Guest guest Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 Have you ever done a head inventory? Do you know what's stored in your brain? I don't mean nothing Freudian by it, like hidden complexes, or repressed desires and fears. Just a simple inventory of your main ideas, and beliefs. Do you know what your beliefs are, and what they do for you? Which ones affect your conduct? Which, the way you see yourself, and the world? Which affect the way you feel, and which tells how to feel about certain feelings. Which, are just clutter keeping your mind busy and preventing clarity? I bet you're more aware and picky about the junk in your closet, that you are about the junk in your brain. You might not ever wear again that bell-bottom pair of pants, but at least you know exactly what purpose it could serve. But do you know which of your beliefs makes you feel like a success or a failure? You might think success or failure depends entirely on results, but in reality, success is just an idea. It's your beliefs, not the result of your actions which declare you a winner. Your belief that the opinion of others is important might be the main factor on how you view yourself in this respect. Some beliefs are behavior inhibitors, and some are behavior boosters, others are rather useless. Does a notion like " Consciousness is all " change your mind? Would you feel any different if you believed consciousness is just transient brain phenomena? Which beliefs have practical value, which are only pacifiers? It seems to me, a belief inventory that would be function specific, would greatly increase our clarity. Why does the idea of a never ending universe seem more satisfying, than the idea of an universe than would end at some point billions of years hence? Obviously, we could not benefit either way. Yet, there it is. We want existence to exist forever, even if we don't. But why? Is it because deep down we feel, or at least hope, we are existence itself? Each idea we hold to be true, is shaping our mind in some way. It seems the smart thing to do, to find out which one, does what. Few people think they can act without consequences, but most belief they can think with impunity. Hardly so, habitual thoughts shape our brains by creating neural connections. They say, we are what we eat, more accurately, would be to say, we are what we think. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Have you ever done a head inventory? Do you know what's stored in > your brain? I don't mean nothing Freudian by it, like hidden > complexes, or repressed desires and fears. Just a simple inventory of > your main ideas, and beliefs. Do you know what your beliefs are, and > what they do for you? Which ones affect your conduct? Which, the way > you see yourself, and the world? Which affect the way you feel, and > which tells how to feel about certain feelings. Which, are just > clutter keeping your mind busy and preventing clarity? > > I bet you're more aware and picky about the junk in your closet, that > you are about the junk in your brain. One has to realize that being picky about the junk in one's closet is itself a part of the junk in one's brain. /AL > You might not ever wear again > that bell-bottom pair of pants, but at least you know exactly what > purpose it could serve. But do you know which of your beliefs makes > you feel like a success or a failure? You might think success > or failure depends entirely on results, but in reality, success is > just an idea. It's your beliefs, not the result of your actions which > declare you a winner. Your belief that the opinion of others is > important might be the main factor on how you view yourself > in this respect. > > Some beliefs are behavior inhibitors, and some are behavior boosters, > others are rather useless. Does a notion like " Consciousness is all " > change your mind? Would you feel any different if you believed > consciousness is just transient brain phenomena? Which beliefs have > practical value, which are only pacifiers? > > It seems to me, a belief inventory that would be function specific, > would greatly increase our clarity. Why does the idea of a never > ending universe seem more satisfying, than the idea of an universe > than would end at some point billions of years hence? Obviously, we > could not benefit either way. Yet, there it is. We want existence to > exist forever, even if we don't. But why? Is it because deep down we > feel, or at least hope, we are existence itself? > > Each idea we hold to be true, is shaping our mind in some way. It > seems the smart thing to do, to find out which one, does what. Few > people think they can act without consequences, but most belief they > can think with impunity. Hardly so, habitual thoughts shape > our brains by creating neural connections. They say, we are what we > eat, more accurately, would be to say, we are what we think. > > Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 My attitude regarding any lurking ideas, beliefs, patterns of conduct I might stumble across is to shoot first, don't ask any questions, and incinerate the trash. The interesting thing about such a radical approach is that you don't need any of that stuff; it is just clutter clogging the awareness process; kinda like mental cholesterol. The mind is quite capable of coming up with fresh responses without relying on memory. Indeed, as the clutter is cleared away and a clear empty mind remains one comes to realize that there are *still* patterns of conditioning that are almost invisible, they are so subtle, and that as the awareness gets more clear the ability to recognize those subtle patterns gets better. And upon recognition of the subtle patterns... merely seeing them as constraints that are not needed, that are constraining the freedom/openness of awareness... they dissolve/fall away. Bill - cerosoul DirectApproach Monday, June 28, 2004 8:29 AM [DirectApproach] The Head Inventory Have you ever done a head inventory? Do you know what's stored in your brain? I don't mean nothing Freudian by it, like hidden complexes, or repressed desires and fears. Just a simple inventory of your main ideas, and beliefs. Do you know what your beliefs are, and what they do for you? Which ones affect your conduct? Which, the way you see yourself, and the world? Which affect the way you feel, and which tells how to feel about certain feelings. Which, are just clutter keeping your mind busy and preventing clarity? I bet you're more aware and picky about the junk in your closet, that you are about the junk in your brain. You might not ever wear again that bell-bottom pair of pants, but at least you know exactly what purpose it could serve. But do you know which of your beliefs makes you feel like a success or a failure? You might think success or failure depends entirely on results, but in reality, success is just an idea. It's your beliefs, not the result of your actions which declare you a winner. Your belief that the opinion of others is important might be the main factor on how you view yourself in this respect. Some beliefs are behavior inhibitors, and some are behavior boosters, others are rather useless. Does a notion like " Consciousness is all " change your mind? Would you feel any different if you believed consciousness is just transient brain phenomena? Which beliefs have practical value, which are only pacifiers? It seems to me, a belief inventory that would be function specific, would greatly increase our clarity. Why does the idea of a never ending universe seem more satisfying, than the idea of an universe than would end at some point billions of years hence? Obviously, we could not benefit either way. Yet, there it is. We want existence to exist forever, even if we don't. But why? Is it because deep down we feel, or at least hope, we are existence itself? Each idea we hold to be true, is shaping our mind in some way. It seems the smart thing to do, to find out which one, does what. Few people think they can act without consequences, but most belief they can think with impunity. Hardly so, habitual thoughts shape our brains by creating neural connections. They say, we are what we eat, more accurately, would be to say, we are what we think. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 Dear Bill, First at all I like what you wrote. But let me ask: What you meant with " attitue " couldn't it be that it is just the minde tired of all that never ending spiritual and philosophical crap ? Second, to get a " clear awareness " lets me wondering why at all ? Isn't that another assumption or belief ? Who is that entitity sweeping clean awareness ? What will be the outcome when finally awareness got clear, shiny eyes ? Werner Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > My attitude regarding any lurking ideas, beliefs, patterns of conduct > I might stumble across is to shoot first, don't ask any questions, and > incinerate the trash. > > The interesting thing about such a radical approach is that you don't > need any of that stuff; it is just clutter clogging the awareness process; > kinda like mental cholesterol. The mind is quite capable of coming up > with fresh responses without relying on memory. > > Indeed, as the clutter is cleared away and a clear empty mind remains > one comes to realize that there are *still* patterns of conditioning that > are almost invisible, they are so subtle, and that as the awareness > gets more clear the ability to recognize those subtle patterns gets > better. And upon recognition of the subtle patterns... merely seeing > them as constraints that are not needed, that are constraining the > freedom/openness of awareness... they dissolve/fall away. > > Bill > > > - > cerosoul > DirectApproach > Monday, June 28, 2004 8:29 AM > [DirectApproach] The Head Inventory > > > Have you ever done a head inventory? Do you know what's stored in > your brain? I don't mean nothing Freudian by it, like hidden > complexes, or repressed desires and fears. Just a simple inventory of > your main ideas, and beliefs. Do you know what your beliefs are, and > what they do for you? Which ones affect your conduct? Which, the way > you see yourself, and the world? Which affect the way you feel, and > which tells how to feel about certain feelings. Which, are just > clutter keeping your mind busy and preventing clarity? > > I bet you're more aware and picky about the junk in your closet, that > you are about the junk in your brain. You might not ever wear again > that bell-bottom pair of pants, but at least you know exactly what > purpose it could serve. But do you know which of your beliefs makes > you feel like a success or a failure? You might think success > or failure depends entirely on results, but in reality, success is > just an idea. It's your beliefs, not the result of your actions which > declare you a winner. Your belief that the opinion of others is > important might be the main factor on how you view yourself > in this respect. > > Some beliefs are behavior inhibitors, and some are behavior boosters, > others are rather useless. Does a notion like " Consciousness is all " > change your mind? Would you feel any different if you believed > consciousness is just transient brain phenomena? Which beliefs have > practical value, which are only pacifiers? > > It seems to me, a belief inventory that would be function specific, > would greatly increase our clarity. Why does the idea of a never > ending universe seem more satisfying, than the idea of an universe > than would end at some point billions of years hence? Obviously, we > could not benefit either way. Yet, there it is. We want existence to > exist forever, even if we don't. But why? Is it because deep down we > feel, or at least hope, we are existence itself? > > Each idea we hold to be true, is shaping our mind in some way. It > seems the smart thing to do, to find out which one, does what. Few > people think they can act without consequences, but most belief they > can think with impunity. Hardly so, habitual thoughts shape > our brains by creating neural connections. They say, we are what we > eat, more accurately, would be to say, we are what we think. > > Pete > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 Werner, <<<<<<<<<<< What you meant with " attitue " couldn't it be that it is just the minde tired of all that never ending spiritual and philosophical crap ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> It could never be *just* anything... Consider the notion of " deconstruction " . What does that mean? Instead of seeing the notion of deconstruction as a philosophical " approach " , see it as part of a general pattern of " de-programming " . What I/Pete are talking about is deconstruction/deprogramming... less is more <<<<<<<<<<< Second, to get a " clear awareness " lets me wondering why at all ? Isn't that another assumption or belief ? Who is that entitity sweeping clean awareness ? What will be the outcome when finally awareness got clear, shiny eyes ? >>>>>>>>>>> No such thing as an " outcome " as I see it. No *result* to be obtained. It is all just programming/conditioning. There is no-one doing the programming. The notion of any someone is just an appearance. Nietsche said, " God is dead. " He should have said, " Ego is dead. " We are massaging each other's brains. We are programming/deprogramming/reprogamming each other via these messages we share. We are programs talking to programs. There is no- " body " anywhere in any of this. The programs here are sending " deconstruct signals " . Do you read me? Over and out. Bill Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > My attitude regarding any lurking ideas, beliefs, patterns of conduct > I might stumble across is to shoot first, don't ask any questions, and > incinerate the trash. > > The interesting thing about such a radical approach is that you don't > need any of that stuff; it is just clutter clogging the awareness process; > kinda like mental cholesterol. The mind is quite capable of coming up > with fresh responses without relying on memory. > > Indeed, as the clutter is cleared away and a clear empty mind remains > one comes to realize that there are *still* patterns of conditioning that > are almost invisible, they are so subtle, and that as the awareness > gets more clear the ability to recognize those subtle patterns gets > better. And upon recognition of the subtle patterns... merely seeing > them as constraints that are not needed, that are constraining the > freedom/openness of awareness... they dissolve/fall away. > > Bill > > > - > cerosoul > DirectApproach > Monday, June 28, 2004 8:29 AM > [DirectApproach] The Head Inventory > > > Have you ever done a head inventory? Do you know what's stored in > your brain? I don't mean nothing Freudian by it, like hidden > complexes, or repressed desires and fears. Just a simple inventory of > your main ideas, and beliefs. Do you know what your beliefs are, and > what they do for you? Which ones affect your conduct? Which, the way > you see yourself, and the world? Which affect the way you feel, and > which tells how to feel about certain feelings. Which, are just > clutter keeping your mind busy and preventing clarity? > > I bet you're more aware and picky about the junk in your closet, that > you are about the junk in your brain. You might not ever wear again > that bell-bottom pair of pants, but at least you know exactly what > purpose it could serve. But do you know which of your beliefs makes > you feel like a success or a failure? You might think success > or failure depends entirely on results, but in reality, success is > just an idea. It's your beliefs, not the result of your actions which > declare you a winner. Your belief that the opinion of others is > important might be the main factor on how you view yourself > in this respect. > > Some beliefs are behavior inhibitors, and some are behavior boosters, > others are rather useless. Does a notion like " Consciousness is all " > change your mind? Would you feel any different if you believed > consciousness is just transient brain phenomena? Which beliefs have > practical value, which are only pacifiers? > > It seems to me, a belief inventory that would be function specific, > would greatly increase our clarity. Why does the idea of a never > ending universe seem more satisfying, than the idea of an universe > than would end at some point billions of years hence? Obviously, we > could not benefit either way. Yet, there it is. We want existence to > exist forever, even if we don't. But why? Is it because deep down we > feel, or at least hope, we are existence itself? > > Each idea we hold to be true, is shaping our mind in some way. It > seems the smart thing to do, to find out which one, does what. Few > people think they can act without consequences, but most belief they > can think with impunity. Hardly so, habitual thoughts shape > our brains by creating neural connections. They say, we are what we > eat, more accurately, would be to say, we are what we think. > > Pete > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 Yes Bill, That we are here on the list to deprogram/deconstruct each other, I see that too. But when it comes to " clear awareness " then something in myself says " Wait a moment, hold on " because in my understanding consciousness is its content, that is ok but " awareness " already implies that there is someone who is aware. There is no one who is aware and therefore such a thing like awareness is an illusion, it simply doesn't exist. One often sees that awareness is used in the sense that ít is aware of consciousness and that is nonsense. Or am I wrong ? Btw, you ended your posting with " over and out " , are you a radio amateur ? Werner Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > > Werner, > > <<<<<<<<<<< > What you meant with " attitue " couldn't it be that it is just the > minde tired of all that never ending spiritual and philosophical > crap ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It could never be *just* anything... > > Consider the notion of " deconstruction " . > What does that mean? > Instead of seeing the notion of deconstruction as a philosophical > " approach " , see it as part of a general pattern of " de-programming " . > What I/Pete are talking about is deconstruction/deprogramming... > less is more > > > <<<<<<<<<<< > Second, to get a " clear awareness " lets me wondering why at all ? > Isn't that another assumption or belief ? Who is that entitity > sweeping clean awareness ? What will be the outcome when finally > awareness got clear, shiny eyes ? > >>>>>>>>>>> > No such thing as an " outcome " as I see it. > No *result* to be obtained. > > It is all just programming/conditioning. > There is no-one doing the programming. > The notion of any someone is just an appearance. > > Nietsche said, " God is dead. " > He should have said, " Ego is dead. " > > We are massaging each other's brains. > We are programming/deprogramming/reprogamming > each other via these messages we share. > We are programs talking to programs. > There is no- " body " anywhere in any of this. > > The programs here are sending " deconstruct signals " . > Do you read me? > Over and out. > > Bill > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > My attitude regarding any lurking ideas, beliefs, patterns of > conduct > > I might stumble across is to shoot first, don't ask any questions, > and > > incinerate the trash. > > > > The interesting thing about such a radical approach is that you > don't > > need any of that stuff; it is just clutter clogging the awareness > process; > > kinda like mental cholesterol. The mind is quite capable of coming > up > > with fresh responses without relying on memory. > > > > Indeed, as the clutter is cleared away and a clear empty mind > remains > > one comes to realize that there are *still* patterns of > conditioning that > > are almost invisible, they are so subtle, and that as the awareness > > gets more clear the ability to recognize those subtle patterns gets > > better. And upon recognition of the subtle patterns... merely seeing > > them as constraints that are not needed, that are constraining the > > freedom/openness of awareness... they dissolve/fall away. > > > > Bill > > > > > > - > > cerosoul > > DirectApproach > > Monday, June 28, 2004 8:29 AM > > [DirectApproach] The Head Inventory > > > > > > Have you ever done a head inventory? Do you know what's stored in > > your brain? I don't mean nothing Freudian by it, like hidden > > complexes, or repressed desires and fears. Just a simple inventory > of > > your main ideas, and beliefs. Do you know what your beliefs are, > and > > what they do for you? Which ones affect your conduct? Which, the > way > > you see yourself, and the world? Which affect the way you feel, and > > which tells how to feel about certain feelings. Which, are just > > clutter keeping your mind busy and preventing clarity? > > > > I bet you're more aware and picky about the junk in your closet, > that > > you are about the junk in your brain. You might not ever wear again > > that bell-bottom pair of pants, but at least you know exactly what > > purpose it could serve. But do you know which of your beliefs makes > > you feel like a success or a failure? You might think success > > or failure depends entirely on results, but in reality, success is > > just an idea. It's your beliefs, not the result of your actions > which > > declare you a winner. Your belief that the opinion of others is > > important might be the main factor on how you view yourself > > in this respect. > > > > Some beliefs are behavior inhibitors, and some are behavior > boosters, > > others are rather useless. Does a notion like " Consciousness is > all " > > change your mind? Would you feel any different if you believed > > consciousness is just transient brain phenomena? Which beliefs have > > practical value, which are only pacifiers? > > > > It seems to me, a belief inventory that would be function specific, > > would greatly increase our clarity. Why does the idea of a never > > ending universe seem more satisfying, than the idea of an universe > > than would end at some point billions of years hence? Obviously, we > > could not benefit either way. Yet, there it is. We want existence > to > > exist forever, even if we don't. But why? Is it because deep down > we > > feel, or at least hope, we are existence itself? > > > > Each idea we hold to be true, is shaping our mind in some way. It > > seems the smart thing to do, to find out which one, does what. Few > > people think they can act without consequences, but most belief > they > > can think with impunity. Hardly so, habitual thoughts shape > > our brains by creating neural connections. They say, we are what we > > eat, more accurately, would be to say, we are what we think. > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 Werner, I didn't actually use the term " clear awareness " , and I would throw up a flag if I saw it also. I spoke of " unclogging the awareness process " , but that use of the term " awareness " is metaphorical/figurative. Any notion of some *ideal* as " clear awareness " is delusion as I see it. The relation between " consciousness " and " awareness " is one that is rarely addressed. Nisargadatta does make a distinction and does so in a rather lucid way. In fact that was my orginal attraction to him... his very articulation around that point. Note that he does away with the observer if you read him carefully. I would not say that " consciousness is its content " but rather say that any so-called content is not independent of consciousness. It is a subtle distinction. To talk about the relation of consciousness and awareness requires clarification of the meaning of those two words. If I understand you aright, it seems we are close on an important point (one that I go into in my recent " Beyond Words " post)... As I read you, your use of " consciousness " is akin to my use of the term Appearance (in Beyond Words). Translating between our two usages: You are saying (as I see it): There is simply consciousness and its contents. The notion of awareness is unnessary, induced by the felt need to explain the appearance of consciousness and its contents by an observer. I am saying: There is simply Appearance. Anything that appears (what you call content) is only an appearance within Appearance. The notion of an observer is induced by a felt need to explain the existence of Appearance, but it is a useless and unnecessary construction and leads to endless confusion. It is a matter of Occam's Razor. Why bring in something to explain what is self-explanatory. Appearance is. End of story. Bill PS: My preference for the term Appearance over " consciousness " is that everyone seems to understand the statement: Appearance is, whereas the statement " consciousness is " is a bit obscure. It is not clear what " consciousness " is intended to mean. Do you have a definition? I'd be very interested. - Werner Woehr Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:11 PM Re: The Head Inventory Yes Bill, That we are here on the list to deprogram/deconstruct each other, I see that too. But when it comes to " clear awareness " then something in myself says " Wait a moment, hold on " because in my understanding consciousness is its content and " awareness " implies that there is someone who is aware. There is no one who is aware and therefore such a thing like awareness is an illusion, it simply doesn't exist. Or am I wrong ? Werner Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > > Werner, > > <<<<<<<<<<< > What you meant with " attitue " couldn't it be that it is just the > minde tired of all that never ending spiritual and philosophical > crap ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It could never be *just* anything... > > Consider the notion of " deconstruction " . > What does that mean? > Instead of seeing the notion of deconstruction as a philosophical > " approach " , see it as part of a general pattern of " de-programming " . > What I/Pete are talking about is deconstruction/deprogramming... > less is more > > > <<<<<<<<<<< > Second, to get a " clear awareness " lets me wondering why at all ? > Isn't that another assumption or belief ? Who is that entitity > sweeping clean awareness ? What will be the outcome when finally > awareness got clear, shiny eyes ? > >>>>>>>>>>> > No such thing as an " outcome " as I see it. > No *result* to be obtained. > > It is all just programming/conditioning. > There is no-one doing the programming. > The notion of any someone is just an appearance. > > Nietsche said, " God is dead. " > He should have said, " Ego is dead. " > > We are massaging each other's brains. > We are programming/deprogramming/reprogamming > each other via these messages we share. > We are programs talking to programs. > There is no- " body " anywhere in any of this. > > The programs here are sending " deconstruct signals " . > Do you read me? > Over and out. > > Bill > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > My attitude regarding any lurking ideas, beliefs, patterns of > conduct > > I might stumble across is to shoot first, don't ask any questions, > and > > incinerate the trash. > > > > The interesting thing about such a radical approach is that you > don't > > need any of that stuff; it is just clutter clogging the awareness > process; > > kinda like mental cholesterol. The mind is quite capable of coming > up > > with fresh responses without relying on memory. > > > > Indeed, as the clutter is cleared away and a clear empty mind > remains > > one comes to realize that there are *still* patterns of > conditioning that > > are almost invisible, they are so subtle, and that as the awareness > > gets more clear the ability to recognize those subtle patterns gets > > better. And upon recognition of the subtle patterns... merely seeing > > them as constraints that are not needed, that are constraining the > > freedom/openness of awareness... they dissolve/fall away. > > > > Bill > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 Dear Bill, You wrote: > I would not say that " consciousness is its content " but rather > say that any so-called content is not independent of > consciousness. It is a subtle distinction. And therefore herewith I proclaim a vehement official protest. It seems that you still believe in an independent separate consciousness. There is no such a thing. There is only the content which IS consciousness, if the content is gone then then that illusory consciousness is gone too. There is no content " appearing " in consciousness because the latter simply doesn't exist. That clean mirror thingy which is consciousness and in which the world appears or is reflected is utter nonsense. You also wrote: > The relation between " consciousness " and " awareness " is > one that is rarely addressed. That is not true, it is often used in such a way. When you use the term " to be aware of " then I want to ask you of what is awareness aware of ? Of what, huh ? Awareness is used as if there is someone who is aware of the content of consciousness. It is the same with attention and also with concentration - but in reality there is nothing but the content which IS consciousness. Surely it is true that one can say " to be aware of " in the sense " to be conscious of " which are just two expressions for the same thing. Concentration is focussing on a single content and attention is focussing on a stream of contents. Those contents ARE consciousness. The word " awareness " is always used in the sense of personalized consciousess like " I am aware of " , but because a " person " is an illusion awareness too is an illusion. Bill, I will end here but in the next posting I would like to answer your question what ideas I have about consciousness. I don't like to write so much and so I make a break, that's all. Werner Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Werner, > > I didn't actually use the term " clear awareness " , and I would > throw up a flag if I saw it also. I spoke of " unclogging the > awareness process " , but that use of the term " awareness " is > metaphorical/figurative. Any notion of some *ideal* as " clear > awareness " is delusion as I see it. > > The relation between " consciousness " and " awareness " is > one that is rarely addressed. Nisargadatta does make a > distinction and does so in a rather lucid way. In fact that was > my orginal attraction to him... his very articulation around that > point. Note that he does away with the observer if you read > him carefully. > > I would not say that " consciousness is its content " but rather > say that any so-called content is not independent of > consciousness. It is a subtle distinction. > > To talk about the relation of consciousness and awareness > requires clarification of the meaning of those two words. > > If I understand you aright, it seems we are close on an important > point (one that I go into in my recent " Beyond Words " post)... > > As I read you, your use of " consciousness " is akin to my use > of the term Appearance (in Beyond Words). Translating between > our two usages: > > You are saying (as I see it): > > There is simply consciousness and its contents. > The notion of awareness is unnessary, induced by > the felt need to explain the appearance of > consciousness and its contents by an observer. > > I am saying: > > There is simply Appearance. Anything that appears > (what you call content) is only an appearance > within Appearance. The notion of an observer is > induced by a felt need to explain the existence > of Appearance, but it is a useless and > unnecessary construction and leads to endless > confusion. > > It is a matter of Occam's Razor. Why bring in something > to explain what is self-explanatory. Appearance is. > End of story. > > > Bill > > PS: My preference for the term Appearance over > " consciousness " is that everyone seems to understand > the statement: Appearance is, whereas the statement > " consciousness is " is a bit obscure. It is not clear > what " consciousness " is intended to mean. Do you have > a definition? I'd be very interested. > > > > > - > Werner Woehr > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:11 PM > Re: The Head Inventory > > > Yes Bill, > > That we are here on the list to deprogram/deconstruct each other, I > see that too. > > But when it comes to " clear awareness " then something in myself > says " Wait a moment, hold on " because in my understanding > consciousness is its content and " awareness " implies that there is > someone who is aware. There is no one who is aware and therefore such > a thing like awareness is an illusion, it simply doesn't exist. > > Or am I wrong ? > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > > > Werner, > > > > <<<<<<<<<<< > > What you meant with " attitue " couldn't it be that it is just the > > minde tired of all that never ending spiritual and philosophical > > crap ? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > It could never be *just* anything... > > > > Consider the notion of " deconstruction " . > > What does that mean? > > Instead of seeing the notion of deconstruction as a philosophical > > " approach " , see it as part of a general pattern of " de- programming " . > > What I/Pete are talking about is deconstruction/deprogramming... > > less is more > > > > > > <<<<<<<<<<< > > Second, to get a " clear awareness " lets me wondering why at all ? > > Isn't that another assumption or belief ? Who is that entitity > > sweeping clean awareness ? What will be the outcome when finally > > awareness got clear, shiny eyes ? > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > No such thing as an " outcome " as I see it. > > No *result* to be obtained. > > > > It is all just programming/conditioning. > > There is no-one doing the programming. > > The notion of any someone is just an appearance. > > > > Nietsche said, " God is dead. " > > He should have said, " Ego is dead. " > > > > We are massaging each other's brains. > > We are programming/deprogramming/reprogamming > > each other via these messages we share. > > We are programs talking to programs. > > There is no- " body " anywhere in any of this. > > > > The programs here are sending " deconstruct signals " . > > Do you read me? > > Over and out. > > > > Bill > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > > wrote: > > > My attitude regarding any lurking ideas, beliefs, patterns of > > conduct > > > I might stumble across is to shoot first, don't ask any > questions, > > and > > > incinerate the trash. > > > > > > The interesting thing about such a radical approach is that you > > don't > > > need any of that stuff; it is just clutter clogging the awareness > > process; > > > kinda like mental cholesterol. The mind is quite capable of > coming > > up > > > with fresh responses without relying on memory. > > > > > > Indeed, as the clutter is cleared away and a clear empty mind > > remains > > > one comes to realize that there are *still* patterns of > > conditioning that > > > are almost invisible, they are so subtle, and that as the > awareness > > > gets more clear the ability to recognize those subtle patterns > gets > > > better. And upon recognition of the subtle patterns... merely > seeing > > > them as constraints that are not needed, that are constraining the > > > freedom/openness of awareness... they dissolve/fall away. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 Werner, > > I would not say that " consciousness is its content " but rather > > say that any so-called content is not independent of > > consciousness. It is a subtle distinction. > > And therefore herewith I proclaim a vehement official protest. It > seems that you still believe in an independent separate > consciousness. There is no such a thing. There is only the content > which IS consciousness, if the content is gone then then that > illusory consciousness is gone too. There is no content " appearing " > in consciousness because the latter simply doesn't exist. My notion is not consciousness, but Appearance. Appearance is not properly considered independent of anything, not because it is dependent, but because that is all there is. I consider any " content " to be illusory. When the apparent independence of any content is realized as such, then the seeming separateness of the content dissolves away and all that remains is undifferentialed Appearance. Appearance always is. Any apparent content is not real. A " particular content " can seem very very real. But it is only the delineation of the mind that projects an apparent entity-ship. Such projection is always false. In the buzz of Now, in the aliveness of What Is, such projections dissolve. The aliveness of What Is = Appearance. When is there ever *not* Appearance? Therefore Appearance is the one reality. > That clean mirror thingy which is consciousness and in which the > world appears or is reflected is utter nonsense. > > You also wrote: > > > The relation between " consciousness " and " awareness " is > > one that is rarely addressed. > > That is not true, it is often used in such a way. I mean to lucidly clarify the relation between the two. I don't mean to use the terms in passing. > When you use the term " to be aware of " then I want to ask you of what > is awareness aware of ? Of what, huh ? Awareness is used as if there > is someone who is aware of the content of consciousness. I have not defined awareness or consciousness. Those are ambiguous terms to me. I use them sometimes in passing, but always in a " figurative " way, not an analytic way. I invite you to define those terms if they are meaningful to you. > It is the > same with attention and also with concentration - but in reality > there is nothing but the content which IS consciousness. Surely it is > true that one can say " to be aware of " in the sense " to be conscious > of " which are just two expressions for the same thing. Are you saying then, that awareness and consciousness are not distinct, that they are synonyms (as you use them)? > Concentration is focussing on a single content and attention is > focussing on a stream of contents. Those contents ARE consciousness. > The word " awareness " is always used in the sense of personalized > consciousess like " I am aware of " , but because a " person " is an > illusion awareness too is an illusion. > > Bill, I will end here but in the next posting I would like to answer > your question what ideas I have about consciousness. I don't like to > write so much and so I make a break, that's all. > Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 Hi Bill, To answer your question: > Are you saying then, that awareness and consciousness are not > distinct, that they are synonyms (as you use them)? > No, I was saying that there is no such a thing as awareness, there is just consciousness which is its content, but one can use both words synonymously. For example in German there exist only one word for both English words: " bewusst " . There is another expression " gewahr sein " which is a mix of " to be conscious " and " to realize " . As I am starting to see our whole exchange wasn't neccessary because what you call " appearance " I called consciousness is its content. And I can understand why you prefer " appearance " becaus it already points to its transcient character. Werner Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Werner, > > > I would not say that " consciousness is its content " but rather > > > say that any so-called content is not independent of > > > consciousness. It is a subtle distinction. > > > > And therefore herewith I proclaim a vehement official protest. It > > seems that you still believe in an independent separate > > consciousness. There is no such a thing. There is only the content > > which IS consciousness, if the content is gone then then that > > illusory consciousness is gone too. There is no content " appearing " > > in consciousness because the latter simply doesn't exist. > > My notion is not consciousness, but Appearance. Appearance is > not properly considered independent of anything, not because > it is dependent, but because that is all there is. > > I consider any " content " to be illusory. When the apparent > independence of any content is realized as such, then the > seeming separateness of the content dissolves away and all > that remains is undifferentialed Appearance. > > Appearance always is. Any apparent content is not real. > A " particular content " can seem very very real. But it is > only the delineation of the mind that projects an apparent > entity-ship. Such projection is always false. > > In the buzz of Now, in the aliveness of What Is, such projections > dissolve. The aliveness of What Is = Appearance. > > When is there ever *not* Appearance? > > Therefore Appearance is the one reality. > > > That clean mirror thingy which is consciousness and in which the > > world appears or is reflected is utter nonsense. > > > > You also wrote: > > > > > The relation between " consciousness " and " awareness " is > > > one that is rarely addressed. > > > > That is not true, it is often used in such a way. > > I mean to lucidly clarify the relation between the two. > I don't mean to use the terms in passing. > > > When you use the term " to be aware of " then I want to ask you of what > > is awareness aware of ? Of what, huh ? Awareness is used as if there > > is someone who is aware of the content of consciousness. > > I have not defined awareness or consciousness. Those are > ambiguous terms to me. I use them sometimes in passing, but > always in a " figurative " way, not an analytic way. I invite > you to define those terms if they are meaningful to you. > > > It is the > > same with attention and also with concentration - but in reality > > there is nothing but the content which IS consciousness. Surely it is > > true that one can say " to be aware of " in the sense " to be conscious > > of " which are just two expressions for the same thing. > > Are you saying then, that awareness and consciousness are not > distinct, that they are synonyms (as you use them)? > > > Concentration is focussing on a single content and attention is > > focussing on a stream of contents. Those contents ARE consciousness. > > The word " awareness " is always used in the sense of personalized > > consciousess like " I am aware of " , but because a " person " is an > > illusion awareness too is an illusion. > > > > Bill, I will end here but in the next posting I would like to answer > > your question what ideas I have about consciousness. I don't like to > > write so much and so I make a break, that's all. > > > > Bill > > > 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.