Guest guest Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 In the world of manifestation we have objects. With a question such as 'who am I?' we can see that an individual self also is an object; a very complex object, but still an object. So then such question reformulates into 'what is an object?'. Is our universe seen as a whole also an object? Can an object see itself? Is awareness an object? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > In the world of manifestation we have objects. With a question such as > 'who am I?' we can see that an individual self also is an object; a > very complex object, but still an object. So then such question > reformulates into 'what is an object?'. Is our universe seen as a > whole also an object? Can an object see itself? Is awareness an object? > > /AL ____________________ This is old news from Wei Wu but I will post anyways in case someone has not read it yet. ____________________ Why Are We Unaware of Awareness? The answer is that split-mind, cognising by means of a subject cognising objects, cannot cognise its own 'wholeness' as its object. There is no need to cognise our 'wholeness', and it is forever impossible to do so, for there is no 'thing' here to cognise and no 'thing' there to be cognised. Any attempt to cognise what is cognising - and is thereby incognisable - forbids apperception of what-we-are. Such apperception is not a function of split-mind. It can only be an im-mediate apperception released by some sensorial stimulus - auditory, visual, tactile, or of an unrecognisable origin. The supreme obstacle to such apperception, in our space-time context of consciousness, lies in attributing subjectivity to phenomenal objects, and objectivity to what is subjective. Mind cannot be reached by mind, as Huang Po stated. The attempt is itself an obstacle. Awareness is no thing of which we (who are This) can be aware. Knowing this, understanding this, is not awareness of Awareness. Awareness is no kind of knowledge. All knowledge is conceptual, all conceptuality inheres in the space-time continuum. There is a solution of continuity between knowledge and Awareness. If one were to say that auditory apprehension might reveal it - such might be an indication of what is implied, but quite certainly not in the sense of deliberately listening to music - nor of deliberately looking at any object, touching any 'thing', or seizing any thought. Why is that so? Because split-mind must be in abeyance, and 'we' must be absent for Awareness to be present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > In the world of manifestation we have objects. With a question such as > 'who am I?' we can see that an individual self also is an object; a > very complex object, but still an object. So then such question > reformulates into 'what is an object?'. Is our universe seen as a > whole also an object? Can an object see itself? Is awareness an object? > > /AL So now, instead of dealing with the circular and uncomfortable question 'who am I?' we can directly deal with the more basic question 'what is an object?'. The first thing to recognize before we even begin to break that question down into streams of analysis is to look at the question itself. What is that question? It's an object, isn't it? The question is itself also an object. A complete answer to any question is one that completes the question as an object by joining it with another object which makes the question/answer a whole and complete part of the context in which both the question and the answer exists. This is what produces an 'aha!'-feeling. What we have by asking the general question: 'what is an object?' is a general object, for which the answer must be equally general. This means that the context we are now dealing with is not partial but embraces all of existence - the entire world of manifested objects. In order for the answer to be complete it must join the question and together with it form the whole context which in this case is the entire manifestation of objects. We now have a question in the form of an object and an answer in the form of another object, and the question and the answer must together embrace the entire context in which they exist due to the general nature of the question. The answer to the question 'what is an object?' therefore is all other objects in existence seen as an answer to the question. By this we directly recognize that the answer is complete, yet so general that is does not give us any information other than the important fact of having exhausted all analysis on the level of objects. The question and the answer have cancelled each other out and what is left is what we can call awareness, or the non-object acting as the observer of objects. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Hi Anders, Way to complicated. The object question is much more simple: The object is the subject. There is no separate subject. In addition I could see that you still cling to the idea that there is an awareness which is separate from from objects and is the observer. You are the creator of the world. You are the world and the world is you. The observer is the observed. The thinker is the thought. The seer is the seen. The taster is the tasted. The smeller is the smelled. Consciousness is its content. If you touch an object, its tactile qualities are just those your finger tips allow to sense, and not more and not less. If your fingers are numb or their nerves are dead then there is no object you could touch. If you are blind then there is no object you could see. If you are deaf then sounds don't exist. The object is the subject. There is no separate awareness or consciousness which is you the observer. There is only THAT, and not as you constantly believe: Awareness and THAT. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > In the world of manifestation we have objects. With a question such as > > 'who am I?' we can see that an individual self also is an object; a > > very complex object, but still an object. So then such question > > reformulates into 'what is an object?'. Is our universe seen as a > > whole also an object? Can an object see itself? Is awareness an object? > > > > /AL > > So now, instead of dealing with the circular and uncomfortable > question 'who am I?' we can directly deal with the more basic question > 'what is an object?'. The first thing to recognize before we even > begin to break that question down into streams of analysis is to look > at the question itself. What is that question? It's an object, isn't > it? The question is itself also an object. A complete answer to any > question is one that completes the question as an object by joining it > with another object which makes the question/answer a whole and > complete part of the context in which both the question and the answer > exists. This is what produces an 'aha!'-feeling. > > What we have by asking the general question: 'what is an object?' is a > general object, for which the answer must be equally general. This > means that the context we are now dealing with is not partial but > embraces all of existence - the entire world of manifested objects. In > order for the answer to be complete it must join the question and > together with it form the whole context which in this case is the > entire manifestation of objects. We now have a question in the form of > an object and an answer in the form of another object, and the > question and the answer must together embrace the entire context in > which they exist due to the general nature of the question. The answer > to the question 'what is an object?' therefore is all other objects in > existence seen as an answer to the question. > > By this we directly recognize that the answer is complete, yet so > general that is does not give us any information other than the > important fact of having exhausted all analysis on the level of > objects. The question and the answer have cancelled each other out and > what is left is what we can call awareness, or the non-object acting > as the observer of objects. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > Way to complicated. The object question is much more simple: The > object is the subject. There is no separate subject. > > In addition I could see that you still cling to the idea that there > is an awareness which is separate from from objects and is the > observer. > > You are the creator of the world. You are the world and the world is > you. > > The observer is the observed. The thinker is the thought. The seer is > the seen. The taster is the tasted. The smeller is the smelled. > Consciousness is its content. > > If you touch an object, its tactile qualities are just those your > finger tips allow to sense, and not more and not less. If your > fingers are numb or their nerves are dead then there is no object you > could touch. > > If you are blind then there is no object you could see. If you are > deaf then sounds don't exist. > > The object is the subject. There is no separate awareness or > consciousness which is you the observer. > > There is only THAT, and not as you constantly believe: Awareness and > THAT. > > > Werner Hi Werner, I thought I had made a smart analysis of the fundamental question, in a minimal and simple formulation. Now you are telling me it was too complicated. I feel I have run out of clever arguments. Damn! /AL > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > In the world of manifestation we have objects. With a question > such as > > > 'who am I?' we can see that an individual self also is an object; > a > > > very complex object, but still an object. So then such question > > > reformulates into 'what is an object?'. Is our universe seen as a > > > whole also an object? Can an object see itself? Is awareness an > object? > > > > > > /AL > > > > So now, instead of dealing with the circular and uncomfortable > > question 'who am I?' we can directly deal with the more basic > question > > 'what is an object?'. The first thing to recognize before we even > > begin to break that question down into streams of analysis is to > look > > at the question itself. What is that question? It's an object, isn't > > it? The question is itself also an object. A complete answer to any > > question is one that completes the question as an object by joining > it > > with another object which makes the question/answer a whole and > > complete part of the context in which both the question and the > answer > > exists. This is what produces an 'aha!'-feeling. > > > > What we have by asking the general question: 'what is an object?' > is a > > general object, for which the answer must be equally general. This > > means that the context we are now dealing with is not partial but > > embraces all of existence - the entire world of manifested objects. > In > > order for the answer to be complete it must join the question and > > together with it form the whole context which in this case is the > > entire manifestation of objects. We now have a question in the form > of > > an object and an answer in the form of another object, and the > > question and the answer must together embrace the entire context in > > which they exist due to the general nature of the question. The > answer > > to the question 'what is an object?' therefore is all other objects > in > > existence seen as an answer to the question. > > > > By this we directly recognize that the answer is complete, yet so > > general that is does not give us any information other than the > > important fact of having exhausted all analysis on the level of > > objects. The question and the answer have cancelled each other out > and > > what is left is what we can call awareness, or the non-object acting > > as the observer of objects. > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 All ok, Anders I always was and still am an admirer of your humour. But tell me, can you now accept that the object is the subject and that there is no stand-alone awareness which is separate from the object ? Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > Way to complicated. The object question is much more simple: The > > object is the subject. There is no separate subject. > > > > In addition I could see that you still cling to the idea that there > > is an awareness which is separate from from objects and is the > > observer. > > > > You are the creator of the world. You are the world and the world is > > you. > > > > The observer is the observed. The thinker is the thought. The seer is > > the seen. The taster is the tasted. The smeller is the smelled. > > Consciousness is its content. > > > > If you touch an object, its tactile qualities are just those your > > finger tips allow to sense, and not more and not less. If your > > fingers are numb or their nerves are dead then there is no object you > > could touch. > > > > If you are blind then there is no object you could see. If you are > > deaf then sounds don't exist. > > > > The object is the subject. There is no separate awareness or > > consciousness which is you the observer. > > > > There is only THAT, and not as you constantly believe: Awareness and > > THAT. > > > > > > Werner > > Hi Werner, > > I thought I had made a smart analysis of the fundamental question, in > a minimal and simple formulation. Now you are telling me it was too > complicated. I feel I have run out of clever arguments. Damn! > > /AL > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > In the world of manifestation we have objects. With a question > > such as > > > > 'who am I?' we can see that an individual self also is an object; > > a > > > > very complex object, but still an object. So then such question > > > > reformulates into 'what is an object?'. Is our universe seen as a > > > > whole also an object? Can an object see itself? Is awareness an > > object? > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > So now, instead of dealing with the circular and uncomfortable > > > question 'who am I?' we can directly deal with the more basic > > question > > > 'what is an object?'. The first thing to recognize before we even > > > begin to break that question down into streams of analysis is to > > look > > > at the question itself. What is that question? It's an object, isn't > > > it? The question is itself also an object. A complete answer to any > > > question is one that completes the question as an object by joining > > it > > > with another object which makes the question/answer a whole and > > > complete part of the context in which both the question and the > > answer > > > exists. This is what produces an 'aha!'-feeling. > > > > > > What we have by asking the general question: 'what is an object?' > > is a > > > general object, for which the answer must be equally general. This > > > means that the context we are now dealing with is not partial but > > > embraces all of existence - the entire world of manifested objects. > > In > > > order for the answer to be complete it must join the question and > > > together with it form the whole context which in this case is the > > > entire manifestation of objects. We now have a question in the form > > of > > > an object and an answer in the form of another object, and the > > > question and the answer must together embrace the entire context in > > > which they exist due to the general nature of the question. The > > answer > > > to the question 'what is an object?' therefore is all other objects > > in > > > existence seen as an answer to the question. > > > > > > By this we directly recognize that the answer is complete, yet so > > > general that is does not give us any information other than the > > > important fact of having exhausted all analysis on the level of > > > objects. The question and the answer have cancelled each other out > > and > > > what is left is what we can call awareness, or the non-object acting > > > as the observer of objects. > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > All ok, Anders > > I always was and still am an admirer of your humour. > > But tell me, can you now accept that the object is the subject and > that there is no stand-alone awareness which is separate from the > object ? > > Werner But doesn't that mean that nobody has separate awareness? /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > Way to complicated. The object question is much more simple: The > > > object is the subject. There is no separate subject. > > > > > > In addition I could see that you still cling to the idea that > there > > > is an awareness which is separate from from objects and is the > > > observer. > > > > > > You are the creator of the world. You are the world and the world > is > > > you. > > > > > > The observer is the observed. The thinker is the thought. The > seer is > > > the seen. The taster is the tasted. The smeller is the smelled. > > > Consciousness is its content. > > > > > > If you touch an object, its tactile qualities are just those your > > > finger tips allow to sense, and not more and not less. If your > > > fingers are numb or their nerves are dead then there is no object > you > > > could touch. > > > > > > If you are blind then there is no object you could see. If you are > > > deaf then sounds don't exist. > > > > > > The object is the subject. There is no separate awareness or > > > consciousness which is you the observer. > > > > > > There is only THAT, and not as you constantly believe: Awareness > and > > > THAT. > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > I thought I had made a smart analysis of the fundamental question, > in > > a minimal and simple formulation. Now you are telling me it was too > > complicated. I feel I have run out of clever arguments. Damn! > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In the world of manifestation we have objects. With a > question > > > such as > > > > > 'who am I?' we can see that an individual self also is an > object; > > > a > > > > > very complex object, but still an object. So then such > question > > > > > reformulates into 'what is an object?'. Is our universe seen > as a > > > > > whole also an object? Can an object see itself? Is awareness > an > > > object? > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > So now, instead of dealing with the circular and uncomfortable > > > > question 'who am I?' we can directly deal with the more basic > > > question > > > > 'what is an object?'. The first thing to recognize before we > even > > > > begin to break that question down into streams of analysis is > to > > > look > > > > at the question itself. What is that question? It's an object, > isn't > > > > it? The question is itself also an object. A complete answer to > any > > > > question is one that completes the question as an object by > joining > > > it > > > > with another object which makes the question/answer a whole and > > > > complete part of the context in which both the question and the > > > answer > > > > exists. This is what produces an 'aha!'-feeling. > > > > > > > > What we have by asking the general question: 'what is an > object?' > > > is a > > > > general object, for which the answer must be equally general. > This > > > > means that the context we are now dealing with is not partial > but > > > > embraces all of existence - the entire world of manifested > objects. > > > In > > > > order for the answer to be complete it must join the question > and > > > > together with it form the whole context which in this case is > the > > > > entire manifestation of objects. We now have a question in the > form > > > of > > > > an object and an answer in the form of another object, and the > > > > question and the answer must together embrace the entire > context in > > > > which they exist due to the general nature of the question. The > > > answer > > > > to the question 'what is an object?' therefore is all other > objects > > > in > > > > existence seen as an answer to the question. > > > > > > > > By this we directly recognize that the answer is complete, yet > so > > > > general that is does not give us any information other than the > > > > important fact of having exhausted all analysis on the level of > > > > objects. The question and the answer have cancelled each other > out > > > and > > > > what is left is what we can call awareness, or the non-object > acting > > > > as the observer of objects. > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > All ok, Anders > > > > I always was and still am an admirer of your humour. > > > > But tell me, can you now accept that the object is the subject and > > that there is no stand-alone awareness which is separate from the > > object ? > > > > Werner > > But doesn't that mean that nobody has separate awareness? > > /AL This is true, we all think from the same place, if i insist i am different from you, i stole those words from your mouth. > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > > > Way to complicated. The object question is much more simple: The > > > > object is the subject. There is no separate subject. > > > > > > > > In addition I could see that you still cling to the idea that > > there > > > > is an awareness which is separate from from objects and is the > > > > observer. > > > > > > > > You are the creator of the world. You are the world and the world > > is > > > > you. > > > > > > > > The observer is the observed. The thinker is the thought. The > > seer is > > > > the seen. The taster is the tasted. The smeller is the smelled. > > > > Consciousness is its content. > > > > > > > > If you touch an object, its tactile qualities are just those your > > > > finger tips allow to sense, and not more and not less. If your > > > > fingers are numb or their nerves are dead then there is no object > > you > > > > could touch. > > > > > > > > If you are blind then there is no object you could see. If you are > > > > deaf then sounds don't exist. > > > > > > > > The object is the subject. There is no separate awareness or > > > > consciousness which is you the observer. > > > > > > > > There is only THAT, and not as you constantly believe: Awareness > > and > > > > THAT. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > I thought I had made a smart analysis of the fundamental question, > > in > > > a minimal and simple formulation. Now you are telling me it was too > > > complicated. I feel I have run out of clever arguments. Damn! > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In the world of manifestation we have objects. With a > > question > > > > such as > > > > > > 'who am I?' we can see that an individual self also is an > > object; > > > > a > > > > > > very complex object, but still an object. So then such > > question > > > > > > reformulates into 'what is an object?'. Is our universe seen > > as a > > > > > > whole also an object? Can an object see itself? Is awareness > > an > > > > object? > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > So now, instead of dealing with the circular and uncomfortable > > > > > question 'who am I?' we can directly deal with the more basic > > > > question > > > > > 'what is an object?'. The first thing to recognize before we > > even > > > > > begin to break that question down into streams of analysis is > > to > > > > look > > > > > at the question itself. What is that question? It's an object, > > isn't > > > > > it? The question is itself also an object. A complete answer to > > any > > > > > question is one that completes the question as an object by > > joining > > > > it > > > > > with another object which makes the question/answer a whole and > > > > > complete part of the context in which both the question and the > > > > answer > > > > > exists. This is what produces an 'aha!'-feeling. > > > > > > > > > > What we have by asking the general question: 'what is an > > object?' > > > > is a > > > > > general object, for which the answer must be equally general. > > This > > > > > means that the context we are now dealing with is not partial > > but > > > > > embraces all of existence - the entire world of manifested > > objects. > > > > In > > > > > order for the answer to be complete it must join the question > > and > > > > > together with it form the whole context which in this case is > > the > > > > > entire manifestation of objects. We now have a question in the > > form > > > > of > > > > > an object and an answer in the form of another object, and the > > > > > question and the answer must together embrace the entire > > context in > > > > > which they exist due to the general nature of the question. The > > > > answer > > > > > to the question 'what is an object?' therefore is all other > > objects > > > > in > > > > > existence seen as an answer to the question. > > > > > > > > > > By this we directly recognize that the answer is complete, yet > > so > > > > > general that is does not give us any information other than the > > > > > important fact of having exhausted all analysis on the level of > > > > > objects. The question and the answer have cancelled each other > > out > > > > and > > > > > what is left is what we can call awareness, or the non-object > > acting > > > > > as the observer of objects. > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Oh Anders, Who is there to " have " anything ? There is only being but not having. But there is also no one to be anything, there is just being. You see, I cannot discuss with you something which you are not able to accept or to see. And If you would be able to accept it or to see it there is no need for discussion likewise Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > All ok, Anders > > > > I always was and still am an admirer of your humour. > > > > But tell me, can you now accept that the object is the subject and > > that there is no stand-alone awareness which is separate from the > > object ? > > > > Werner > > But doesn't that mean that nobody has separate awareness? > > /AL > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > > > Way to complicated. The object question is much more simple: The > > > > object is the subject. There is no separate subject. > > > > > > > > In addition I could see that you still cling to the idea that > > there > > > > is an awareness which is separate from from objects and is the > > > > observer. > > > > > > > > You are the creator of the world. You are the world and the world > > is > > > > you. > > > > > > > > The observer is the observed. The thinker is the thought. The > > seer is > > > > the seen. The taster is the tasted. The smeller is the smelled. > > > > Consciousness is its content. > > > > > > > > If you touch an object, its tactile qualities are just those your > > > > finger tips allow to sense, and not more and not less. If your > > > > fingers are numb or their nerves are dead then there is no object > > you > > > > could touch. > > > > > > > > If you are blind then there is no object you could see. If you are > > > > deaf then sounds don't exist. > > > > > > > > The object is the subject. There is no separate awareness or > > > > consciousness which is you the observer. > > > > > > > > There is only THAT, and not as you constantly believe: Awareness > > and > > > > THAT. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > I thought I had made a smart analysis of the fundamental question, > > in > > > a minimal and simple formulation. Now you are telling me it was too > > > complicated. I feel I have run out of clever arguments. Damn! > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In the world of manifestation we have objects. With a > > question > > > > such as > > > > > > 'who am I?' we can see that an individual self also is an > > object; > > > > a > > > > > > very complex object, but still an object. So then such > > question > > > > > > reformulates into 'what is an object?'. Is our universe seen > > as a > > > > > > whole also an object? Can an object see itself? Is awareness > > an > > > > object? > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > So now, instead of dealing with the circular and uncomfortable > > > > > question 'who am I?' we can directly deal with the more basic > > > > question > > > > > 'what is an object?'. The first thing to recognize before we > > even > > > > > begin to break that question down into streams of analysis is > > to > > > > look > > > > > at the question itself. What is that question? It's an object, > > isn't > > > > > it? The question is itself also an object. A complete answer to > > any > > > > > question is one that completes the question as an object by > > joining > > > > it > > > > > with another object which makes the question/answer a whole and > > > > > complete part of the context in which both the question and the > > > > answer > > > > > exists. This is what produces an 'aha!'-feeling. > > > > > > > > > > What we have by asking the general question: 'what is an > > object?' > > > > is a > > > > > general object, for which the answer must be equally general. > > This > > > > > means that the context we are now dealing with is not partial > > but > > > > > embraces all of existence - the entire world of manifested > > objects. > > > > In > > > > > order for the answer to be complete it must join the question > > and > > > > > together with it form the whole context which in this case is > > the > > > > > entire manifestation of objects. We now have a question in the > > form > > > > of > > > > > an object and an answer in the form of another object, and the > > > > > question and the answer must together embrace the entire > > context in > > > > > which they exist due to the general nature of the question. The > > > > answer > > > > > to the question 'what is an object?' therefore is all other > > objects > > > > in > > > > > existence seen as an answer to the question. > > > > > > > > > > By this we directly recognize that the answer is complete, yet > > so > > > > > general that is does not give us any information other than the > > > > > important fact of having exhausted all analysis on the level of > > > > > objects. The question and the answer have cancelled each other > > out > > > > and > > > > > what is left is what we can call awareness, or the non- object > > acting > > > > > as the observer of objects. > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > > > All ok, Anders > > > > > > I always was and still am an admirer of your humour. > > > > > > But tell me, can you now accept that the object is the subject and > > > that there is no stand-alone awareness which is separate from the > > > object ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > But doesn't that mean that nobody has separate awareness? > > > > /AL > > This is true, we all think from the same place, if i insist i am > different from you, i stole those words from your mouth. We all live the same life at the same moment we live only one destiny. I can only witness my desperate effort to make it look otherwise, that i am separate with a personal destiny, that i say things new that have an impact on things, that i escape the slavery of the big sleep and ignorance and confused pain. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > > > > > Way to complicated. The object question is much more simple: The > > > > > object is the subject. There is no separate subject. > > > > > > > > > > In addition I could see that you still cling to the idea that > > > there > > > > > is an awareness which is separate from from objects and is the > > > > > observer. > > > > > > > > > > You are the creator of the world. You are the world and the world > > > is > > > > > you. > > > > > > > > > > The observer is the observed. The thinker is the thought. The > > > seer is > > > > > the seen. The taster is the tasted. The smeller is the smelled. > > > > > Consciousness is its content. > > > > > > > > > > If you touch an object, its tactile qualities are just those your > > > > > finger tips allow to sense, and not more and not less. If your > > > > > fingers are numb or their nerves are dead then there is no object > > > you > > > > > could touch. > > > > > > > > > > If you are blind then there is no object you could see. If you are > > > > > deaf then sounds don't exist. > > > > > > > > > > The object is the subject. There is no separate awareness or > > > > > consciousness which is you the observer. > > > > > > > > > > There is only THAT, and not as you constantly believe: Awareness > > > and > > > > > THAT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > > > I thought I had made a smart analysis of the fundamental question, > > > in > > > > a minimal and simple formulation. Now you are telling me it was too > > > > complicated. I feel I have run out of clever arguments. Damn! > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the world of manifestation we have objects. With a > > > question > > > > > such as > > > > > > > 'who am I?' we can see that an individual self also is an > > > object; > > > > > a > > > > > > > very complex object, but still an object. So then such > > > question > > > > > > > reformulates into 'what is an object?'. Is our universe seen > > > as a > > > > > > > whole also an object? Can an object see itself? Is awareness > > > an > > > > > object? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > So now, instead of dealing with the circular and uncomfortable > > > > > > question 'who am I?' we can directly deal with the more basic > > > > > question > > > > > > 'what is an object?'. The first thing to recognize before we > > > even > > > > > > begin to break that question down into streams of analysis is > > > to > > > > > look > > > > > > at the question itself. What is that question? It's an object, > > > isn't > > > > > > it? The question is itself also an object. A complete answer to > > > any > > > > > > question is one that completes the question as an object by > > > joining > > > > > it > > > > > > with another object which makes the question/answer a whole and > > > > > > complete part of the context in which both the question and the > > > > > answer > > > > > > exists. This is what produces an 'aha!'-feeling. > > > > > > > > > > > > What we have by asking the general question: 'what is an > > > object?' > > > > > is a > > > > > > general object, for which the answer must be equally general. > > > This > > > > > > means that the context we are now dealing with is not partial > > > but > > > > > > embraces all of existence - the entire world of manifested > > > objects. > > > > > In > > > > > > order for the answer to be complete it must join the question > > > and > > > > > > together with it form the whole context which in this case is > > > the > > > > > > entire manifestation of objects. We now have a question in the > > > form > > > > > of > > > > > > an object and an answer in the form of another object, and the > > > > > > question and the answer must together embrace the entire > > > context in > > > > > > which they exist due to the general nature of the question. The > > > > > answer > > > > > > to the question 'what is an object?' therefore is all other > > > objects > > > > > in > > > > > > existence seen as an answer to the question. > > > > > > > > > > > > By this we directly recognize that the answer is complete, yet > > > so > > > > > > general that is does not give us any information other than the > > > > > > important fact of having exhausted all analysis on the level of > > > > > > objects. The question and the answer have cancelled each other > > > out > > > > > and > > > > > > what is left is what we can call awareness, or the non-object > > > acting > > > > > > as the observer of objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Oh Anders, > > Who is there to " have " anything ? There is only being but not having. > > But there is also no one to be anything, there is just being. > > You see, I cannot discuss with you something which you are not able > to accept or to see. And If you would be able to accept it or to see > it there is no need for discussion likewise > > Werner Usually we think that we have independent consciousness. I have my consciousness and other people have their own consciousness. But we don't know if consciousness is separate. Only those who say that consciousness is one and really know that can be sure. I am not sure. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Anders, You still haven't got it. We do not discuss if there is only one consciousness or if everyone has a separate consciousness. We discuss that the object is the subject and that there is no separate stand-alone subject (like Anders) who is pure, empty consciousness. Consciousness is its content, consciousness and the content is one and the same. There is no observer who is pure consciousness and who is observing the object. The observer IS the observed. Click, click, click ? When you observe a tree then you are not that tree itself (how silly) but you are all the qualities you sense about the tree. You never will be able to see the tree as a " Ding an sich " , which means the tree in its own absoluteness, you only can see the tree as far as your Anders-brain will allow to. And therefore the object is the subject. The tree represents the ability of your Anders-brain. If you are color blind then tree will appear as just being grey. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Oh Anders, > > > > Who is there to " have " anything ? There is only being but not having. > > > > But there is also no one to be anything, there is just being. > > > > You see, I cannot discuss with you something which you are not able > > to accept or to see. And If you would be able to accept it or to see > > it there is no need for discussion likewise > > > > Werner > > Usually we think that we have independent consciousness. I have my > consciousness and other people have their own consciousness. But we > don't know if consciousness is separate. Only those who say that > consciousness is one and really know that can be sure. I am not sure. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Anders, > > You still haven't got it. > > We do not discuss if there is only one consciousness or if everyone > has a separate consciousness. We discuss that the object is the > subject and that there is no separate stand-alone subject (like > Anders) who is pure, empty consciousness. Consciousness is its > content, consciousness and the content is one and the same. There is > no observer who is pure consciousness and who is observing the > object. The observer IS the observed. Click, click, click ? > > When you observe a tree then you are not that tree itself (how silly) > but you are all the qualities you sense about the tree. You never > will be able to see the tree as a " Ding an sich " , which means the > tree in its own absoluteness, you only can see the tree as far as > your Anders-brain will allow to. And therefore the object is the > subject. The tree represents the ability of your Anders-brain. If you > are color blind then tree will appear as just being grey. > > Werner Sages like Eckhart Tolle say that when one is being present, then when looking at a tree one can sense a deep connectedness with the tree, a state of knowing to be one with the tree, an experience of being one with the tree as a ding an sich. When in that state one knows oneself to be one with everything, and to be the one life before it manifests itself. I am curios to know if there is such a state possible, or if those sages are pulling our legs. This means that a tree is not only an image in the brain. A tree is one with the interconnected wholeness of the universe, and so is the brain. Non-local mind. /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > Oh Anders, > > > > > > Who is there to " have " anything ? There is only being but not > having. > > > > > > But there is also no one to be anything, there is just being. > > > > > > You see, I cannot discuss with you something which you are not > able > > > to accept or to see. And If you would be able to accept it or to > see > > > it there is no need for discussion likewise > > > > > > Werner > > > > Usually we think that we have independent consciousness. I have my > > consciousness and other people have their own consciousness. But we > > don't know if consciousness is separate. Only those who say that > > consciousness is one and really know that can be sure. I am not > sure. > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Anders, Start with that which you can grasp, for example the oneness with a tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no separate observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have the pleasure to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to see the tree as a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his statement as fast as possible. And your sentence: > This means that a tree is not only an image in the brain. A tree is > one with the interconnected wholeness of the universe, and so is the > brain. Non-local mind. > just shows that you are a greedy bump, and not being content with small things like being happy watching a fly walking arround your table Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Anders, > > > > You still haven't got it. > > > > We do not discuss if there is only one consciousness or if everyone > > has a separate consciousness. We discuss that the object is the > > subject and that there is no separate stand-alone subject (like > > Anders) who is pure, empty consciousness. Consciousness is its > > content, consciousness and the content is one and the same. There is > > no observer who is pure consciousness and who is observing the > > object. The observer IS the observed. Click, click, click ? > > > > When you observe a tree then you are not that tree itself (how silly) > > but you are all the qualities you sense about the tree. You never > > will be able to see the tree as a " Ding an sich " , which means the > > tree in its own absoluteness, you only can see the tree as far as > > your Anders-brain will allow to. And therefore the object is the > > subject. The tree represents the ability of your Anders-brain. If you > > are color blind then tree will appear as just being grey. > > > > Werner > > Sages like Eckhart Tolle say that when one is being present, then when > looking at a tree one can sense a deep connectedness with the tree, a > state of knowing to be one with the tree, an experience of being one > with the tree as a ding an sich. When in that state one knows oneself > to be one with everything, and to be the one life before it manifests > itself. I am curios to know if there is such a state possible, or if > those sages are pulling our legs. > > This means that a tree is not only an image in the brain. A tree is > one with the interconnected wholeness of the universe, and so is the > brain. Non-local mind. > > /AL > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Oh Anders, > > > > > > > > Who is there to " have " anything ? There is only being but not > > having. > > > > > > > > But there is also no one to be anything, there is just being. > > > > > > > > You see, I cannot discuss with you something which you are not > > able > > > > to accept or to see. And If you would be able to accept it or to > > see > > > > it there is no need for discussion likewise > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Usually we think that we have independent consciousness. I have my > > > consciousness and other people have their own consciousness. But we > > > don't know if consciousness is separate. Only those who say that > > > consciousness is one and really know that can be sure. I am not > > sure. > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Anders, > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example the oneness with a > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no separate > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have the pleasure > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to see the tree as > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his statement as > fast as possible. LOL! :-) Tolle could possibly be a big fraud, I don't know. But the non-local mind I find an interesting idea. > > And your sentence: > > This means that a tree is not only an image in the brain. A tree is > > one with the interconnected wholeness of the universe, and so is the > > brain. Non-local mind. > > > > just shows that you are a greedy bump, and not being content with > small things like being happy watching a fly walking arround your > table > > Werner Ah! But that is precisely what I am talking about. I look at a tree and think: " well, that's a tree, now that I have seen it I am bored with it. " In the state of connectedness every cell in my body and my brain become in harmonic resonance with every quantum fluctuation in every particle of that tree. I then feel the tree a billion billion times more deeply than what my object consciosness would reveal. When I look at a fly from my object consciousness I notice it at most as a form of annoyance. With non-local awareness I and the fly become an entire cosmos of interrelated quantum fluctuations, where the fly represents a holographic version/view of the entire Kosmos. /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > You still haven't got it. > > > > > > We do not discuss if there is only one consciousness or if > everyone > > > has a separate consciousness. We discuss that the object is the > > > subject and that there is no separate stand-alone subject (like > > > Anders) who is pure, empty consciousness. Consciousness is its > > > content, consciousness and the content is one and the same. There > is > > > no observer who is pure consciousness and who is observing the > > > object. The observer IS the observed. Click, click, click ? > > > > > > When you observe a tree then you are not that tree itself (how > silly) > > > but you are all the qualities you sense about the tree. You never > > > will be able to see the tree as a " Ding an sich " , which means the > > > tree in its own absoluteness, you only can see the tree as far as > > > your Anders-brain will allow to. And therefore the object is the > > > subject. The tree represents the ability of your Anders-brain. If > you > > > are color blind then tree will appear as just being grey. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Sages like Eckhart Tolle say that when one is being present, then > when > > looking at a tree one can sense a deep connectedness with the tree, > a > > state of knowing to be one with the tree, an experience of being one > > with the tree as a ding an sich. When in that state one knows > oneself > > to be one with everything, and to be the one life before it > manifests > > itself. I am curios to know if there is such a state possible, or if > > those sages are pulling our legs. > > > > This means that a tree is not only an image in the brain. A tree is > > one with the interconnected wholeness of the universe, and so is the > > brain. Non-local mind. > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Oh Anders, > > > > > > > > > > Who is there to " have " anything ? There is only being but not > > > having. > > > > > > > > > > But there is also no one to be anything, there is just being. > > > > > > > > > > You see, I cannot discuss with you something which you are > not > > > able > > > > > to accept or to see. And If you would be able to accept it or > to > > > see > > > > > it there is no need for discussion likewise > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Usually we think that we have independent consciousness. I have > my > > > > consciousness and other people have their own consciousness. > But we > > > > don't know if consciousness is separate. Only those who say that > > > > consciousness is one and really know that can be sure. I am not > > > sure. > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Anders, > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example the oneness with a > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no separate > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have the pleasure > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to see the tree as > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his statement as > fast as possible. Please note that a fraud is a person who fails to satisfy the request of his audience, we have no idea what his audience requests or do we know it too well? happiness, health, wealth, relief from fear? i don't know ... Nisargadatta is a fraud too in this regard ... unless you are saying that Tolle made precise signed declarations that he was going to release - say - the whole population of Scotland from the grip of death and disease.(?) > > And your sentence: > > This means that a tree is not only an image in the brain. A tree is > > one with the interconnected wholeness of the universe, and so is the > > brain. Non-local mind. > > > > just shows that you are a greedy bump, and not being content with > small things like being happy watching a fly walking arround your > table > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > You still haven't got it. > > > > > > We do not discuss if there is only one consciousness or if > everyone > > > has a separate consciousness. We discuss that the object is the > > > subject and that there is no separate stand-alone subject (like > > > Anders) who is pure, empty consciousness. Consciousness is its > > > content, consciousness and the content is one and the same. There > is > > > no observer who is pure consciousness and who is observing the > > > object. The observer IS the observed. Click, click, click ? > > > > > > When you observe a tree then you are not that tree itself (how > silly) > > > but you are all the qualities you sense about the tree. You never > > > will be able to see the tree as a " Ding an sich " , which means the > > > tree in its own absoluteness, you only can see the tree as far as > > > your Anders-brain will allow to. And therefore the object is the > > > subject. The tree represents the ability of your Anders-brain. If > you > > > are color blind then tree will appear as just being grey. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Sages like Eckhart Tolle say that when one is being present, then > when > > looking at a tree one can sense a deep connectedness with the tree, > a > > state of knowing to be one with the tree, an experience of being one > > with the tree as a ding an sich. When in that state one knows > oneself > > to be one with everything, and to be the one life before it > manifests > > itself. I am curios to know if there is such a state possible, or if > > those sages are pulling our legs. > > > > This means that a tree is not only an image in the brain. A tree is > > one with the interconnected wholeness of the universe, and so is the > > brain. Non-local mind. > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Oh Anders, > > > > > > > > > > Who is there to " have " anything ? There is only being but not > > > having. > > > > > > > > > > But there is also no one to be anything, there is just being. > > > > > > > > > > You see, I cannot discuss with you something which you are > not > > > able > > > > > to accept or to see. And If you would be able to accept it or > to > > > see > > > > > it there is no need for discussion likewise > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Usually we think that we have independent consciousness. I have > my > > > > consciousness and other people have their own consciousness. > But we > > > > don't know if consciousness is separate. Only those who say that > > > > consciousness is one and really know that can be sure. I am not > > > sure. > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Hi Eric, I know that I will cause some protest calling Tolle a fraud. It is still my private pleasure to go on doing that, no matter if I can prove it or not. Werner Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Anders, > > > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example the oneness with a > > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no separate > > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have the pleasure > > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to see the tree as > > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his statement as > > fast as possible. > > Please note that a fraud is a person who fails to satisfy the request > of his audience, we have no idea what his audience requests or do we > know it too well? happiness, health, wealth, relief from fear? i don't > know ... Nisargadatta is a fraud too in this regard ... unless you are > saying that Tolle made precise signed declarations that he was going > to release - say - the whole population of Scotland from the grip of > death and disease.(?) > > > > > > And your sentence: > > > This means that a tree is not only an image in the brain. A tree is > > > one with the interconnected wholeness of the universe, and so is the > > > brain. Non-local mind. > > > > > > > just shows that you are a greedy bump, and not being content with > > small things like being happy watching a fly walking arround your > > table > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > You still haven't got it. > > > > > > > > We do not discuss if there is only one consciousness or if > > everyone > > > > has a separate consciousness. We discuss that the object is the > > > > subject and that there is no separate stand-alone subject (like > > > > Anders) who is pure, empty consciousness. Consciousness is its > > > > content, consciousness and the content is one and the same. There > > is > > > > no observer who is pure consciousness and who is observing the > > > > object. The observer IS the observed. Click, click, click ? > > > > > > > > When you observe a tree then you are not that tree itself (how > > silly) > > > > but you are all the qualities you sense about the tree. You never > > > > will be able to see the tree as a " Ding an sich " , which means the > > > > tree in its own absoluteness, you only can see the tree as far as > > > > your Anders-brain will allow to. And therefore the object is the > > > > subject. The tree represents the ability of your Anders- brain. If > > you > > > > are color blind then tree will appear as just being grey. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Sages like Eckhart Tolle say that when one is being present, then > > when > > > looking at a tree one can sense a deep connectedness with the tree, > > a > > > state of knowing to be one with the tree, an experience of being one > > > with the tree as a ding an sich. When in that state one knows > > oneself > > > to be one with everything, and to be the one life before it > > manifests > > > itself. I am curios to know if there is such a state possible, or if > > > those sages are pulling our legs. > > > > > > This means that a tree is not only an image in the brain. A tree is > > > one with the interconnected wholeness of the universe, and so is the > > > brain. Non-local mind. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is there to " have " anything ? There is only being but not > > > > having. > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is also no one to be anything, there is just being. > > > > > > > > > > > > You see, I cannot discuss with you something which you are > > not > > > > able > > > > > > to accept or to see. And If you would be able to accept it or > > to > > > > see > > > > > > it there is no need for discussion likewise > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > Usually we think that we have independent consciousness. I have > > my > > > > > consciousness and other people have their own consciousness. > > But we > > > > > don't know if consciousness is separate. Only those who say that > > > > > consciousness is one and really know that can be sure. I am not > > > > sure. > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Anders, > > > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example the oneness with a > > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no separate > > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have the pleasure > > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to see the tree as > > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his statement as > > fast as possible. > > Please note that a fraud is a person who fails to satisfy the request > of his audience, we have no idea what his audience requests or do we > know it too well? happiness, health, wealth, relief from fear? i don't > know ... Nisargadatta is a fraud too in this regard ... unless you are > saying that Tolle made precise signed declarations that he was going > to release - say - the whole population of Scotland from the grip of > death and disease.(?) Maybe Ramesh Balsekar is no fraud? > > > > > > And your sentence: > > > This means that a tree is not only an image in the brain. A tree is > > > one with the interconnected wholeness of the universe, and so is the > > > brain. Non-local mind. > > > > > > > just shows that you are a greedy bump, and not being content with > > small things like being happy watching a fly walking arround your > > table > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > You still haven't got it. > > > > > > > > We do not discuss if there is only one consciousness or if > > everyone > > > > has a separate consciousness. We discuss that the object is the > > > > subject and that there is no separate stand-alone subject (like > > > > Anders) who is pure, empty consciousness. Consciousness is its > > > > content, consciousness and the content is one and the same. There > > is > > > > no observer who is pure consciousness and who is observing the > > > > object. The observer IS the observed. Click, click, click ? > > > > > > > > When you observe a tree then you are not that tree itself (how > > silly) > > > > but you are all the qualities you sense about the tree. You never > > > > will be able to see the tree as a " Ding an sich " , which means the > > > > tree in its own absoluteness, you only can see the tree as far as > > > > your Anders-brain will allow to. And therefore the object is the > > > > subject. The tree represents the ability of your Anders-brain. If > > you > > > > are color blind then tree will appear as just being grey. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Sages like Eckhart Tolle say that when one is being present, then > > when > > > looking at a tree one can sense a deep connectedness with the tree, > > a > > > state of knowing to be one with the tree, an experience of being one > > > with the tree as a ding an sich. When in that state one knows > > oneself > > > to be one with everything, and to be the one life before it > > manifests > > > itself. I am curios to know if there is such a state possible, or if > > > those sages are pulling our legs. > > > > > > This means that a tree is not only an image in the brain. A tree is > > > one with the interconnected wholeness of the universe, and so is the > > > brain. Non-local mind. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is there to " have " anything ? There is only being but not > > > > having. > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is also no one to be anything, there is just being. > > > > > > > > > > > > You see, I cannot discuss with you something which you are > > not > > > > able > > > > > > to accept or to see. And If you would be able to accept it or > > to > > > > see > > > > > > it there is no need for discussion likewise > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > Usually we think that we have independent consciousness. I have > > my > > > > > consciousness and other people have their own consciousness. > > But we > > > > > don't know if consciousness is separate. Only those who say that > > > > > consciousness is one and really know that can be sure. I am not > > > > sure. > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example the oneness with a > > > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no separate > > > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have the pleasure > > > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to see the tree as > > > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his statement as > > > fast as possible. > > > > Please note that a fraud is a person who fails to satisfy the request > > of his audience, we have no idea what his audience requests or do we > > know it too well? happiness, health, wealth, relief from fear? i don't > > know ... Nisargadatta is a fraud too in this regard ... unless you are > > saying that Tolle made precise signed declarations that he was going > > to release - say - the whole population of Scotland from the grip of > > death and disease.(?) > > Maybe Ramesh Balsekar is no fraud? yes! guilty of using a dick! ok i'm joking ... what do you think? what are the main data of the case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example the oneness with a > > > > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no separate > > > > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have the pleasure > > > > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to see the > tree as > > > > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his statement as > > > > fast as possible. > > > > > > Please note that a fraud is a person who fails to satisfy the request > > > of his audience, we have no idea what his audience requests or do we > > > know it too well? happiness, health, wealth, relief from fear? i don't > > > know ... Nisargadatta is a fraud too in this regard ... unless you are > > > saying that Tolle made precise signed declarations that he was going > > > to release - say - the whole population of Scotland from the grip of > > > death and disease.(?) > > > > Maybe Ramesh Balsekar is no fraud? > > yes! guilty of using a dick! > ok i'm joking ... what do you think? what are the main data of the case? Ramesh Balsekar says that the Source is the only doer. This means that there are no individual doers. Wayne Liquorman uses the term authorship instead of doership because as he says, many people misinterpret what Ramesh means by doership. Clearly we as human beings do all kinds of stuff and in that sense we are doers, but are we the authors of this doing? Where is the juice coming from? What makes us tick as body/mind mechanisms? Is there a separate " me " being the author of my actions, or is this " me " just a part of the functioning of Totality. I find it hard to believe that there is a " me " being the author of my thoughts. As has been shown in experiments, a thought has already been created when we become aware of it. This means that we (as being conscious beings) are passive observers of thoughts, not the creators of them. But I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a separate " me " being the creator of choices e t c. The question of free will is a tricky one. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Hi Anders, Forgive me sticking my nose into this. We are not passive observers of our thoughts, we ARE our thoughts. It seems you find it hard to accpet that you don't exist as a observer or still better not to exist as a subject at all. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example the oneness > with a > > > > > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no separate > > > > > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have the > pleasure > > > > > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to see the > > tree as > > > > > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his statement as > > > > > fast as possible. > > > > > > > > Please note that a fraud is a person who fails to satisfy the > request > > > > of his audience, we have no idea what his audience requests or do we > > > > know it too well? happiness, health, wealth, relief from fear? i > don't > > > > know ... Nisargadatta is a fraud too in this regard ... unless > you are > > > > saying that Tolle made precise signed declarations that he was going > > > > to release - say - the whole population of Scotland from the grip of > > > > death and disease.(?) > > > > > > Maybe Ramesh Balsekar is no fraud? > > > > yes! guilty of using a dick! > > ok i'm joking ... what do you think? what are the main data of the case? > > Ramesh Balsekar says that the Source is the only doer. This means that > there are no individual doers. Wayne Liquorman uses the term > authorship instead of doership because as he says, many people > misinterpret what Ramesh means by doership. Clearly we as human beings > do all kinds of stuff and in that sense we are doers, but are we the > authors of this doing? Where is the juice coming from? What makes us > tick as body/mind mechanisms? Is there a separate " me " being the > author of my actions, or is this " me " just a part of the functioning > of Totality. > > I find it hard to believe that there is a " me " being the author of my > thoughts. As has been shown in experiments, a thought has already been > created when we become aware of it. This means that we (as being > conscious beings) are passive observers of thoughts, not the creators > of them. But I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a > separate " me " being the creator of choices e t c. The question of free > will is a tricky one. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > Forgive me sticking my nose into this. > > We are not passive observers of our thoughts, we ARE our thoughts. > > It seems you find it hard to accpet that you don't exist as a > observer or still better not to exist as a subject at all. > > Werner I exist as an experiencer, although the " I " could be Totality and not a separate individual. /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example the oneness > > with a > > > > > > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no > separate > > > > > > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have the > > pleasure > > > > > > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to see the > > > tree as > > > > > > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his > statement as > > > > > > fast as possible. > > > > > > > > > > Please note that a fraud is a person who fails to satisfy the > > request > > > > > of his audience, we have no idea what his audience requests > or do we > > > > > know it too well? happiness, health, wealth, relief from > fear? i > > don't > > > > > know ... Nisargadatta is a fraud too in this regard ... unless > > you are > > > > > saying that Tolle made precise signed declarations that he > was going > > > > > to release - say - the whole population of Scotland from the > grip of > > > > > death and disease.(?) > > > > > > > > Maybe Ramesh Balsekar is no fraud? > > > > > > yes! guilty of using a dick! > > > ok i'm joking ... what do you think? what are the main data of > the case? > > > > Ramesh Balsekar says that the Source is the only doer. This means > that > > there are no individual doers. Wayne Liquorman uses the term > > authorship instead of doership because as he says, many people > > misinterpret what Ramesh means by doership. Clearly we as human > beings > > do all kinds of stuff and in that sense we are doers, but are we the > > authors of this doing? Where is the juice coming from? What makes us > > tick as body/mind mechanisms? Is there a separate " me " being the > > author of my actions, or is this " me " just a part of the functioning > > of Totality. > > > > I find it hard to believe that there is a " me " being the author of > my > > thoughts. As has been shown in experiments, a thought has already > been > > created when we become aware of it. This means that we (as being > > conscious beings) are passive observers of thoughts, not the > creators > > of them. But I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a > > separate " me " being the creator of choices e t c. The question of > free > > will is a tricky one. > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Gosh ! The experiencer is the experienced. You don't exist as the experiencer, you ARE the experienced. You still believe that you exist as a separate entitiy, right ? You have not grasped what I tried so hard to show you: The object IS the subject. Tat Tvam Asi - You Are THAT. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > Forgive me sticking my nose into this. > > > > We are not passive observers of our thoughts, we ARE our thoughts. > > > > It seems you find it hard to accpet that you don't exist as a > > observer or still better not to exist as a subject at all. > > > > Werner > > I exist as an experiencer, although the " I " could be Totality and not > a separate individual. > > /AL > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example the oneness > > > with a > > > > > > > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no > > separate > > > > > > > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have the > > > pleasure > > > > > > > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to see the > > > > tree as > > > > > > > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his > > statement as > > > > > > > fast as possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that a fraud is a person who fails to satisfy the > > > request > > > > > > of his audience, we have no idea what his audience requests > > or do we > > > > > > know it too well? happiness, health, wealth, relief from > > fear? i > > > don't > > > > > > know ... Nisargadatta is a fraud too in this regard ... unless > > > you are > > > > > > saying that Tolle made precise signed declarations that he > > was going > > > > > > to release - say - the whole population of Scotland from the > > grip of > > > > > > death and disease.(?) > > > > > > > > > > Maybe Ramesh Balsekar is no fraud? > > > > > > > > yes! guilty of using a dick! > > > > ok i'm joking ... what do you think? what are the main data of > > the case? > > > > > > Ramesh Balsekar says that the Source is the only doer. This means > > that > > > there are no individual doers. Wayne Liquorman uses the term > > > authorship instead of doership because as he says, many people > > > misinterpret what Ramesh means by doership. Clearly we as human > > beings > > > do all kinds of stuff and in that sense we are doers, but are we the > > > authors of this doing? Where is the juice coming from? What makes us > > > tick as body/mind mechanisms? Is there a separate " me " being the > > > author of my actions, or is this " me " just a part of the functioning > > > of Totality. > > > > > > I find it hard to believe that there is a " me " being the author of > > my > > > thoughts. As has been shown in experiments, a thought has already > > been > > > created when we become aware of it. This means that we (as being > > > conscious beings) are passive observers of thoughts, not the > > creators > > > of them. But I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a > > > separate " me " being the creator of choices e t c. The question of > > free > > > will is a tricky one. > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > Start with that which you can grasp, for example the oneness > with a > > > > > tree. And this oneness comes about because there is no separate > > > > > observer, you are that tree. Eckart Tolle, whom I have the > pleasure > > > > > to call a fraud, owns this megalomania to be able to see the > > tree as > > > > > a Ding an sich and so lets me suggest to forget his statement as > > > > > fast as possible. > > > > > > > > Please note that a fraud is a person who fails to satisfy the > request > > > > of his audience, we have no idea what his audience requests or do we > > > > know it too well? happiness, health, wealth, relief from fear? i > don't > > > > know ... Nisargadatta is a fraud too in this regard ... unless > you are > > > > saying that Tolle made precise signed declarations that he was going > > > > to release - say - the whole population of Scotland from the grip of > > > > death and disease.(?) > > > > > > Maybe Ramesh Balsekar is no fraud? > > > > yes! guilty of using a dick! > > ok i'm joking ... what do you think? what are the main data of the case? > > Ramesh Balsekar says that the Source is the only doer. This means that > there are no individual doers. Wayne Liquorman uses the term > authorship instead of doership because as he says, many people > misinterpret what Ramesh means by doership. Clearly we as human beings > do all kinds of stuff and in that sense we are doers, but are we the > authors of this doing? Where is the juice coming from? What makes us > tick as body/mind mechanisms? Is there a separate " me " being the > author of my actions, or is this " me " just a part of the functioning > of Totality. > > I find it hard to believe that there is a " me " being the author of my > thoughts. As has been shown in experiments, a thought has already been > created when we become aware of it. This means that we (as being > conscious beings) are passive observers of thoughts, not the creators > of them. But I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a > separate " me " being the creator of choices e t c. The question of free > will is a tricky one. > > /AL Yeah, this is what it looks like in real time, because paradoxically it is when we hesitate and ponder and become self-conscious that our response to the world is the less creative and hindered by considerations of shame or worthlessness or desire to impact the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >You still haven't got it. Hi Werner, you start to like discussions, ehh? >We discuss that the object is the >subject and that there is no separate stand-alone subject (like >Anders) who is pure, empty consciousness. Consciousness is its >content, consciousness and the content is one and the same. There is >no observer who is pure consciousness and who is observing the >object. The observer IS the observed. Click, click, click ? Maybe you would like to follow my own reasoning for a moment and see what is happening? We call any observing construct " subject " , the observed is called " object " . They are interdependent. When all objects disappear the subject disappears. When the subject disappears all objects disappear. Consequently the moment the subject would be itself the object (as you say) both would instantly disappear. Once this is understood, the whole question is: what is left? What do you think, Werner? Nothing is left? Lets see. Something which is not subject nor object cannot be described, not even experienced. Otherwise there would again be subject and object. On the other hand that " state " must be existent because there must be a ground on which object/subject are happening (otherwise they could not be identified, as what soever). What does this mean? This state exists, although it cannot be described or experienced. It cannot even be described as " nothing " , because this implies a speculative " something " . At the most it can be called " being per se " etc. In fact many names have been given but they usually lead to misunderstandings. But at least this is the only state that could be called " truth " without exception, because it does not allow interpretation and consequently no misinterpretation. When I ask myself " who am I " ... this state that I just have identified is the only state that could be reached by consequently following this question... provided it is asked without allowing the mind to go astray in speculations. Anders says: " I am not sure " . This is the right attitude. Bravo, Anders. " I know that I dont know " Plato Greetings S. >Usually we think that we have independent consciousness. I have my >consciousness and other people have their own consciousness. But we >don't know if consciousness is separate. Only those who say that >consciousness is one and really know that can be sure. I am not >sure. > >/AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.