Fairy Tale Consciousness (was: Fearlessness 2)/Werner

August 28, 2004

Werner,

Re:

<<<

....your fairy tale trip that

you are pure consciousness is just a belief which many gurus and

satsang teachers have told and repeated before so often, but it is

nonsense.

>>>

Out of idle curiousity, would you put the notion of awareness in the

same category as you have put the notion of consciousness above?

Bill

August 29, 2004

Hi Bill,

To be able to answer your questíon I have looked in my English-German

dictionary:

Awareness = Bewusstsein

Consciousness = Bewusstsein

You see in German both are the same. So it is on you to tell me the

difference.

But:

I have read your reply to Anders in which you seem to see that

strange thing " pure awareness " which you think you are and I deny

that.

If you want to tell me that I am pure awareness - no chance. We

cannot meet here. I rather suspect that you have found just another

backdoor to romanticism with " awareness " . But we can meet if you

could see awareness as " the split " = self-awareness or self-

consciousness which is in a very strict sense neurosis.

Awareness = neurosis. Which means, awakening or realization is the

ending of awareness (neurosis).

Werner

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> Werner,

> Re:

> <<<

> ...your fairy tale trip that

> you are pure consciousness is just a belief which many gurus and

> satsang teachers have told and repeated before so often, but it is

> nonsense.

> >>>

>

> Out of idle curiousity, would you put the notion of awareness in the

> same category as you have put the notion of consciousness above?

>

> Bill

>

August 29, 2004

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote:

> Hi Bill,

>

> To be able to answer your questíon I have looked in my English-German

> dictionary:

>

> Awareness = Bewusstsein

> Consciousness = Bewusstsein

>

> You see in German both are the same. So it is on you to tell me the

> difference.

Dear Friend,

to be conscious is a state, awareness needs an object. You can be

aware of you being conscious. Unfortunately the German language has no

distinct terms for those. Therefore " awareness " is often translated as

" Aufmerksamkeit " , which is not 100% accurate but at least can help to

grasp the meaning. Furthermore there is more confusion, because

Nisargadatta was talking in Marathi, an Indian language. And, very

important, he is often referring to the Sanskrit terminology when he

is talking about the Vedanta tradition. In Sanskrit there are dozens

of different words which can be translsted as " consciousness " or

" awareness " but are describing different aspects (Ahamkara, Akhanda,

Atma, Ayamatama Brahma, Brahman, Chaitanyam, Chidabhasa, Chit,

Jnanam, Pratyagatma, Sakshi...). I am afraid unless you study and

understand this (rather complex) context it is not possible to discuss

this issue in depths.

But anyway, Nisargadatta has said:

" Putting words together will not take you far. Go within and discover

what you are not. Nothing else matters. "

So, as you can see, the point is experiencing and finding out for

yourself, not discussing terms. It is also not about your " Weltbild " ,

your opinions, it is about what is left if those are taken away.

Two quotes from Nisargadatta on this subject:

" Be aware of being conscious and seek the source of consciousness -

that is all "

" Since it is awareness that makes consciousness possible, there is

awareness in every state of consciousness. Therefore, the very

consciousness of being conscious is already a movement in awareness.

Interest in your stream of consciousness takes you to awareness. It is

not a new state. It is at once recognized as the original, basic

existence, which is life itself, and also love and joy "

I hope this helps a little

Stefan

August 29, 2004

Hi Stefan,

Thanks for your attempt of clarifying awareness, or better to remind

not to stick to much to words. Here I go with you.

But during a conversation via postings how to meet without words, and

how to tell one's views ?

You wrote that I am aware of being conscious and I have to say that

this " awareness " is an artefact created by thought. There is no " I "

which is aware of being conscious, there is only consciousness and

that again is its content. There is no consciousness without a

content.

Awareness is an illusion created by separation which is effort and

because of this effort I have to see awareness as synonymous to

neurosis. Without a " me " there is no awareness.

Werner

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

wrote:

> > Hi Bill,

> >

> > To be able to answer your questíon I have looked in my English-

German

> > dictionary:

> >

> > Awareness = Bewusstsein

> > Consciousness = Bewusstsein

> >

> > You see in German both are the same. So it is on you to tell me

the

> > difference.

>

> Dear Friend,

>

> to be conscious is a state, awareness needs an object. You can be

> aware of you being conscious. Unfortunately the German language has

no

> distinct terms for those. Therefore " awareness " is often translated

as

> " Aufmerksamkeit " , which is not 100% accurate but at least can help

to

> grasp the meaning. Furthermore there is more confusion, because

> Nisargadatta was talking in Marathi, an Indian language. And, very

> important, he is often referring to the Sanskrit terminology when he

> is talking about the Vedanta tradition. In Sanskrit there are dozens

> of different words which can be translsted as " consciousness " or

> " awareness " but are describing different aspects (Ahamkara, Akhanda,

> Atma, Ayamatama Brahma, Brahman, Chaitanyam, Chidabhasa, Chit,

> Jnanam, Pratyagatma, Sakshi...). I am afraid unless you study and

> understand this (rather complex) context it is not possible to

discuss

> this issue in depths.

>

> But anyway, Nisargadatta has said:

> " Putting words together will not take you far. Go within and

discover

> what you are not. Nothing else matters. "

>

> So, as you can see, the point is experiencing and finding out for

> yourself, not discussing terms. It is also not about

your " Weltbild " ,

> your opinions, it is about what is left if those are taken away.

>

> Two quotes from Nisargadatta on this subject:

>

> " Be aware of being conscious and seek the source of consciousness -

> that is all "

>

> " Since it is awareness that makes consciousness possible, there is

> awareness in every state of consciousness. Therefore, the very

> consciousness of being conscious is already a movement in awareness.

> Interest in your stream of consciousness takes you to awareness. It

is

> not a new state. It is at once recognized as the original, basic

> existence, which is life itself, and also love and joy "

>

> I hope this helps a little

> Stefan

August 29, 2004

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

wrote:

> Hi Stefan,

>

> Thanks for your attempt of clarifying awareness, or better to

remind

> not to stick to much to words. Here I go with you.

>

> But during a conversation via postings how to meet without words,

and

> how to tell one's views ?

>

> You wrote that I am aware of being conscious and I have to say that

> this " awareness " is an artefact created by thought. There is no " I "

> which is aware of being conscious, there is only consciousness and

> that again is its content. There is no consciousness without a

> content.

>

> Awareness is an illusion created by separation which is effort and

> because of this effort I have to see awareness as synonymous to

> neurosis. Without a " me " there is no awareness.

>

> Werner

>

Is this what's happening now, Werner? Or are you saying without a

body there is no awareness? Or are you saying without a 'me' there is

no self-awareness?

Pete

August 29, 2004

Hi Pete,

I don't quite understand what you want either me to see or you to to

tell. I only can answer that's how I see it.

BTW, As I read in one of your posts you already are retired. How old

are you now ? I am 63.

Werner

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

> wrote:

> > Hi Stefan,

> >

> > Thanks for your attempt of clarifying awareness, or better to

> remind

> > not to stick to much to words. Here I go with you.

> >

> > But during a conversation via postings how to meet without words,

> and

> > how to tell one's views ?

> >

> > You wrote that I am aware of being conscious and I have to say

that

> > this " awareness " is an artefact created by thought. There is

no " I "

> > which is aware of being conscious, there is only consciousness

and

> > that again is its content. There is no consciousness without a

> > content.

> >

> > Awareness is an illusion created by separation which is effort

and

> > because of this effort I have to see awareness as synonymous to

> > neurosis. Without a " me " there is no awareness.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> Is this what's happening now, Werner? Or are you saying without a

> body there is no awareness? Or are you saying without a 'me' there

is

> no self-awareness?

>

> Pete

August 29, 2004

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

wrote:

Hi Werner,

I fail to see the connection between the me an awareness. I can see

the connection between the me and self-awareness. I was wondering,

if you could tell me which of the two are you referring to.

I agree with you that consciousness is a side show, a hunting tool

developed by multi-cellular marine animals as they began hunting,

instead of waiting for their food to drift into their mouths.

Awareness appears and vanishes in the un-consciousness of the

absolute. And it is that un-consciousness which is our true nature.

How old am I?I'm ahead of you by four years.

Pete

> Hi Pete,

>

> I don't quite understand what you want either me to see or you to

to

> tell. I only can answer that's how I see it.

>

> BTW, As I read in one of your posts you already are retired. How

old

> are you now ? I am 63.

>

> Werner

>

>. Without a " me " there is no awareness.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > Is this what's happening now, Werner? Or are you saying without a

> > body there is no awareness? Or are you saying without a 'me'

there

> is

> > no self-awareness?

> >

> > Pete

August 29, 2004

Wow Pete !

67 years. Strangely, when watching my thoughts I always see the child

and no adult arround. That brought me to the conclusion that if there

is something like adulthood it must be realization or more precise

the ending of identification.

Ok, thanks for clarifying your question, I didn't get what you want.

I even got the impression you asking me if I got a license to make

statementes like awareness = neurosis )

Ok Pete, I would love to bring the whole truth to you, but the only I

have to offer are some observations, stuff I read and the conclusion

my old brain is capable to draw from those. What I can observe is

when I got the impression that I AM AWARE of something there is

always this split active: I am here and the world is there.

I am seeing more and more it is better to rely on my own sights than

just repeating what others wrote (which mostly again is just

repeating what they have read). And I cannot realize something I

could call awareness besides this split " me and the world " .

Therefore I do no longer believe that awareness exists. In my view

there is only consciousness whích again is just a function of the

brain. Good bye romance, good bye higher states, good bye dreams.

Hope I didn't disappoint you to much, I haven't found the key to

heavens.

Werner

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

> wrote:

>

> Hi Werner,

> I fail to see the connection between the me an awareness. I can see

> the connection between the me and self-awareness. I was wondering,

> if you could tell me which of the two are you referring to.

> I agree with you that consciousness is a side show, a hunting tool

> developed by multi-cellular marine animals as they began hunting,

> instead of waiting for their food to drift into their mouths.

> Awareness appears and vanishes in the un-consciousness of the

> absolute. And it is that un-consciousness which is our true nature.

>

> How old am I?I'm ahead of you by four years.

>

> Pete

>

> > Hi Pete,

> >

> > I don't quite understand what you want either me to see or you to

> to

> > tell. I only can answer that's how I see it.

> >

> > BTW, As I read in one of your posts you already are retired. How

> old

> > are you now ? I am 63.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> >. Without a " me " there is no awareness.

> > > >

> > > > Werner

> > > >

> > > Is this what's happening now, Werner? Or are you saying without

a

> > > body there is no awareness? Or are you saying without a 'me'

> there

> > is

> > > no self-awareness?

> > >

> > > Pete

August 29, 2004

>> Good bye romance, good bye higher states, good bye dreams.>>

Lieber Werner,

Herzlichen Glueckwunsch (congratulations:)!

As Balsekar sez, life will not get easier but much more

simpler...actually, the same Jesus said about the simple

ones...ihnen ist das Reich Gottes!

Kip Almazy

August 30, 2004

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

wrote:

> Wow Pete !

>

> 67 years. Strangely, when watching my thoughts I always see the

child

> and no adult arround. That brought me to the conclusion that if

there

> is something like adulthood it must be realization or more precise

> the ending of identification.

>

> Ok, thanks for clarifying your question, I didn't get what you

want.

> I even got the impression you asking me if I got a license to make

> statementes like awareness = neurosis )

>

> Ok Pete, I would love to bring the whole truth to you, but the only

I

> have to offer are some observations, stuff I read and the

conclusion

> my old brain is capable to draw from those. What I can observe is

> when I got the impression that I AM AWARE of something there is

> always this split active: I am here and the world is there.

P: Ok, that seems like self-consciousness.

>

> I am seeing more and more it is better to rely on my own sights

than

> just repeating what others wrote (which mostly again is just

> repeating what they have read). And I cannot realize something I

> could call awareness besides this split " me and the world " .

P: I have have noticed that the split is sustained by the mind

insatiable

hunger for new sensations, and experiences. The mind doesn't seem to

trust that sensations are never ending, that it not do anything for

their renewal. Also the mind insist on having certain kind and not

another. When somehow, the mind sees the futility of this game, and

relax and observes whithout bias, the split between me and the world

blurs and fades.

>

> Therefore I do no longer believe that awareness exists. In my view

> there is only consciousness whích again is just a function of the

> brain. Good bye romance, good bye higher states, good bye dreams.

P: Yes, there is no consciousness without a body. Once the mind

accepts un-consciousness as a good thing, as that, that was before

birth,

as that, that comes with sleep, and will return with death, all is

well.

>

> Hope I didn't disappoint you to much, I haven't found the key to

> heavens.

>

P: No, I'm not disappointed. I think you're doing fine. I'm very happy

with your condition. Happier than you, I'm sure!

>

August 30, 2004

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

wrote:

>Therefore I do no longer believe that awareness exists. In my view

>there is only consciousness whích again is just a function of the

>brain. Good bye romance, good bye higher states, good bye dreams.

Dear Werner,

I hope I dont bother you. I am trying to follow your thoughts and some

questions do arise. Please correct me if I have misunderstood

something:

1.You observe awareness as an artificial result of thinking (you call

it neurosis).

2.When this thinking is taken away, there is still consciousness, it

is the only " thing " that really does exist.

3.But even this consciousness is a function of your brain (and will

cease once your brain is dead).

Here are my questions:

1. How do you know that this consciousness does exist?

2. How do you know that this consciousness is a function of the brain?

3. Is this your observation, your belief or did you draw a logical

conclusion?

4. However you came to this result, what is it worth when you reached

there with artificial, dualistic means like awareness and thinking?

BTW, I do not want to start an intellectual discussion.

Best wishes

Stefan

August 31, 2004

Hi Stefan,

To answer all your questions I had to write an autobiography and even

that won't help to find the roots of " how do you " .

You don't have to take what I wrote. But if these statements I made

did trigger some curiosity or to go deeper into, you are free to do

it on your own.

Search with Google expressions like " neurology and

consciousness " , " free will and neurology " . In addition very

interesting and stimulating are articles about solipsism. There are

also a lot in the web which are written in German.

Werner

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

> wrote:

>

> >Therefore I do no longer believe that awareness exists. In my view

> >there is only consciousness whích again is just a function of the

> >brain. Good bye romance, good bye higher states, good bye dreams.

>

> Dear Werner,

>

> I hope I dont bother you. I am trying to follow your thoughts and

some

> questions do arise. Please correct me if I have misunderstood

> something:

>

> 1.You observe awareness as an artificial result of thinking (you

call

> it neurosis).

> 2.When this thinking is taken away, there is still consciousness, it

> is the only " thing " that really does exist.

> 3.But even this consciousness is a function of your brain (and will

> cease once your brain is dead).

>

> Here are my questions:

>

> 1. How do you know that this consciousness does exist?

> 2. How do you know that this consciousness is a function of the

brain?

> 3. Is this your observation, your belief or did you draw a logical

> conclusion?

> 4. However you came to this result, what is it worth when you

reached

> there with artificial, dualistic means like awareness and thinking?

>

> BTW, I do not want to start an intellectual discussion.

>

> Best wishes

> Stefan

August 31, 2004

Dear Kipalmazy,

Thanks a lot for your short message. I really feel encouraged by it

and yes, I arlready realized this trend towards simplicity and I feel

fine with it.

Werner

Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy>

wrote:

> >> Good bye romance, good bye higher states, good bye dreams.>>

>

> Lieber Werner,

>

> Herzlichen Glueckwunsch (congratulations:)!

>

> As Balsekar sez, life will not get easier but much more

> simpler...actually, the same Jesus said about the simple

> ones...ihnen ist das Reich Gottes!

>

> Kip Almazy

August 31, 2004

Dear Werner,

I was not expecting that you give me your biography. Like you I don't

belief that the roots of " how do you " can be found in any biography.

Which does not mean that I am saying that the story of your life would

not be very interesting, I am sure it would be :-)

The questions that I have asked are my own questions. Probably it was

misleading that I have embedded the word " you " in them. I am not

interested in more concepts. I tried to exercise simple reasoning...

Let me say what I wanted to say in another form. I think I could

follow you at least in those points that I have collected in my last

posting. I come to the same results like you except the last point

that you seem to be sure that even this " unsplit " consciousness is a

function of the brain. My - rather intuitive -feeling is, that my body

is part of this conciousness and not vice versa. Also with reasoning I

come to the same result: because, if something exists even if thinking

and awareness is eliminated, then this SOMETHING cannot be personal

nor dependent on a person. No-duality = no-body. And if it is not part

of this person it cannot die like this person. I wonder how you would

explain this. Maybe there is a wrong step in my thinking. Maybe I am

right, but then I have also to admit that finally it does not make

much difference...

Greetings

Stefan

P.S. Thank you also for your tipps about resources in the net...

sounds like headache... :-)))

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

wrote:

> Hi Stefan,

>

> To answer all your questions I had to write an autobiography and

even

> that won't help to find the roots of " how do you " .

>

> You don't have to take what I wrote. But if these statements I made

> did trigger some curiosity or to go deeper into, you are free to do

> it on your own.

>

> Search with Google expressions like " neurology and

> consciousness " , " free will and neurology " . In addition very

> interesting and stimulating are articles about solipsism. There are

> also a lot in the web which are written in German.

>

> Werner

August 31, 2004

Awareness = Bewusstsein

Consciousness = Bewusstsein

You see in German both are the same. So it is on you to tell me the

difference.

>>>>

I'm not trying to tell you anything Werner. It was not a rhetorical

question. In fact, that they are the same in German reinforces a

hunch of mine that different people use those terms quite differently

without realizing it, with some using " consciousness " in a way that

is much like the way others use " awareness " .

As for myself, I am finding myself not feeling either word as being

especially important. They are not " key words " for me. They are

both " theoretical " notions, as I see it.

As for " pure awareness " , I don't know what comment I made that

you might be referring to... but that term does not scratch any

special itch for me.

When there is no sense/experience of separation, how can there

be a sense of awareness or consciousness at all? (This question

*is* rhetorical.)

Bill

-

Werner Woehr

Nisargadatta

Sunday, August 29, 2004 1:05 AM

Re: Fairy Tale Consciousness (was: Fearlessness

2)/Werner

Hi Bill,

To be able to answer your questíon I have looked in my English-German

dictionary:

Awareness = Bewusstsein

Consciousness = Bewusstsein

You see in German both are the same. So it is on you to tell me the

difference.

But:

I have read your reply to Anders in which you seem to see that

strange thing " pure awareness " which you think you are and I deny

that.

If you want to tell me that I am pure awareness - no chance. We

cannot meet here. I rather suspect that you have found just another

backdoor to romanticism with " awareness " . But we can meet if you

could see awareness as " the split " = self-awareness or self-

consciousness which is in a very strict sense neurosis.

Awareness = neurosis. Which means, awakening or realization is the

ending of awareness (neurosis).

Werner

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> Werner,

> Re:

> <<<

> ...your fairy tale trip that

> you are pure consciousness is just a belief which many gurus and

> satsang teachers have told and repeated before so often, but it is

> nonsense.

> >>>

>

> Out of idle curiousity, would you put the notion of awareness in the

> same category as you have put the notion of consciousness above?

>

> Bill

>

August 31, 2004

But anyway, Nisargadatta has said:

" Putting words together will not take you far. Go within and discover

what you are not. Nothing else matters. "

>>>

Such a great quote!

And marvelous post Stefan.

Bill

-

Stefan

Nisargadatta

Sunday, August 29, 2004 5:53 AM