Guest guest Posted March 13, 2005 Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 Stefan, There is no " me " which can get conscious or unconscious of something. But there is a body/mind which was called by his parents Werner which some time ago has read about that matter. Question: Before a fart is pooping into the world, could we at least call it " gas " or a " pre-fart " ? Ok, then lets call a thought before it is transported into that part of the brain which makes it conscious lets say a " pre-thought " . Can you accept this ? You see, the problem with naming is that we pick out a snapshot of a dynamic process and give it a name like " thought " , or pre-thought, or fart, or gas. Words never can catch life or the whole, but when communicating we have to use words and that neccessity is a fair agreement between the communicating parties, isn't it ? But suddenly no longer accepting words during communication, I would call " stubborn " or " rebellion " . Therefor: How would you like to call a tennis ball approaching the tennis player and not yet hasn't got conscious ? And how would you like to call a finished thought and not yet hasn't got conscious but let's say in one milli second it will ? You see, the naming depends on the length of the snap-shot cut-out. Does a thought only EXIST when it is conscious or also already before ? Now we reached the realm of solipsism. Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > >Thoughts exist without awarenes. When a thought comes into being it > >needs about 300 msecs til it gets conscious. > > When you miss to become aware of the thought, lets say you faint 100 > msecs before the thought becomes conscious, would you still call that > which came into being " a thought " ? > > If you cannot answer this question with " yes " ... (I know you dont > answer questions, so I make provisions for that case) ...well then, > this - and all your conclusions - has no relevance at all to what is > discussed. > > Greetings > Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >There is no " me " which can get conscious or unconscious of something. You did not refer with a single word to the question I have asked. So, I will answer it myself: when there is nobody to receive a thought and call it " thought " - then there simply is no thought. Dont you agree? Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Hi Stefan, No, I don't agree with this: When there is nobody to receive a thought and call it " thought " - then there simply is no thought. No matter if there seems to exist a " somebody " or not to exist, thought ism't received because in any case there is no receiver of thought. Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > >There is no " me " which can get conscious or unconscious of something. > > You did not refer with a single word to the question I have asked. > > So, I will answer it myself: when there is nobody to receive a thought > and call it " thought " - then there simply is no thought. > > Dont you agree? > > Greetings > Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >No matter if there seems to exist a " somebody " or not to exist, >thought ism't received because in any case there is no receiver of >thought. I see. I just dont get who in this case is calling this event " thought " . And did you not say that thought needs a certain time to become conscious? So, can it not be said that " consciousness " receives " thought " ? Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Stefan, There is no " who " calling thought thought, there is just thought calling thought thought An there is also no thought appearing in consciousness, it rather is made conscious within the brain. Consciousness is its content and that thing you may call an appearence, consciousness<->content = appearence. Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > >No matter if there seems to exist a " somebody " or not to exist, > >thought ism't received because in any case there is no receiver of > >thought. > > I see. I just dont get who in this case is calling this event > " thought " . And did you not say that thought needs a certain time to > become conscious? So, can it not be said that " consciousness " receives > " thought " ? > > Greetings > Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >There is no " who " calling thought thought, there is just thought >calling thought thought > >An there is also no thought appearing in consciousness, it rather is >made conscious within the brain. Consciousness is its content and >that thing you may call an appearence, consciousness<->content = >appearence. I see what you mean. For me this is just one way to look at it, but it leaves a thousand questions open (for me) and I find it most important to see what deductions can be made. Right now I am just trying to understand, is this what you just said: 1.your personal belief? 2.somebodies finding, which can be proved? 3.your knowledge, unprovable, but the absolute " truth " ? 4.or anything else? Greetings Stefan > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > >No matter if there seems to exist a " somebody " or not to exist, > > >thought ism't received because in any case there is no receiver of > > >thought. > > > > I see. I just dont get who in this case is calling this event > > " thought " . And did you not say that thought needs a certain time to > > become conscious? So, can it not be said that " consciousness " > receives > > " thought " ? > > > > Greetings > > Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Stefan, If you want to go on with all your beliefs and concepts which help you to get stabilized as mine do stabilze me, then just go on. Have I ever asked you to prove them ? Would that have been fair ? For me it is a common thing that we feed on hamburgers for the body and concepts and beliefs to get on grips with " reality " . I never ask others to prove their consepts and belief because what really counts is why do we need them. What are the motives, the needs, the emotions behind them ? I think it is a sign for unfair communicative qualities to ask for proofs of the other's beliefs like " Ha idiot, you believe in God ? Prove it that God exists " . My motive why I deny the existence of " pure consciousness " has its root in this metaphor: " To find God you must give up God " Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > >There is no " who " calling thought thought, there is just thought > >calling thought thought > > > >An there is also no thought appearing in consciousness, it rather is > >made conscious within the brain. Consciousness is its content and > >that thing you may call an appearence, consciousness<->content = > >appearence. > > I see what you mean. For me this is just one way to look at it, but it > leaves a thousand questions open (for me) and I find it most important > to see what deductions can be made. Right now I am just trying to > understand, is this what you just said: > > 1.your personal belief? > 2.somebodies finding, which can be proved? > 3.your knowledge, unprovable, but the absolute " truth " ? > 4.or anything else? > > Greetings > Stefan > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >No matter if there seems to exist a " somebody " or not to exist, > > > >thought ism't received because in any case there is no receiver > of > > > >thought. > > > > > > I see. I just dont get who in this case is calling this event > > > " thought " . And did you not say that thought needs a certain time > to > > > become conscious? So, can it not be said that " consciousness " > > receives > > > " thought " ? > > > > > > Greetings > > > Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Stefan, > > If you want to go on with all your beliefs and concepts which help > you to get stabilized as mine do stabilze me, then just go on. Have I > ever asked you to prove them ? Would that have been fair ? > > For me it is a common thing that we feed on hamburgers for the body > and concepts and beliefs to get on grips with " reality " . > > I never ask others to prove their consepts and belief because what > really counts is why do we need them. What are the motives, the > needs, the emotions behind them ? > > I think it is a sign for unfair communicative qualities to ask for > proofs of the other's beliefs like " Ha idiot, you believe in God ? > Prove it that God exists " . > > My motive why I deny the existence of " pure consciousness " has its > root in this metaphor: > > " To find God you must give up God " > > Werner ************************************* Hi Werner, W: " To find God you must give up God " We must be careful in the interpretation of that metaphor. Millions of people have give up the idea of God or any search or way to reach him. They are not closer to him at all. I know a lot of them. Pure consciousness as teached by the masters is pure being. The essence of our selves. You just said above that you deny it? Neti neti has to be use carfully with wisdom. If not you may fall in the labyrinth of explanations and denials. You must know who you are. You cannot bypass this to reach yourself. Denying your existance won't bring you closer to your self. You cannot deny what exists. Deny an apple? We can never get rid of God! Never ever! The idea of God must be given up! Not God!! Respectfully Odysseus, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Hi Odi, I am thankful to find someone helping me to understand myself what I have posted. Good to know you are arround always ready to lend a helping hand Werner Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Stefan, > > > > If you want to go on with all your beliefs and concepts which help > > you to get stabilized as mine do stabilze me, then just go on. > Have I > > ever asked you to prove them ? Would that have been fair ? > > > > For me it is a common thing that we feed on hamburgers for the > body > > and concepts and beliefs to get on grips with " reality " . > > > > I never ask others to prove their consepts and belief because what > > really counts is why do we need them. What are the motives, the > > needs, the emotions behind them ? > > > > I think it is a sign for unfair communicative qualities to ask for > > proofs of the other's beliefs like " Ha idiot, you believe in God ? > > Prove it that God exists " . > > > > My motive why I deny the existence of " pure consciousness " has its > > root in this metaphor: > > > > " To find God you must give up God " > > > > Werner > > ************************************* > > Hi Werner, > > W: " To find God you must give up God " > > We must be careful in the interpretation of that metaphor. Millions > of people have give up the idea of God or any search or way to reach > him. They are not closer to him at all. I know a lot of them. Pure > consciousness as teached by the masters is pure being. The essence > of our selves. You just said above that you deny it? Neti neti has > to be use carfully with wisdom. If not you may fall in the labyrinth > of explanations and denials. You must know who you are. You cannot > bypass this to reach yourself. Denying your existance won't bring > you closer to your self. You cannot deny what exists. Deny an apple? > We can never get rid of God! Never ever! The idea of God must be > given up! Not God!! > > Respectfully > Odysseus, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Odi, > > I am thankful to find someone helping me to understand myself what I > have posted. Good to know you are arround always ready to lend a > helping hand > > Werner ************************** You are welcome. Love Odysseus, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Werner, I have NOT asked you to prove anything. Never had I any such thought or intention. In the contrary, I wanted to know if this what you presented (which I find very interesting) is your belief or something that you claim is proved. Or maybe something in the middle. I personally have also my beliefs and concepts, and I appreciate the openness in which you confess to have yours. Still in my case, for some strange reason faith has condemned me to question all beliefs and concepts, whenever they come across (most of all my own). This was so for me all my life. You wrote: >My motive why I deny the existence of " pure consciousness " has its >root in this metaphor: > " To find God you must give up God " In my own words I would say " the very search is the hindrance " . The crazy thing seems to be - for me - that there are indications that the search has to be taken to the peak in order to be given up. I cannot intentionally give up the search. As long there is suffering there is search and as long there is search there is suffering. Giving it up with help of a concept would be false, in my opinion. One would exchange old concepts with new ones, which is worse, because it creates the illusion one is finally on a better way, or has even arrived, but really nothing has changed. And really: nothingt had to be changed in the first place! When you say " My motive why I deny the existence of " pure consciousness " ... " I understand you that you take this position purposely (out of a motive as you say). Would it not be more appropriate to take it as an assumption but leave it open until you either know the " truth " or: have no more need to know any truth...? For me it is like this: I take your view into consideration, as a possibility, but I leave it open, as a question. Meanwhile I like to present all the logical contradictions. I do this not to blame YOU, but to do what I always do. I have never, never found any world concept which is not logically ending in contradictions. The only intelligent way to use our intellect is to be as playful as possible, IMO. Greetings Stefan Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Stefan, > > If you want to go on with all your beliefs and concepts which help > you to get stabilized as mine do stabilze me, then just go on. Have I > ever asked you to prove them ? Would that have been fair ? > > For me it is a common thing that we feed on hamburgers for the body > and concepts and beliefs to get on grips with " reality " . > > I never ask others to prove their consepts and belief because what > really counts is why do we need them. What are the motives, the > needs, the emotions behind them ? > > I think it is a sign for unfair communicative qualities to ask for > proofs of the other's beliefs like " Ha idiot, you believe in God ? > Prove it that God exists " . > > My motive why I deny the existence of " pure consciousness " has its > root in this metaphor: > > " To find God you must give up God " > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > >There is no " who " calling thought thought, there is just thought > > >calling thought thought > > > > > >An there is also no thought appearing in consciousness, it rather > is > > >made conscious within the brain. Consciousness is its content and > > >that thing you may call an appearence, consciousness<->content = > > >appearence. > > > > I see what you mean. For me this is just one way to look at it, but > it > > leaves a thousand questions open (for me) and I find it most > important > > to see what deductions can be made. Right now I am just trying to > > understand, is this what you just said: > > > > 1.your personal belief? > > 2.somebodies finding, which can be proved? > > 3.your knowledge, unprovable, but the absolute " truth " ? > > 4.or anything else? > > > > Greetings > > Stefan 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.