body replying to a post, nor will there ever be. You are consciousness aware of your body, right? I mean you do have consciousness? This consciousness is what is alive, the physical world is always only a changing dead memory track in the Now. So when you see your body typing on the keyboard it is only a past changing memory track you observe. The body has already happened when it becomes present in your awareness. When you become aware of your body, it is only as the past, i.e. it is then already DEAD. Or, rather, the physical world is all Maya. :-) Think of it as the human bodies in the Matrix movies. The bodies appeared real to people inside the Matrix, but what they in reality were observing was a computer simulation already generated before it entered their awareness. How could Neo type on his keyboard in his apartment inside the Matrix, when he was in reality laying like a stiff inside a cocoon? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 At 10:12 PM 5/30/2004, you wrote: >* Replies will be sent through Spamex to Nisargadatta >* For additional info click -> http://www.spamex.com/i/?v=4058243 > >Nisargadatta , RL_FPI@x wrote: > > > > > > > > > >- > > > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > > > ><Nisargadatta > > > > > >Saturday, May 29, 2004 8:34 PM > > > > > Re: Transcending the intellect > > > > > > > >The present moment must be pure consciousness my logic tells me, >but > > >my feelings and my experiences tell me that the physical world is > > >real and is separate from my consciousness. But then my logic kicks > > >in and says that consciousness and the physical world cannot be > > >separate, because there is a _connection_ between consciousness and > > >the physical world since consciousness is aware of the physical >world. > > > > > > >I will take the risk of being tedious here: my consciousness is >zero > > >seconds away from me, but according to science the physical world >is > > >_not_ zero seconds away from me. > > >So, again my logic tells me that I > > >really must be consciousness and that my body is always already >dead. > > >But I have not read about this idea that the body is already dead >in > > >any scientific papers. Have I missed some paper about this? Or is > > >science blind to this obvious conclusion? > > > > > >/AL > > > > Sorry this isn't tracking....You're body might be dead, but this >one is still active.... " appears " to be tapping out words on a keyboard at >the moment :-) Sorry about your untimely demise....will there be a >full on funeral or just a wake? enlightened or no.....am really curious how >a dead body replies to posts on an e list. > > > > RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite > > > >There has never been a body replying to a post, nor will there ever >be. You are consciousness aware of your body, right? I mean you do >have consciousness? RL: well......that's always been my supposition, however, there may have been one of two profs & employers that would take exception to that premise :-) >This consciousness is what is alive, the physical >world is always only a changing dead memory track in the Now. So when >you see your body typing on the keyboard it is only a past changing >memory track you observe. The body has already happened when it >becomes present in your awareness. When you become aware of your >body, it is only as the past, i.e. it is then already DEAD. Or, >rather, the physical world is all Maya. :-) > >Think of it as the human bodies in the Matrix movies. The bodies >appeared real to people inside the Matrix, but what they in reality >were observing was a computer simulation already generated before it >entered their awareness. How could Neo type on his keyboard in his >apartment inside the Matrix, when he was in reality laying like a >stiff inside a cocoon? > >/AL " The only really serious fault is taking oneself too seriously " Anon 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.