Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Hi Ho Devi, I do know that on one hand you own a rather idealistic view and on the other you are also a thirsty seeker. Why not leave this your question open for a while ? As long as you are thirsting for eternal life you must believe in a universal awareness surviving. But the fallacy of this thirst is that you in addition have to believe that you are awareness itself and that will be the cause that you never really can enquire what this " you " is and that you sooner or later have to question it. You see, we cannot meet here because our views are to different. But I am asking you for a favor: Do not think that people following Niz and are not into bhakti have no deep insights and feelings and are just superficial intellectuals. Werner Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Anders, > > > > When it comes to awareness, you are a damn liar. > > > > When you are telling about your being curious then this is a lie, > you > > are not curious at at all. Pete and me and others too told you > > already a dozend and more of times that awareness is just a function > > of the brain and not some glorious godly mystery everywhere in the > > universe. > > > > You, Anders are only interested to find proof for your dream and > hope > > that you will survive as awareness. You don't listen when others are > > telling a different view than that you are expecting and hoping for. > > > > How I see you: > > You are not enquiring, Anders - you are just chasing the dreams and > > beliefs of your childhood getting fulfilled. > > > > Werner > > devi: hi werner, i would like to know if you can come close to > speaking of the Supreme that nizargatdatta speaks of, and if you have > realized the Self in nirvikalpa samadi that ramana maharshi and half > the other realizers speaks of? > > you seem to be so sure that awareness is only a function of the brain > and i find this hard to believe. i was sure that the brain in only > the physical manifestion of the mind in where awareness is co- exist, > and that when the astral leaves the body/brain it, the awareness > still funtions, being aware of things (beings, places)on an other > dimension.... > > for me the only proof that you may be right is if you have total Self- > knowledge....do you? > > i really want to know if awareness dies when the brain dies? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, a tip: > > > > > > > > Next time you get a tooth extracted then have it done without a > > > > narcotic injection. > > > > > > > > Benefits: > > > > You instatntly will know where your awarenes is. > > > > > > > > Bonus: > > > > You instantly no longer are interested in other people's > > assumptions > > > > where awarenes could be. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > I am curious to know if awareness (consciousness, the sense of > being > > > aware) is local in some form, located as a result of the brain and > > > physical body, or if awareness really is non-local and seamlessly > > > connected with everything else. Another question is if my > awareness > > is > > > only in me, and that other people have separate awareness, or if > > there > > > is only one awareness. > > > > > > " ...then you will know yourself to be your neighbour... ...then > you > > > will know yourself as the One Life before it becomes form... " -- > > > Eckhart Tolle > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If you ask someone: " When is your awareness? " , then he or > she - > > if > > > > > taking the question seriously - may answer: " My awareness is > > now, > > > > not > > > > > then tomorrow or yesterday " . > > > > > > > > > > Then you can ask: " So your awareness is now, but when is my > > > > awareness? " > > > > > > > > > > Is your now the same as my now in time? Time is only > relative, > > they > > > > > say. But is it? What is my now relative to? > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 > Hi Ho Devi, > werner: I do know that on one hand you own a rather idealistic view and on the other you are also a thirsty seeker. devi: i don't have any idealistic view nor am i a thirsty seeker...far from it...i know what i know i know and steer away from believes... > werner: Why not leave this your question open for a while ? devi: you mean my question to you as to whether you've realized the Supreme or the Self in nirvikala samadhi? the answer is either yes or no....its cut and dry blunt question i asked to honestly know..i think the people in the group have a right to know whether you know what your talking about or not..... > > As long as you are thirsting for eternal life you must believe in a > universal awareness surviving. devi: i don't thirst for eternal life, thats a ridulous statement....i already have eternal life werner:But the fallacy of this thirst is that > you in addition have to believe that you are awareness itself and > that will be the cause that you never really can enquire what > this " you " is and that you sooner or later have to question it. devi: the points mute, i have no thirst..and i don't have to believe in the truth when i *know* it... > You see, we cannot meet here because our views are to different. But I am asking you for a favor: devi: i meet with nisargadattas views that there is a Supreme, and it can be known....(now, if you don't know the Supreme i suggest that you don't have any preconceived ideas about what it is) so, if you don't meet with those view, why are you here... > > Do not think that people following Niz and are not into bhakti have > no deep insights and feelings and are just superficial intellectuals. > > Werner devi: i don't think that way at all, most of the people i meet in these clubs have alot of insight, most of them are way more sophistcated in that respect then me.......but, you avoided the very important question....did you have the experience of the Self...? (and i use the owrd experience for lack of a better one) > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > When it comes to awareness, you are a damn liar. > > > > > > When you are telling about your being curious then this is a lie, > > you > > > are not curious at at all. Pete and me and others too told you > > > already a dozend and more of times that awareness is just a > function > > > of the brain and not some glorious godly mystery everywhere in the > > > universe. > > > > > > You, Anders are only interested to find proof for your dream and > > hope > > > that you will survive as awareness. You don't listen when others > are > > > telling a different view than that you are expecting and hoping > for. > > > > > > How I see you: > > > You are not enquiring, Anders - you are just chasing the dreams > and > > > beliefs of your childhood getting fulfilled. > > > > > > Werner > > > > devi: hi werner, i would like to know if you can come close to > > speaking of the Supreme that nizargatdatta speaks of, and if you > have > > realized the Self in nirvikalpa samadi that ramana maharshi and > half > > the other realizers speaks of? > > > > you seem to be so sure that awareness is only a function of the > brain > > and i find this hard to believe. i was sure that the brain in only > > the physical manifestion of the mind in where awareness is co- > exist, > > and that when the astral leaves the body/brain it, the awareness > > still funtions, being aware of things (beings, places)on an other > > dimension.... > > > > for me the only proof that you may be right is if you have total > Self- > > knowledge....do you? > > > > i really want to know if awareness dies when the brain dies? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, a tip: > > > > > > > > > > Next time you get a tooth extracted then have it done without > a > > > > > narcotic injection. > > > > > > > > > > Benefits: > > > > > You instatntly will know where your awarenes is. > > > > > > > > > > Bonus: > > > > > You instantly no longer are interested in other people's > > > assumptions > > > > > where awarenes could be. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > I am curious to know if awareness (consciousness, the sense of > > being > > > > aware) is local in some form, located as a result of the brain > and > > > > physical body, or if awareness really is non-local and > seamlessly > > > > connected with everything else. Another question is if my > > awareness > > > is > > > > only in me, and that other people have separate awareness, or > if > > > there > > > > is only one awareness. > > > > > > > > " ...then you will know yourself to be your neighbour... ...then > > you > > > > will know yourself as the One Life before it becomes form... " -- > > > > Eckhart Tolle > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > If you ask someone: " When is your awareness? " , then he or > > she - > > > if > > > > > > taking the question seriously - may answer: " My awareness > is > > > now, > > > > > not > > > > > > then tomorrow or yesterday " . > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you can ask: " So your awareness is now, but when is my > > > > > awareness? " > > > > > > > > > > > > Is your now the same as my now in time? Time is only > > relative, > > > they > > > > > > say. But is it? What is my now relative to? > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Hi Devi, As I seem to understand you, you meant: Either you know the Supreme or shut up. But - I have no idea what the Supreme is for you or even for me and in addition I won't shut up. And: I am not interested what the Supreme is, nor what God is, nor what Love is, nor what compassion is, nor what beauty is. I leave this to others. Werner Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > > > Hi Ho Devi, > > > werner: I do know that on one hand you own a rather idealistic view > and on the other you are also a thirsty seeker. > > devi: i don't have any idealistic view nor am i a thirsty > seeker...far from it...i know what i know i know and steer away from > believes... > > > werner: Why not leave this your question open for a while ? > > devi: you mean my question to you as to whether you've realized the > Supreme or the Self in nirvikala samadhi? the answer is either yes or > no....its cut and dry blunt question i asked to honestly know..i > think the people in the group have a right to know whether you know > what your talking about or not..... > > > > As long as you are thirsting for eternal life you must believe in a > > universal awareness surviving. > > devi: i don't thirst for eternal life, thats a ridulous > statement....i already have eternal life > > werner:But the fallacy of this thirst is that > > you in addition have to believe that you are awareness itself and > > that will be the cause that you never really can enquire what > > this " you " is and that you sooner or later have to question it. > > > devi: the points mute, i have no thirst..and i don't have to believe > in the truth when i *know* it... > > > > You see, we cannot meet here because our views are to different. > But I am asking you for a favor: > > devi: i meet with nisargadattas views that there is a Supreme, and it > can be known....(now, if you don't know the Supreme i suggest that > you don't have any preconceived ideas about what it is) so, if you > don't meet with those view, why are you here... > > > > Do not think that people following Niz and are not into bhakti have > > no deep insights and feelings and are just superficial > intellectuals. > > > > Werner > > devi: i don't think that way at all, most of the people i meet in > these clubs have alot of insight, most of them are way more > sophistcated in that respect then me.......but, you avoided the very > important question....did you have the experience of the Self...? > > (and i use the owrd experience for lack of a better one) > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > When it comes to awareness, you are a damn liar. > > > > > > > > When you are telling about your being curious then this is a > lie, > > > you > > > > are not curious at at all. Pete and me and others too told you > > > > already a dozend and more of times that awareness is just a > > function > > > > of the brain and not some glorious godly mystery everywhere in > the > > > > universe. > > > > > > > > You, Anders are only interested to find proof for your dream > and > > > hope > > > > that you will survive as awareness. You don't listen when > others > > are > > > > telling a different view than that you are expecting and hoping > > for. > > > > > > > > How I see you: > > > > You are not enquiring, Anders - you are just chasing the dreams > > and > > > > beliefs of your childhood getting fulfilled. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > devi: hi werner, i would like to know if you can come close to > > > speaking of the Supreme that nizargatdatta speaks of, and if you > > have > > > realized the Self in nirvikalpa samadi that ramana maharshi and > > half > > > the other realizers speaks of? > > > > > > you seem to be so sure that awareness is only a function of the > > brain > > > and i find this hard to believe. i was sure that the brain in > only > > > the physical manifestion of the mind in where awareness is co- > > exist, > > > and that when the astral leaves the body/brain it, the awareness > > > still funtions, being aware of things (beings, places)on an other > > > dimension.... > > > > > > for me the only proof that you may be right is if you have total > > Self- > > > knowledge....do you? > > > > > > i really want to know if awareness dies when the brain dies? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, a tip: > > > > > > > > > > > > Next time you get a tooth extracted then have it done > without > > a > > > > > > narcotic injection. > > > > > > > > > > > > Benefits: > > > > > > You instatntly will know where your awarenes is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bonus: > > > > > > You instantly no longer are interested in other people's > > > > assumptions > > > > > > where awarenes could be. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > I am curious to know if awareness (consciousness, the sense > of > > > being > > > > > aware) is local in some form, located as a result of the > brain > > and > > > > > physical body, or if awareness really is non-local and > > seamlessly > > > > > connected with everything else. Another question is if my > > > awareness > > > > is > > > > > only in me, and that other people have separate awareness, or > > if > > > > there > > > > > is only one awareness. > > > > > > > > > > " ...then you will know yourself to be your > neighbour... ...then > > > you > > > > > will know yourself as the One Life before it becomes > form... " -- > > > > > Eckhart Tolle > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you ask someone: " When is your awareness? " , then he or > > > she - > > > > if > > > > > > > taking the question seriously - may answer: " My awareness > > is > > > > now, > > > > > > not > > > > > > > then tomorrow or yesterday " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you can ask: " So your awareness is now, but when is > my > > > > > > awareness? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is your now the same as my now in time? Time is only > > > relative, > > > > they > > > > > > > say. But is it? What is my now relative to? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Hi Devi, > > As I seem to understand you, you meant: Either you know the Supreme > or shut up. devi: its not so black and white... > > But - I have no idea what the Supreme is for you or even for me and > in addition I won't shut up. devi: then your not an expert in matters of awareness and consciousness as you seem to express that you are.. > And: > I am not interested what the Supreme is, nor what God is, nor what > Love is, nor what compassion is, nor what beauty is. I leave this to > others. > > Werner devi: the original comment you made was that awareness dies with the death of the brain...thats totally wrong..from my point of view....and i may have changed my point of view if you could have stated in a simple way that you knew the Supreme.....but you don't so i can't.. > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Ho Devi, > > > > > werner: I do know that on one hand you own a rather idealistic view > > and on the other you are also a thirsty seeker. > > > > devi: i don't have any idealistic view nor am i a thirsty > > seeker...far from it...i know what i know i know and steer away > from > > believes... > > > > > werner: Why not leave this your question open for a while ? > > > > devi: you mean my question to you as to whether you've realized the > > Supreme or the Self in nirvikala samadhi? the answer is either yes > or > > no....its cut and dry blunt question i asked to honestly know..i > > think the people in the group have a right to know whether you know > > what your talking about or not..... > > > > > > As long as you are thirsting for eternal life you must believe in > a > > > universal awareness surviving. > > > > devi: i don't thirst for eternal life, thats a ridulous > > statement....i already have eternal life > > > > werner:But the fallacy of this thirst is that > > > you in addition have to believe that you are awareness itself and > > > that will be the cause that you never really can enquire what > > > this " you " is and that you sooner or later have to question it. > > > > > > devi: the points mute, i have no thirst..and i don't have to > believe > > in the truth when i *know* it... > > > > > > > You see, we cannot meet here because our views are to different. > > But I am asking you for a favor: > > > > devi: i meet with nisargadattas views that there is a Supreme, and > it > > can be known....(now, if you don't know the Supreme i suggest that > > you don't have any preconceived ideas about what it is) so, if you > > don't meet with those view, why are you here... > > > > > > Do not think that people following Niz and are not into bhakti > have > > > no deep insights and feelings and are just superficial > > intellectuals. > > > > > > Werner > > > > devi: i don't think that way at all, most of the people i meet in > > these clubs have alot of insight, most of them are way more > > sophistcated in that respect then me.......but, you avoided the > very > > important question....did you have the experience of the Self...? > > > > (and i use the owrd experience for lack of a better one) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > When it comes to awareness, you are a damn liar. > > > > > > > > > > When you are telling about your being curious then this is a > > lie, > > > > you > > > > > are not curious at at all. Pete and me and others too told you > > > > > already a dozend and more of times that awareness is just a > > > function > > > > > of the brain and not some glorious godly mystery everywhere > in > > the > > > > > universe. > > > > > > > > > > You, Anders are only interested to find proof for your dream > > and > > > > hope > > > > > that you will survive as awareness. You don't listen when > > others > > > are > > > > > telling a different view than that you are expecting and > hoping > > > for. > > > > > > > > > > How I see you: > > > > > You are not enquiring, Anders - you are just chasing the > dreams > > > and > > > > > beliefs of your childhood getting fulfilled. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > devi: hi werner, i would like to know if you can come close to > > > > speaking of the Supreme that nizargatdatta speaks of, and if > you > > > have > > > > realized the Self in nirvikalpa samadi that ramana maharshi > and > > > half > > > > the other realizers speaks of? > > > > > > > > you seem to be so sure that awareness is only a function of the > > > brain > > > > and i find this hard to believe. i was sure that the brain in > > only > > > > the physical manifestion of the mind in where awareness is co- > > > exist, > > > > and that when the astral leaves the body/brain it, the > awareness > > > > still funtions, being aware of things (beings, places)on an > other > > > > dimension.... > > > > > > > > for me the only proof that you may be right is if you have > total > > > Self- > > > > knowledge....do you? > > > > > > > > i really want to know if awareness dies when the brain dies? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, a tip: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Next time you get a tooth extracted then have it done > > without > > > a > > > > > > > narcotic injection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Benefits: > > > > > > > You instatntly will know where your awarenes is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bonus: > > > > > > > You instantly no longer are interested in other people's > > > > > assumptions > > > > > > > where awarenes could be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > I am curious to know if awareness (consciousness, the sense > > of > > > > being > > > > > > aware) is local in some form, located as a result of the > > brain > > > and > > > > > > physical body, or if awareness really is non-local and > > > seamlessly > > > > > > connected with everything else. Another question is if my > > > > awareness > > > > > is > > > > > > only in me, and that other people have separate awareness, > or > > > if > > > > > there > > > > > > is only one awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > " ...then you will know yourself to be your > > neighbour... ...then > > > > you > > > > > > will know yourself as the One Life before it becomes > > form... " -- > > > > > > Eckhart Tolle > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you ask someone: " When is your awareness? " , then he > or > > > > she - > > > > > if > > > > > > > > taking the question seriously - may answer: " My > awareness > > > is > > > > > now, > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > then tomorrow or yesterday " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you can ask: " So your awareness is now, but when > is > > my > > > > > > > awareness? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is your now the same as my now in time? Time is only > > > > relative, > > > > > they > > > > > > > > say. But is it? What is my now relative to? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Hi Devi, Why can't you accept what I told you: We cannot meet here at the moment, we have different views ! Why this need to prove that I am wrong, or even a blah, a blubberer, a bullshitter ? Can't you accept a different view from your's and standing that uncertainty for a while ? Just imagine you and me sitting together having some tea and you have a white nose and I have a black one but the tea we still enjoy, won't we ? Werner Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > Hi Devi, > > > > As I seem to understand you, you meant: Either you know the Supreme > > or shut up. > > > devi: its not so black and white... > > > > But - I have no idea what the Supreme is for you or even for me and > > in addition I won't shut up. > > > devi: then your not an expert in matters of awareness and > consciousness as you seem to express that you are.. > > > > And: > > I am not interested what the Supreme is, nor what God is, nor what > > Love is, nor what compassion is, nor what beauty is. I leave this > to > > others. > > > > Werner > > devi: the original comment you made was that awareness dies with the > death of the brain...thats totally wrong..from my point of > view....and i may have changed my point of view if you could have > stated in a simple way that you knew the Supreme.....but you don't so > i can't.. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ho Devi, > > > > > > > werner: I do know that on one hand you own a rather idealistic > view > > > and on the other you are also a thirsty seeker. > > > > > > devi: i don't have any idealistic view nor am i a thirsty > > > seeker...far from it...i know what i know i know and steer away > > from > > > believes... > > > > > > > werner: Why not leave this your question open for a while ? > > > > > > devi: you mean my question to you as to whether you've realized > the > > > Supreme or the Self in nirvikala samadhi? the answer is either > yes > > or > > > no....its cut and dry blunt question i asked to honestly know..i > > > think the people in the group have a right to know whether you > know > > > what your talking about or not..... > > > > > > > > As long as you are thirsting for eternal life you must believe > in > > a > > > > universal awareness surviving. > > > > > > devi: i don't thirst for eternal life, thats a ridulous > > > statement....i already have eternal life > > > > > > werner:But the fallacy of this thirst is that > > > > you in addition have to believe that you are awareness itself > and > > > > that will be the cause that you never really can enquire what > > > > this " you " is and that you sooner or later have to question it. > > > > > > > > > devi: the points mute, i have no thirst..and i don't have to > > believe > > > in the truth when i *know* it... > > > > > > > > > > You see, we cannot meet here because our views are to > different. > > > But I am asking you for a favor: > > > > > > devi: i meet with nisargadattas views that there is a Supreme, > and > > it > > > can be known....(now, if you don't know the Supreme i suggest > that > > > you don't have any preconceived ideas about what it is) so, if > you > > > don't meet with those view, why are you here... > > > > > > > > Do not think that people following Niz and are not into bhakti > > have > > > > no deep insights and feelings and are just superficial > > > intellectuals. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > devi: i don't think that way at all, most of the people i meet in > > > these clubs have alot of insight, most of them are way more > > > sophistcated in that respect then me.......but, you avoided the > > very > > > important question....did you have the experience of the Self...? > > > > > > (and i use the owrd experience for lack of a better one) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " > <polansky@m...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > When it comes to awareness, you are a damn liar. > > > > > > > > > > > > When you are telling about your being curious then this is > a > > > lie, > > > > > you > > > > > > are not curious at at all. Pete and me and others too told > you > > > > > > already a dozend and more of times that awareness is just a > > > > function > > > > > > of the brain and not some glorious godly mystery everywhere > > in > > > the > > > > > > universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > You, Anders are only interested to find proof for your > dream > > > and > > > > > hope > > > > > > that you will survive as awareness. You don't listen when > > > others > > > > are > > > > > > telling a different view than that you are expecting and > > hoping > > > > for. > > > > > > > > > > > > How I see you: > > > > > > You are not enquiring, Anders - you are just chasing the > > dreams > > > > and > > > > > > beliefs of your childhood getting fulfilled. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > devi: hi werner, i would like to know if you can come close > to > > > > > speaking of the Supreme that nizargatdatta speaks of, and if > > you > > > > have > > > > > realized the Self in nirvikalpa samadi that ramana maharshi > > and > > > > half > > > > > the other realizers speaks of? > > > > > > > > > > you seem to be so sure that awareness is only a function of > the > > > > brain > > > > > and i find this hard to believe. i was sure that the brain in > > > only > > > > > the physical manifestion of the mind in where awareness is co- > > > > exist, > > > > > and that when the astral leaves the body/brain it, the > > awareness > > > > > still funtions, being aware of things (beings, places)on an > > other > > > > > dimension.... > > > > > > > > > > for me the only proof that you may be right is if you have > > total > > > > Self- > > > > > knowledge....do you? > > > > > > > > > > i really want to know if awareness dies when the brain dies? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, a tip: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Next time you get a tooth extracted then have it done > > > without > > > > a > > > > > > > > narcotic injection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Benefits: > > > > > > > > You instatntly will know where your awarenes is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bonus: > > > > > > > > You instantly no longer are interested in other > people's > > > > > > assumptions > > > > > > > > where awarenes could be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am curious to know if awareness (consciousness, the > sense > > > of > > > > > being > > > > > > > aware) is local in some form, located as a result of the > > > brain > > > > and > > > > > > > physical body, or if awareness really is non-local and > > > > seamlessly > > > > > > > connected with everything else. Another question is if my > > > > > awareness > > > > > > is > > > > > > > only in me, and that other people have separate > awareness, > > or > > > > if > > > > > > there > > > > > > > is only one awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " ...then you will know yourself to be your > > > neighbour... ...then > > > > > you > > > > > > > will know yourself as the One Life before it becomes > > > form... " -- > > > > > > > Eckhart Tolle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you ask someone: " When is your awareness? " , then > he > > or > > > > > she - > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > taking the question seriously - may answer: " My > > awareness > > > > is > > > > > > now, > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > then tomorrow or yesterday " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you can ask: " So your awareness is now, but when > > is > > > my > > > > > > > > awareness? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is your now the same as my now in time? Time is only > > > > > relative, > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > say. But is it? What is my now relative to? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Hi Devi, > > Why can't you accept what I told you: > We cannot meet here at the moment, we have different views ! devi: ok, i accecpt that you refuse to answer my question... > > Why this need to prove that I am wrong, or even a blah, a blubberer, > a bullshitter ? devi: i saw you being very condenscending towards one or two of the other group members especially about a particular *point* you were making...if i had thought the point was a good one i wouldn't have said anything..... > > Can't you accept a different view from your's and standing that > uncertainty for a while ? devi: what uncertainty? > > Just imagine you and me sitting together having some tea and you have > a white nose and I have a black one but the tea we still enjoy, won't > we ? > > Werner devi: glad you can see this into friendliness, smiles, feel free to just ignore me, too... > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > wrote: > > > > Hi Devi, > > > > > > As I seem to understand you, you meant: Either you know the > Supreme > > > or shut up. > > > > > > devi: its not so black and white... > > > > > > But - I have no idea what the Supreme is for you or even for me > and > > > in addition I won't shut up. > > > > > > devi: then your not an expert in matters of awareness and > > consciousness as you seem to express that you are.. > > > > > > > And: > > > I am not interested what the Supreme is, nor what God is, nor > what > > > Love is, nor what compassion is, nor what beauty is. I leave this > > to > > > others. > > > > > > Werner > > > > devi: the original comment you made was that awareness dies with > the > > death of the brain...thats totally wrong..from my point of > > view....and i may have changed my point of view if you could have > > stated in a simple way that you knew the Supreme.....but you don't > so > > i can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ho Devi, > > > > > > > > > werner: I do know that on one hand you own a rather idealistic > > view > > > > and on the other you are also a thirsty seeker. > > > > > > > > devi: i don't have any idealistic view nor am i a thirsty > > > > seeker...far from it...i know what i know i know and steer away > > > from > > > > believes... > > > > > > > > > werner: Why not leave this your question open for a while ? > > > > > > > > devi: you mean my question to you as to whether you've realized > > the > > > > Supreme or the Self in nirvikala samadhi? the answer is either > > yes > > > or > > > > no....its cut and dry blunt question i asked to honestly > know..i > > > > think the people in the group have a right to know whether you > > know > > > > what your talking about or not..... > > > > > > > > > > As long as you are thirsting for eternal life you must > believe > > in > > > a > > > > > universal awareness surviving. > > > > > > > > devi: i don't thirst for eternal life, thats a ridulous > > > > statement....i already have eternal life > > > > > > > > werner:But the fallacy of this thirst is that > > > > > you in addition have to believe that you are awareness itself > > and > > > > > that will be the cause that you never really can enquire what > > > > > this " you " is and that you sooner or later have to question > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > devi: the points mute, i have no thirst..and i don't have to > > > believe > > > > in the truth when i *know* it... > > > > > > > > > > > > > You see, we cannot meet here because our views are to > > different. > > > > But I am asking you for a favor: > > > > > > > > devi: i meet with nisargadattas views that there is a Supreme, > > and > > > it > > > > can be known....(now, if you don't know the Supreme i suggest > > that > > > > you don't have any preconceived ideas about what it is) so, if > > you > > > > don't meet with those view, why are you here... > > > > > > > > > > Do not think that people following Niz and are not into > bhakti > > > have > > > > > no deep insights and feelings and are just superficial > > > > intellectuals. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > devi: i don't think that way at all, most of the people i meet > in > > > > these clubs have alot of insight, most of them are way more > > > > sophistcated in that respect then me.......but, you avoided the > > > very > > > > important question....did you have the experience of the > Self...? > > > > > > > > (and i use the owrd experience for lack of a better one) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " > > <polansky@m...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it comes to awareness, you are a damn liar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you are telling about your being curious then this > is > > a > > > > lie, > > > > > > you > > > > > > > are not curious at at all. Pete and me and others too > told > > you > > > > > > > already a dozend and more of times that awareness is just > a > > > > > function > > > > > > > of the brain and not some glorious godly mystery > everywhere > > > in > > > > the > > > > > > > universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You, Anders are only interested to find proof for your > > dream > > > > and > > > > > > hope > > > > > > > that you will survive as awareness. You don't listen when > > > > others > > > > > are > > > > > > > telling a different view than that you are expecting and > > > hoping > > > > > for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How I see you: > > > > > > > You are not enquiring, Anders - you are just chasing the > > > dreams > > > > > and > > > > > > > beliefs of your childhood getting fulfilled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > devi: hi werner, i would like to know if you can come close > > to > > > > > > speaking of the Supreme that nizargatdatta speaks of, and > if > > > you > > > > > have > > > > > > realized the Self in nirvikalpa samadi that ramana > maharshi > > > and > > > > > half > > > > > > the other realizers speaks of? > > > > > > > > > > > > you seem to be so sure that awareness is only a function of > > the > > > > > brain > > > > > > and i find this hard to believe. i was sure that the brain > in > > > > only > > > > > > the physical manifestion of the mind in where awareness is > co- > > > > > exist, > > > > > > and that when the astral leaves the body/brain it, the > > > awareness > > > > > > still funtions, being aware of things (beings, places)on an > > > other > > > > > > dimension.... > > > > > > > > > > > > for me the only proof that you may be right is if you have > > > total > > > > > Self- > > > > > > knowledge....do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > i really want to know if awareness dies when the brain dies? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, a tip: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Next time you get a tooth extracted then have it done > > > > without > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > narcotic injection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Benefits: > > > > > > > > > You instatntly will know where your awarenes is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bonus: > > > > > > > > > You instantly no longer are interested in other > > people's > > > > > > > assumptions > > > > > > > > > where awarenes could be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am curious to know if awareness (consciousness, the > > sense > > > > of > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > aware) is local in some form, located as a result of > the > > > > brain > > > > > and > > > > > > > > physical body, or if awareness really is non-local and > > > > > seamlessly > > > > > > > > connected with everything else. Another question is if > my > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > only in me, and that other people have separate > > awareness, > > > or > > > > > if > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > is only one awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " ...then you will know yourself to be your > > > > neighbour... ...then > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > will know yourself as the One Life before it becomes > > > > form... " -- > > > > > > > > Eckhart Tolle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you ask someone: " When is your awareness? " , then > > he > > > or > > > > > > she - > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > taking the question seriously - may answer: " My > > > awareness > > > > > is > > > > > > > now, > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > then tomorrow or yesterday " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you can ask: " So your awareness is now, but > when > > > is > > > > my > > > > > > > > > awareness? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is your now the same as my now in time? Time is > only > > > > > > relative, > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > say. But is it? What is my now relative to? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Hi Devi, Hmm, maybe you have overseen it, but I have answered your questions already: 1. I have no idea what the Supreme is. 2. Why it is in my eyes of use not to believe in an awareness surviving death, I will reapeat it again: " As long as you are thirsting for eternal life you must believe in a universal awareness surviving. But the fallacy of this thirst is that you in addition have to believe that you are awareness itself and that will be the cause that you never really can enquire what this " you " is and that you sooner or later have to question it " . So: I don't give a damn hood for if awareness will go on lasting for ever or not because when I died and it will last then ok ok, and if it won't last then ok too. But I am still alive and as long as I believe in an eternal awareness then this very belief will undermine enquiry because this enquiry could lead to the ending of the " me " which is thinking that it is awareness. Can't you see that point ? Who else besides the " me " is interested in eternal survival ? Werner Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > Hi Devi, > > > > Why can't you accept what I told you: > > We cannot meet here at the moment, we have different views ! > > > devi: ok, i accecpt that you refuse to answer my question... > > > > Why this need to prove that I am wrong, or even a blah, a > blubberer, > > a bullshitter ? > > > devi: i saw you being very condenscending towards one or two of the > other group members especially about a particular *point* you were > making...if i had thought the point was a good one i wouldn't have > said anything..... > > > > Can't you accept a different view from your's and standing that > > uncertainty for a while ? > > devi: what uncertainty? > > > > Just imagine you and me sitting together having some tea and you > have > > a white nose and I have a black one but the tea we still enjoy, > won't > > we ? > > > > Werner > > devi: glad you can see this into friendliness, smiles, feel free to > just ignore me, too... > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Devi, > > > > > > > > As I seem to understand you, you meant: Either you know the > > Supreme > > > > or shut up. > > > > > > > > > devi: its not so black and white... > > > > > > > > But - I have no idea what the Supreme is for you or even for me > > and > > > > in addition I won't shut up. > > > > > > > > > devi: then your not an expert in matters of awareness and > > > consciousness as you seem to express that you are.. > > > > > > > > > > And: > > > > I am not interested what the Supreme is, nor what God is, nor > > what > > > > Love is, nor what compassion is, nor what beauty is. I leave > this > > > to > > > > others. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > devi: the original comment you made was that awareness dies with > > the > > > death of the brain...thats totally wrong..from my point of > > > view....and i may have changed my point of view if you could have > > > stated in a simple way that you knew the Supreme.....but you > don't > > so > > > i can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " > <polansky@m...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ho Devi, > > > > > > > > > > > werner: I do know that on one hand you own a rather > idealistic > > > view > > > > > and on the other you are also a thirsty seeker. > > > > > > > > > > devi: i don't have any idealistic view nor am i a thirsty > > > > > seeker...far from it...i know what i know i know and steer > away > > > > from > > > > > believes... > > > > > > > > > > > werner: Why not leave this your question open for a while ? > > > > > > > > > > devi: you mean my question to you as to whether you've > realized > > > the > > > > > Supreme or the Self in nirvikala samadhi? the answer is > either > > > yes > > > > or > > > > > no....its cut and dry blunt question i asked to honestly > > know..i > > > > > think the people in the group have a right to know whether > you > > > know > > > > > what your talking about or not..... > > > > > > > > > > > > As long as you are thirsting for eternal life you must > > believe > > > in > > > > a > > > > > > universal awareness surviving. > > > > > > > > > > devi: i don't thirst for eternal life, thats a ridulous > > > > > statement....i already have eternal life > > > > > > > > > > werner:But the fallacy of this thirst is that > > > > > > you in addition have to believe that you are awareness > itself > > > and > > > > > > that will be the cause that you never really can enquire > what > > > > > > this " you " is and that you sooner or later have to question > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > devi: the points mute, i have no thirst..and i don't have to > > > > believe > > > > > in the truth when i *know* it... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You see, we cannot meet here because our views are to > > > different. > > > > > But I am asking you for a favor: > > > > > > > > > > devi: i meet with nisargadattas views that there is a > Supreme, > > > and > > > > it > > > > > can be known....(now, if you don't know the Supreme i suggest > > > that > > > > > you don't have any preconceived ideas about what it is) so, > if > > > you > > > > > don't meet with those view, why are you here... > > > > > > > > > > > > Do not think that people following Niz and are not into > > bhakti > > > > have > > > > > > no deep insights and feelings and are just superficial > > > > > intellectuals. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > devi: i don't think that way at all, most of the people i > meet > > in > > > > > these clubs have alot of insight, most of them are way more > > > > > sophistcated in that respect then me.......but, you avoided > the > > > > very > > > > > important question....did you have the experience of the > > Self...? > > > > > > > > > > (and i use the owrd experience for lack of a better one) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " > > > <polansky@m...> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it comes to awareness, you are a damn liar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you are telling about your being curious then this > > is > > > a > > > > > lie, > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > are not curious at at all. Pete and me and others too > > told > > > you > > > > > > > > already a dozend and more of times that awareness is > just > > a > > > > > > function > > > > > > > > of the brain and not some glorious godly mystery > > everywhere > > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > > > universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You, Anders are only interested to find proof for your > > > dream > > > > > and > > > > > > > hope > > > > > > > > that you will survive as awareness. You don't listen > when > > > > > others > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > telling a different view than that you are expecting > and > > > > hoping > > > > > > for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How I see you: > > > > > > > > You are not enquiring, Anders - you are just chasing > the > > > > dreams > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > beliefs of your childhood getting fulfilled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > devi: hi werner, i would like to know if you can come > close > > > to > > > > > > > speaking of the Supreme that nizargatdatta speaks of, and > > if > > > > you > > > > > > have > > > > > > > realized the Self in nirvikalpa samadi that ramana > > maharshi > > > > and > > > > > > half > > > > > > > the other realizers speaks of? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you seem to be so sure that awareness is only a function > of > > > the > > > > > > brain > > > > > > > and i find this hard to believe. i was sure that the > brain > > in > > > > > only > > > > > > > the physical manifestion of the mind in where awareness > is > > co- > > > > > > exist, > > > > > > > and that when the astral leaves the body/brain it, the > > > > awareness > > > > > > > still funtions, being aware of things (beings, places) on > an > > > > other > > > > > > > dimension.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for me the only proof that you may be right is if you > have > > > > total > > > > > > Self- > > > > > > > knowledge....do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i really want to know if awareness dies when the brain > dies? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > > > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, a tip: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Next time you get a tooth extracted then have it > done > > > > > without > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > narcotic injection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Benefits: > > > > > > > > > > You instatntly will know where your awarenes is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bonus: > > > > > > > > > > You instantly no longer are interested in other > > > people's > > > > > > > > assumptions > > > > > > > > > > where awarenes could be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am curious to know if awareness (consciousness, the > > > sense > > > > > of > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > aware) is local in some form, located as a result of > > the > > > > > brain > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > physical body, or if awareness really is non-local > and > > > > > > seamlessly > > > > > > > > > connected with everything else. Another question is > if > > my > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > only in me, and that other people have separate > > > awareness, > > > > or > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > is only one awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " ...then you will know yourself to be your > > > > > neighbour... ...then > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > will know yourself as the One Life before it becomes > > > > > form... " -- > > > > > > > > > Eckhart Tolle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you ask someone: " When is your awareness? " , > then > > > he > > > > or > > > > > > > she - > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > taking the question seriously - may answer: " My > > > > awareness > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > now, > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > then tomorrow or yesterday " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you can ask: " So your awareness is now, but > > when > > > > is > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > awareness? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is your now the same as my now in time? Time is > > only > > > > > > > relative, > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > say. But is it? What is my now relative to? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 hilo, ok, i missed your answer...have a nice day, smiles > > Hi Devi, > > Hmm, maybe you have overseen it, but I have answered your questions > already: > > 1. I have no idea what the Supreme is. > > 2. Why it is in my eyes of use not to believe in an awareness > surviving death, I will reapeat it again: > > " As long as you are thirsting for eternal life you must believe in a > universal awareness surviving. But the fallacy of this thirst is that > you in addition have to believe that you are awareness itself and > that will be the cause that you never really can enquire what > this " you " is and that you sooner or later have to question it " . > > So: > I don't give a damn hood for if awareness will go on lasting for ever > or not because when I died and it will last then ok ok, and if it > won't last then ok too. But I am still alive and as long as I believe > in an eternal awareness then this very belief will undermine enquiry > because this enquiry could lead to the ending of the " me " which is > thinking that it is awareness. Can't you see that point ? Who else > besides the " me " is interested in eternal survival ? > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > wrote: > > > > Hi Devi, > > > > > > Why can't you accept what I told you: > > > We cannot meet here at the moment, we have different views ! > > > > > > devi: ok, i accecpt that you refuse to answer my question... > > > > > > Why this need to prove that I am wrong, or even a blah, a > > blubberer, > > > a bullshitter ? > > > > > > devi: i saw you being very condenscending towards one or two of the > > other group members especially about a particular *point* you were > > making...if i had thought the point was a good one i wouldn't have > > said anything..... > > > > > > Can't you accept a different view from your's and standing that > > > uncertainty for a while ? > > > > devi: what uncertainty? > > > > > > Just imagine you and me sitting together having some tea and you > > have > > > a white nose and I have a black one but the tea we still enjoy, > > won't > > > we ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > devi: glad you can see this into friendliness, smiles, feel free to > > just ignore me, too... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Devi, > > > > > > > > > > As I seem to understand you, you meant: Either you know the > > > Supreme > > > > > or shut up. > > > > > > > > > > > > devi: its not so black and white... > > > > > > > > > > But - I have no idea what the Supreme is for you or even for > me > > > and > > > > > in addition I won't shut up. > > > > > > > > > > > > devi: then your not an expert in matters of awareness and > > > > consciousness as you seem to express that you are.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And: > > > > > I am not interested what the Supreme is, nor what God is, nor > > > what > > > > > Love is, nor what compassion is, nor what beauty is. I leave > > this > > > > to > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > devi: the original comment you made was that awareness dies > with > > > the > > > > death of the brain...thats totally wrong..from my point of > > > > view....and i may have changed my point of view if you could > have > > > > stated in a simple way that you knew the Supreme.....but you > > don't > > > so > > > > i can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " > > <polansky@m...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ho Devi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > werner: I do know that on one hand you own a rather > > idealistic > > > > view > > > > > > and on the other you are also a thirsty seeker. > > > > > > > > > > > > devi: i don't have any idealistic view nor am i a thirsty > > > > > > seeker...far from it...i know what i know i know and steer > > away > > > > > from > > > > > > believes... > > > > > > > > > > > > > werner: Why not leave this your question open for a while ? > > > > > > > > > > > > devi: you mean my question to you as to whether you've > > realized > > > > the > > > > > > Supreme or the Self in nirvikala samadhi? the answer is > > either > > > > yes > > > > > or > > > > > > no....its cut and dry blunt question i asked to honestly > > > know..i > > > > > > think the people in the group have a right to know whether > > you > > > > know > > > > > > what your talking about or not..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As long as you are thirsting for eternal life you must > > > believe > > > > in > > > > > a > > > > > > > universal awareness surviving. > > > > > > > > > > > > devi: i don't thirst for eternal life, thats a ridulous > > > > > > statement....i already have eternal life > > > > > > > > > > > > werner:But the fallacy of this thirst is that > > > > > > > you in addition have to believe that you are awareness > > itself > > > > and > > > > > > > that will be the cause that you never really can enquire > > what > > > > > > > this " you " is and that you sooner or later have to > question > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > devi: the points mute, i have no thirst..and i don't have > to > > > > > believe > > > > > > in the truth when i *know* it... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You see, we cannot meet here because our views are to > > > > different. > > > > > > But I am asking you for a favor: > > > > > > > > > > > > devi: i meet with nisargadattas views that there is a > > Supreme, > > > > and > > > > > it > > > > > > can be known....(now, if you don't know the Supreme i > suggest > > > > that > > > > > > you don't have any preconceived ideas about what it is) so, > > if > > > > you > > > > > > don't meet with those view, why are you here... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do not think that people following Niz and are not into > > > bhakti > > > > > have > > > > > > > no deep insights and feelings and are just superficial > > > > > > intellectuals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > devi: i don't think that way at all, most of the people i > > meet > > > in > > > > > > these clubs have alot of insight, most of them are way more > > > > > > sophistcated in that respect then me.......but, you avoided > > the > > > > > very > > > > > > important question....did you have the experience of the > > > Self...? > > > > > > > > > > > > (and i use the owrd experience for lack of a better one) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " > > > > <polansky@m...> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it comes to awareness, you are a damn liar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you are telling about your being curious then > this > > > is > > > > a > > > > > > lie, > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > are not curious at at all. Pete and me and others too > > > told > > > > you > > > > > > > > > already a dozend and more of times that awareness is > > just > > > a > > > > > > > function > > > > > > > > > of the brain and not some glorious godly mystery > > > everywhere > > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You, Anders are only interested to find proof for > your > > > > dream > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > hope > > > > > > > > > that you will survive as awareness. You don't listen > > when > > > > > > others > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > telling a different view than that you are expecting > > and > > > > > hoping > > > > > > > for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How I see you: > > > > > > > > > You are not enquiring, Anders - you are just chasing > > the > > > > > dreams > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > beliefs of your childhood getting fulfilled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > devi: hi werner, i would like to know if you can come > > close > > > > to > > > > > > > > speaking of the Supreme that nizargatdatta speaks of, > and > > > if > > > > > you > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > realized the Self in nirvikalpa samadi that ramana > > > maharshi > > > > > and > > > > > > > half > > > > > > > > the other realizers speaks of? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you seem to be so sure that awareness is only a > function > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > brain > > > > > > > > and i find this hard to believe. i was sure that the > > brain > > > in > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > the physical manifestion of the mind in where awareness > > is > > > co- > > > > > > > exist, > > > > > > > > and that when the astral leaves the body/brain it, the > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > still funtions, being aware of things (beings, places) > on > > an > > > > > other > > > > > > > > dimension.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for me the only proof that you may be right is if you > > have > > > > > total > > > > > > > Self- > > > > > > > > knowledge....do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i really want to know if awareness dies when the brain > > dies? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > > > > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, a tip: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Next time you get a tooth extracted then have it > > done > > > > > > without > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > narcotic injection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Benefits: > > > > > > > > > > > You instatntly will know where your awarenes is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bonus: > > > > > > > > > > > You instantly no longer are interested in other > > > > people's > > > > > > > > > assumptions > > > > > > > > > > > where awarenes could be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am curious to know if awareness (consciousness, > the > > > > sense > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > aware) is local in some form, located as a result > of > > > the > > > > > > brain > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > physical body, or if awareness really is non- local > > and > > > > > > > seamlessly > > > > > > > > > > connected with everything else. Another question is > > if > > > my > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > only in me, and that other people have separate > > > > awareness, > > > > > or > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > is only one awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " ...then you will know yourself to be your > > > > > > neighbour... ...then > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > will know yourself as the One Life before it > becomes > > > > > > form... " -- > > > > > > > > > > Eckhart Tolle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you ask someone: " When is your awareness? " , > > then > > > > he > > > > > or > > > > > > > > she - > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > > taking the question seriously - may answer: " My > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > now, > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > then tomorrow or yesterday " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you can ask: " So your awareness is now, > but > > > when > > > > > is > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > awareness? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is your now the same as my now in time? Time is > > > only > > > > > > > > relative, > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > > say. But is it? What is my now relative to? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /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.