Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 In a message dated 3/14/05 5:54:46 AM, ombhurbhuva writes: > Pete invites Devi to step in front of a truck to test her theory that all > is > consciousness. Presumably she will find out that on the contrary all is > matter as both truck and thought truck arrive simultaneously. That's true, > so presumeably there has been an error in the understanding of prajnanam > brahma. > > Maybe there is in this a clue as to how the thought of a truck is the > thought-of-a-truck or really connected to a real truck out there. I would > hold that the thought of a truck is not just a thought that is conscious of > itself or self luminous cognition sort of thing. > > Next we can ask how neural activity or the end point of stimulation by a > physical object becomes mental activity. And this is not just the end of a > causal chain which takes a major jump across the void. How do we get at the > awareness of the position of the ball 200m/s before it is actually 'seen'. > If all states of the human are saturated by awareness then this anticipation > is forcing the information, probalising outcomes, reading closer, faster. > As > Werner said there is no (mental)canvas as a final stage. > > Is there an underlying reality which makes thought and neural activity > nondual or both aspects of the same reality? Perhaps both thought of truck > and truck are both manifestations of an underlying reality which we call > consciousness. Are the experiences of mystics relevent to this? > > Michael. > > > P: Yes, Michael, there is an underlying indivisible X going on. But why your insistence in calling it consciousness? This insistence to call it the big C, points to a need in you that you should investigate. You should farther investigate why you consider naming that important. Has naming any power beside distinguishing an object from another for communications purposes? It's easy to see how convenient it's to have a name for apples and another for pears, but does naming concepts such as souls, atman, spirit, and Consciousness gives them any reality, aside from a conceptual one? There is conversation along these lines going on at another list which perhaps would be of interest here: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:27:38 -0000 " dan330033 " <berkowd Re: Objectification and Clarity/ Pete DirectApproach , Pedsie2@a... wrote: Hi Pete - You wrote, in part: > P; why not? There is no natural law against it. I can be > an object to myself. Matter of fact, that's what those > appearances called others are: an objectification of my > original nature. A baby sees no objects, for a baby all is self. > Of course, a baby has no concept of self, just undivided > perception. What makes an object to appear as an object? What exactly is " objectification " ? My answer: Objectification is location, results in perceiving something as having duration, as continuing with maintained qualities and characteristics - thus, with objects come an observer existing in relation, comes time and beginning, ends, and relations of things, beings, experiences. With perceived qualities attributed to the object, come an observer's reactions of various kinds to the object (e.g., attraction, repulsion, indifference, associating it with memory, with wants, fears, remembered qualities). The object takes on seeming qualities of existence and continuity, and with that process comes an observer seeming to continue in relation to objects, and to experiences (which themselves can function as a kind of object). If one is clear that all objects arise of oneself, and one's self arises in the act of perceiving and relating, then subject and objects co-arise infinitely, indeterminately, and no longer anchor one's being. The human memory/perception process breaks down this infinity into " manageable chunks " for the sake of a survival program, giving a sequence of time, definable objects, and an apparently separably existing observer/knower. One now is aware of the circular reinforcement required to locate an object (self reinforces object which reinforces self in relation). One is aware of the circularity of using senses to define sensory objects, which gives one's individual and cultural being and the experience of a world through a process of time. The time involved even in being born as an infant is a construction co-arising with " objectification. " Time is one's being in an ongoing process of experiencing and relating, is one's perceiving and relating of and to objects (including experiences as objects). Even one moment of an infant's experience of a relation with an object (e.g. mother's breast) " includes " all moments of all beings existing in time and through relating with objects. Hence, the newborn proceeds to construct objects and relations, day by day, aided by genetic program, aided by memory, and by language, parents and society in this development. Through that process comes a seemingly identifiable individual, and group of individuals, and a culture with shared relations and meanings. Objectification involves a process and formation of relations through time and in space. Yet, objectification, although necessary for perception oriented around a survival program, has never " captured " the nature of one's being, which is beyond life and death. One eternal moment of dying to one's location and process in time, one timeless instant of nonobjectified clarity is worth more than millions of words and thoughts, thousands of teachers and teachings. -- Dan Indeed! Dan's last paragraph is a very level headed description of Satory, if one takes those two words: 'eternal' and 'timeless' with a grain of salt. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 In a message dated 3/14/05 8:44:08 AM, anders_lindman writes: > How about pure matter? Is that a myth too? Can there be matter without > consciousness? > > /AL > > P: LOL! PURE MATTER! Is that a discovery of yours? Write a paper, you are sure to win the Nobel Prize for that one. You are a lot of fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 From the curb: Pete invites Devi to step in front of a truck to test her theory that all is consciousness. Presumably she will find out that on the contrary all is matter as both truck and thought truck arrive simultaneously. That's true, so presumeably there has been an error in the understanding of prajnanam brahma. Maybe there is in this a clue as to how the thought of a truck is the thought-of-a-truck or really connected to a real truck out there. I would hold that the thought of a truck is not just a thought that is conscious of itself or self luminous cognition sort of thing. Next we can ask how neural activity or the end point of stimulation by a physical object becomes mental activity. And this is not just the end of a causal chain which takes a major jump across the void. How do we get at the awareness of the position of the ball 200m/s before it is actually 'seen'. If all states of the human are saturated by awareness then this anticipation is forcing the information, probalising outcomes, reading closer, faster. As Werner said there is no (mental)canvas as a final stage. Is there an underlying reality which makes thought and neural activity nondual or both aspects of the same reality? Perhaps both thought of truck and truck are both manifestations of an underlying reality which we call consciousness. Are the experiences of mystics relevent to this? Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 In a message dated 3/14/05 9:30:21 AM, anders_lindman writes: > AL: Can there be matter without consciousness? (And I don't mean that a > stone is conscious) > P: Please note your question, as you asked it, has to be answered in the affirmative. Had you asked, can there be knowledge of matter without consciousness? then, the answer is... NO. Consciousness ONLY relates to KNOWLEDGE. It doesn't create anything. Any attemp to equate consciousness with a creative principle has an emotional, not a rational basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > From the curb: > > Pete invites Devi to step in front of a truck to test her theory that all is > consciousness. Presumably she will find out that on the contrary all is > matter as both truck and thought truck arrive simultaneously. That's true, > so presumeably there has been an error in the understanding of prajnanam > brahma. > > Maybe there is in this a clue as to how the thought of a truck is the > thought-of-a-truck or really connected to a real truck out there. I would > hold that the thought of a truck is not just a thought that is conscious of > itself or self luminous cognition sort of thing. > > Next we can ask how neural activity or the end point of stimulation by a > physical object becomes mental activity. And this is not just the end of a > causal chain which takes a major jump across the void. How do we get at the > awareness of the position of the ball 200m/s before it is actually 'seen'. > If all states of the human are saturated by awareness then this anticipation > is forcing the information, probalising outcomes, reading closer, faster. As > Werner said there is no (mental)canvas as a final stage. > > Is there an underlying reality which makes thought and neural activity > nondual or both aspects of the same reality? Perhaps both thought of truck > and truck are both manifestations of an underlying reality which we call > consciousness. Are the experiences of mystics relevent to this? > > Michael. Consciousness is the common ground in which phenomena happen. The mind thinks of separation, but there is alway consciousness connected to whatever is experienced as separation. The separation is there, yes, but there is always consciousness being aware of this separation. Consciousness is never separated from that which happens in consciousness. Can anything be separate from consciousness? Can reality be separate from consciousness? Can consciousness be unconscious? Of course not, for consciousness means being conscious not unconscious. A memory of having been unconscious is a memory observed in consciousness. That memory is as real as it gets, but it's just a memory, it's just information, it's just a 'DVD' being played in consciousness. Physical matter is not solid at all. What is the smallest part of matter made of? Phlogiston? Small particles? If so, what are these particles made of? Can there be someting as a separate particle? What exactly is your body made of? Is there really some stuff in your body? Is your body made out of solid particles? Or is it all Maya? Can there be a body without consciousness? If you believe so, then are you sure? Are you absolutely sure? Is a rock or a tree in your consciousness or outside of it? Where does your consciousness end and the world begin? If your cosnciousness was truly separate from a tree, would the tree then appear in your consciousness? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Anders asked: Is a rock or a tree in your consciousness or outside of it? Where does your consciousness end and the world begin? If your cosnciousness was truly separate from a tree, would the tree then appear in your consciousness? W: The tree is neither inside nor outside but consciousness is its content. So called " pure " consciousness without a content is a myth, it does not exist. Outside or inside need a reference point. If the reference is your body then a tree is outside your body. Consciousness itself you cannot use as a reference because it simply does not exist on its own. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > > From the curb: > > > > Pete invites Devi to step in front of a truck to test her theory > that all is > > consciousness. Presumably she will find out that on the contrary > all is > > matter as both truck and thought truck arrive simultaneously. > That's true, > > so presumeably there has been an error in the understanding of > prajnanam > > brahma. > > > > Maybe there is in this a clue as to how the thought of a truck is the > > thought-of-a-truck or really connected to a real truck out there. I > would > > hold that the thought of a truck is not just a thought that is > conscious of > > itself or self luminous cognition sort of thing. > > > > Next we can ask how neural activity or the end point of stimulation > by a > > physical object becomes mental activity. And this is not just the > end of a > > causal chain which takes a major jump across the void. How do we > get at the > > awareness of the position of the ball 200m/s before it is actually > 'seen'. > > If all states of the human are saturated by awareness then this > anticipation > > is forcing the information, probalising outcomes, reading closer, > faster. As > > Werner said there is no (mental)canvas as a final stage. > > > > Is there an underlying reality which makes thought and neural activity > > nondual or both aspects of the same reality? Perhaps both thought > of truck > > and truck are both manifestations of an underlying reality which we > call > > consciousness. Are the experiences of mystics relevent to this? > > > > Michael. > > Consciousness is the common ground in which phenomena happen. The mind > thinks of separation, but there is alway consciousness connected to > whatever is experienced as separation. The separation is there, yes, > but there is always consciousness being aware of this separation. > Consciousness is never separated from that which happens in > consciousness. Can anything be separate from consciousness? Can > reality be separate from consciousness? Can consciousness be > unconscious? Of course not, for consciousness means being conscious > not unconscious. A memory of having been unconscious is a memory > observed in consciousness. That memory is as real as it gets, but it's > just a memory, it's just information, it's just a 'DVD' being played > in consciousness. > > Physical matter is not solid at all. What is the smallest part of > matter made of? Phlogiston? Small particles? If so, what are these > particles made of? Can there be someting as a separate particle? What > exactly is your body made of? Is there really some stuff in your body? > Is your body made out of solid particles? Or is it all Maya? Can there > be a body without consciousness? If you believe so, then are you sure? > Are you absolutely sure? Is a rock or a tree in your consciousness or > outside of it? Where does your consciousness end and the world begin? > If your cosnciousness was truly separate from a tree, would the tree > then appear in your consciousness? > > /AL 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: > > Anders asked: > Is a rock or a tree in your consciousness or > outside of it? Where does your consciousness end and the world begin? > If your cosnciousness was truly separate from a tree, would the tree > then appear in your consciousness? > > W: The tree is neither inside nor outside but consciousness is its > content. So called " pure " consciousness without a content is a myth, > it does not exist. > > Outside or inside need a reference point. If the reference is your > body then a tree is outside your body. Consciousness itself you > cannot use as a reference because it simply does not exist on its own. > > Werner How about pure matter? Is that a myth too? Can there be matter without consciousness? /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> > wrote: > > > From the curb: > > > > > > Pete invites Devi to step in front of a truck to test her theory > > that all is > > > consciousness. Presumably she will find out that on the contrary > > all is > > > matter as both truck and thought truck arrive simultaneously. > > That's true, > > > so presumeably there has been an error in the understanding of > > prajnanam > > > brahma. > > > > > > Maybe there is in this a clue as to how the thought of a truck is > the > > > thought-of-a-truck or really connected to a real truck out > there. I > > would > > > hold that the thought of a truck is not just a thought that is > > conscious of > > > itself or self luminous cognition sort of thing. > > > > > > Next we can ask how neural activity or the end point of > stimulation > > by a > > > physical object becomes mental activity. And this is not just the > > end of a > > > causal chain which takes a major jump across the void. How do we > > get at the > > > awareness of the position of the ball 200m/s before it is actually > > 'seen'. > > > If all states of the human are saturated by awareness then this > > anticipation > > > is forcing the information, probalising outcomes, reading closer, > > faster. As > > > Werner said there is no (mental)canvas as a final stage. > > > > > > Is there an underlying reality which makes thought and neural > activity > > > nondual or both aspects of the same reality? Perhaps both thought > > of truck > > > and truck are both manifestations of an underlying reality which > we > > call > > > consciousness. Are the experiences of mystics relevent to this? > > > > > > Michael. > > > > Consciousness is the common ground in which phenomena happen. The > mind > > thinks of separation, but there is alway consciousness connected to > > whatever is experienced as separation. The separation is there, yes, > > but there is always consciousness being aware of this separation. > > Consciousness is never separated from that which happens in > > consciousness. Can anything be separate from consciousness? Can > > reality be separate from consciousness? Can consciousness be > > unconscious? Of course not, for consciousness means being conscious > > not unconscious. A memory of having been unconscious is a memory > > observed in consciousness. That memory is as real as it gets, but > it's > > just a memory, it's just information, it's just a 'DVD' being played > > in consciousness. > > > > Physical matter is not solid at all. What is the smallest part of > > matter made of? Phlogiston? Small particles? If so, what are these > > particles made of? Can there be someting as a separate particle? > What > > exactly is your body made of? Is there really some stuff in your > body? > > Is your body made out of solid particles? Or is it all Maya? Can > there > > be a body without consciousness? If you believe so, then are you > sure? > > Are you absolutely sure? Is a rock or a tree in your consciousness > or > > outside of it? Where does your consciousness end and the world > begin? > > If your cosnciousness was truly separate from a tree, would the tree > > then appear in your consciousness? > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 In a message dated 3/14/05 11:28:07 AM, anders_lindman writes: > Al: We need not go into creation and stuff like that. Consciousness is > what makes us aware of stuff. > P: Exactly! > A: From a philosophical point of view we > cannot say if there can be matter without consciousness. > P: From a philosophical point of view anyone can advance any theory they want. Of course, that's the problem with philosophy and why it needs logic to weed out the nonsense. A: From a > scientific point of view we can see that some form of observer seems > to be needed in order to collapse the wavefunction in quantum > mechanics. > P: There you go! Science is not immune to nonsense interpretations by would be scientist who read and understand want they want. The observation physicist talk about regarding quamta has nothing to do with a conscious act of observation, but with the energy needed to observe a quantum phenomenum. When you need to use a million plus volts of electricity to observe something so small your observation is going to have a very large disrupting effect on what you observe. > A:This collapse is what makes matter appear as solid > well-behaved stuff instead of a diffuse probability soup. If > consciousness is needed in order for this collapse to happen I don't know. > P: More nonsense and wild speculation. Solidity has nothing to do with quanta and observation. It's a property of the bonding of atoms as crystals. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > From the curb: > > Pete invites Devi to step in front of a truck to test her theory that all is > consciousness. Presumably she will find out that on the contrary all is > matter as both truck and thought truck arrive simultaneously. That's true, > so presumeably there has been an error in the understanding of prajnanam > brahma. > > > Is there an underlying reality which makes thought and neural activity > nondual or both aspects of the same reality? Perhaps both thought of truck > and truck are both manifestations of an underlying reality which we call > consciousness. Are the experiences of mystics relevent to this? > > Michael. Golden: Read this very carefully: You are overly complicating something that is very, very, very, very simple. But, you don't want simplicity. Why? Because the altered ego loves the game of it all and if it went actually realized just how simple it is then the game would end now. So, I will tell you something very simple which you don't really want to hear. You really want to toss complicated words and concepts back and forth so that there's something to do and talk about. That's fine. Simply put this earth/human realm is a program. It is not a solid program in that it can't be broken or changed but it is a program that runs on very " real " rules and laws. Everyone agrees to buy into/accept the rules and laws that set this program into motion and into experience. If you didn't accept them even to some small degree then you would ~*~not~*~ be sitting here typing and experiencing it. Part of the fun game for many guru/mystical seeking types is to break through the program - to see if/how/when they can do this. They are quite sure others have done so and are quite sure that others have accomplished it moreso than they have. So the challenge of the game continues. And then you have Toombaru, Al, Odysseus, Gary, and other endless names like you who don't like this notion because, in Toombarus case, he thinks it's another form of religion so he continues to play the game without an understanding of what he is doing. Then, Stefan and others think one who points this out is harsh and not coming from love...so you see why the avatar doesn't actually exist? No one would listen to her anyways, she can't please anyone because the ego can never be pleased. It's a program elaborately and very strongly designed. Once you really ~*~understand~*~ this you stop caring about trying to break it and overcome it. You then realize what you want to experience here, if anything at all, and go about that. Having broken the code of the program you start to see that it was there for a reason. Then you don't care so much about becoming this great mystic who can walk through walls and walk on water. ~*~Golden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 3/14/05 8:44:08 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > How about pure matter? Is that a myth too? Can there be matter without > > consciousness? > > > > /AL > > > > > > P: LOL! PURE MATTER! Is that a discovery of yours? Write a paper, you > are > sure to win the Nobel Prize for that one. You are a lot of fun! > > Can there be matter without consciousness? (And I don't mean that a stone is conscious) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 3/14/05 9:30:21 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > AL: Can there be matter without consciousness? (And I don't mean that a > > stone is conscious) > > > P: Please note your question, as you asked it, has to be answered > in the affirmative. > Had you asked, can there be knowledge of matter without > consciousness? then, the > answer is... NO. Consciousness ONLY relates to KNOWLEDGE. It doesn't > create anything. > Any attemp to equate consciousness with a creative principle has an > emotional, > not a rational basis. > We need not go into creation and stuff like that. Consciousness is what makes us aware of stuff. From a philosophical point of view we cannot say if there can be matter without consciousness. From a scientific point of view we can see that some form of observer seems to be needed in order to collapse the wavefunction in quantum mechanics. This collapse is what makes matter appear as solid well-behaved stuff instead of a diffuse probability soup. If consciousness is needed in order for this collapse to happen I don't know. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Pedsie2 wrote: In a message dated 3/14/05 11:28:07 AM, anders_lindman writes: > Al: We need not go into creation and stuff like that. Consciousness is > what makes us aware of stuff. > P: Exactly! > A: From a philosophical point of view we > cannot say if there can be matter without consciousness. > P: From a philosophical point of view anyone can advance any theory they want. Of course, that's the problem with philosophy and why it needs logic to weed out the nonsense. A: From a > scientific point of view we can see that some form of observer seems > to be needed in order to collapse the wavefunction in quantum > mechanics. > P: There you go! Science is not immune to nonsense interpretations by would be scientist who read and understand want they want. The observation physicist talk about regarding quamta has nothing to do with a conscious act of observation, but with the energy needed to observe a quantum phenomenum. When you need to use a million plus volts of electricity to observe something so small your observation is going to have a very large disrupting effect on what you observe. > A:This collapse is what makes matter appear as solid > well-behaved stuff instead of a diffuse probability soup. If > consciousness is needed in order for this collapse to happen I don't know. > P: More nonsense and wild speculation. Solidity has nothing to do with quanta and observation. It's a property of the bonding of atoms as crystals. To all who answered my question about life after death---thanks, most helpful. About solidity: Aren't humans 99.9999% empty space due to the space between atoms and also the space within each atom? Quote for today: If you come to a fork in the road, take it. Yogi Berra. richard > > 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.