Wholeness & Fragmentation

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

 

 

There seems to be a rather interesting relationship between the

notion of non-duality or wholeness and the fragmentary state of

ordinary, fragmented living. The traditions have divided these into

two rather distinct categories of either/or. One is either in the

state of wholeness or total fragmentation is the case. This resulted

in tremendous confusion in the minds of all serious enquirers as it

is interpreted to imply that the two states function in total

exclusion, the one from the other, and therefore it has been

suggested that nothing that can be done from the state of

fragmentation (unenlightenment) can lead to enlightenment or

wholeness. Because fragmentation is of a different order to that of

wholeness or non-duality, it has become a kind of

conventional `wisdom' that the two can never meet. It is therefore

not a question of whether anything *needs* to be done to bring one to

enlightenment, but rather that nothing *can* be done to effect this

change. This view paralyses the enquiring mind and instills a kind

of primordial bewilderment in the heart of the true seeker.

 

 

 

This notion is the inevitable consequence of the distinction the

traditions have made between humankind and God. Once the notion of

God was introduced into the human psyche, That became more real,

permanent, infinite, eternal etc than mere human existence. Human

existence therefore took on the lower status in its relationship to

God and this was translated into the eternal separation between

humankind and God – despite the attempts by the great Upanishadic

philosophers to create unity between God and Its manifestation,

creation or modification in the form of manifest existence. Because

God is nothing but an idea, any attempt to unify It with its presumed

creation, must fail. And because enlightenment or wholeness has

always been described in relation to God, our own inner quest for

freedom, integral living, wholeness etc has been tainted with this

fundamental dualistic relationship between humanity and its gods.

And, within our search for wholeness, this God-philosophy manifests

as a fundamental schism between wholeness and fragmentation. The

dualistic notion of all religions is a system based in fragmentation,

and so where the one fragment is always seen as lower or inferior to

the Other fragment, the two can never meet. The lower can never

become the Higher. There appears to be this universal divide between

human life and God. The only way this could be overcome, is for

human life to become God-life. God is the only One, and so for human

life to become One or undivided or non-dual or whole, it needs to

become the same as That which is One. In this way alone can human

life become non-dual - that is, according to the religious traditions

of humankind.

 

 

 

If we now remove the image of God from our fertile imaginations, and

therefore are left only with our human condition, we may discover

that none of the elaborate explanations and intricate philosophical

footwork is necessary for human life to become whole. In itself human

life is perfectly capable of experiencing an integrated living

reality which is completely human-based, and which has nothing

whatsoever in common with the notion of God or any Great Other with

which we need to become identified in order to be whole. And this

human-centric understanding of the spiritualization of our being

presents us with a simple fact of human existence: it is not an

either or affair. Rather, it is simply so that at any moment any

aspect of our human potential could become manifest – be it

openheartedness, cruelty, compassion, intelligence, stupidity,

conditioned responses, insight, intuition etc. We need no theory to

see this taking place both within ourselves and within others all the

time. Our saints are as much capable of doing silly things as we

are. Within the most depraved person we may see deeds of kindness

and unselfish love. There is no clear line we could draw between

absolute perfection and absolute depravity. We are always capable of

both, and the only question that needs to be answered is to which

extent we allow our lower, less integrated and fragmented life to

manifest in contrast to our deeper, integrated, whole potential.

Once we admit to this interflow between good and bad, sick and

healthy, whole and fragmented, sane and insane, pure and impure, our

approach to the way we consider the spiritualization of our being

will become realistically, not idealistically, based.. We could then

start to work from within the truth of our own reality, rather from a

projected ideal. And the truth of human existence is that nothing

can be predicted. There is nothing to ensure the constancy of some

projected state of perfection – such as we have ascribed to our

saints and their gods.

 

 

 

What is possible, and realistically practicable, is that through

correct inner work we could gradually shift the emphasis from

responding to the challenges of life away from our normal fragmented

vision to a more integral way of living. This is possible, because

both are inherently aspects of our human potential. At the present

humanity seems to be fascinated, dominated and controlled by the

fragmented vision, with little of our deeper, more integral potential

coming to the fore. What Spiritual Humanism suggests is that this

need not be the case. If it is our interest, it is perfectly

possible to explore and allow for the natural and gradual unfolding

of our human potential to integrate itself into the functioning of

our daily activities. This process is never complete. We are always

vulnerable to falling back into those activities of bondage and

fragmented living of which we are perfectly capable. There is no God

out there to purify our souls eternally. It is up to us how we

respond to the challenges of life: either fragmentarily or more

holistically. Nothing can redeem us from our own self-created folly

but correct inner work which allows for the gradual unfolding of our

deeper intelligence of love, compassion and brotherliness. The

responsibility is ours. We are not looking for perfection. We are

modestly and with a sincere heart and mind looking for ways of living

which do not fragment the wholeness of the living moment as an

ongoing human activity. We live on a continuum from practical to

impractical, good to bad, stupid to intelligent, love to unlove.

Human life may never manifest just its higher more integrated states

in some kind of idealized perfected state. What we could work

towards is a shift within our being which will progressively manifest

our non-dual aspects and leave behind that which binds us into

fragmented living.

 

 

 

Human life as we find it is therefore not in conflict with life

itself. Life, as it finds itself in us, could not be cruel if it was

not in our potential to be so. We could not murder if it was not in

our potential to commit murder. We could not have compassion and

love if it was not in our potential to manifest such refined aspects

of our humanity. We always have every aspect of ourselves available

as response-potential to any challenge. From within this confusion

we somehow need to begin to make sense of things. And to become so

identified with our lower being that we believe nothing we could do

from this confused state will have the potential to relieve us from

our uninspected reactive responses to life or could free us from our

self-limitation, is to project a most negative and unproductive image

onto an already confused state of fragmentation. And to then place

our hopes on a God that has never helped us other than as a

psychological crutch is mere vain imagining. From within the

confusion of our present condition we need to take up the

responsibility for becoming more human and humane. We have no

choice. We cannot start with perfection as our measure. We need to

start from where we are, and where we are is confusion. Confusion is

our measure. Pain is our measure. Suffering is our measure. Not

the idealized perfection of some God-image.

 

 

 

From here we could work from within our present and real condition.

Nothing is in conflict or exclusive or to be avoided. All is to be

seen, re-cognized for what it is, and transcended. In this way we

bring clarity into confusion. Insight into stupidity. Awareness

into unawareness. In this way we move from darkness to less obscured

clarity of vision, lightheartedness, freedom and participatory

experience. It is all here. ` We are the door we will have to walk

through' –J. Krishnamurti.

 

 

 

Enjoy the walk!

 

 

 

Hand in hand,

 

Moller.

 

www.spiritualhumanism.co.za

 

Author of : `Spirituality Without God'.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " chefboy2160 " <chefboy2160>

wrote:

> Dear friends,

>

>

>

> There seems to be a rather interesting relationship between the

> notion of non-duality or wholeness and the fragmentary state of

> ordinary, fragmented living. The traditions have divided these into

> two rather distinct categories of either/or. One is either in the

> state of wholeness or total fragmentation is the case. This resulted

> in tremendous confusion in the minds of all serious enquirers as it

> is interpreted to imply that the two states function in total

> exclusion, the one from the other, and therefore it has been

> suggested that nothing that can be done from the state of

> fragmentation (unenlightenment) can lead to enlightenment or

> wholeness. Because fragmentation is of a different order to that of

> wholeness or non-duality, it has become a kind of

> conventional `wisdom' that the two can never meet. It is therefore

> not a question of whether anything *needs* to be done to bring one to

> enlightenment, but rather that nothing *can* be done to effect this

> change. This view paralyses the enquiring mind and instills a kind

> of primordial bewilderment in the heart of the true seeker.

>

>

>

> This notion is the inevitable consequence of the distinction the

> traditions have made between humankind and God. Once the notion of

> God was introduced into the human psyche, That became more real,

> permanent, infinite, eternal etc than mere human existence. Human

> existence therefore took on the lower status in its relationship to

> God and this was translated into the eternal separation between

> humankind and God – despite the attempts by the great Upanishadic

> philosophers to create unity between God and Its manifestation,

> creation or modification in the form of manifest existence. Because

> God is nothing but an idea, any attempt to unify It with its presumed

> creation, must fail. And because enlightenment or wholeness has

> always been described in relation to God, our own inner quest for

> freedom, integral living, wholeness etc has been tainted with this

> fundamental dualistic relationship between humanity and its gods.

> And, within our search for wholeness, this God-philosophy manifests

> as a fundamental schism between wholeness and fragmentation. The

> dualistic notion of all religions is a system based in fragmentation,

> and so where the one fragment is always seen as lower or inferior to

> the Other fragment, the two can never meet. The lower can never

> become the Higher. There appears to be this universal divide between

> human life and God. The only way this could be overcome, is for

> human life to become God-life. God is the only One, and so for human

> life to become One or undivided or non-dual or whole, it needs to

> become the same as That which is One. In this way alone can human

> life become non-dual - that is, according to the religious traditions

> of humankind.

>

>

>

> If we now remove the image of God from our fertile imaginations, and

> therefore are left only with our human condition, we may discover

> that none of the elaborate explanations and intricate philosophical

> footwork is necessary for human life to become whole. In itself human

> life is perfectly capable of experiencing an integrated living

> reality which is completely human-based, and which has nothing

> whatsoever in common with the notion of God or any Great Other with

> which we need to become identified in order to be whole. And this

> human-centric understanding of the spiritualization of our being

> presents us with a simple fact of human existence: it is not an

> either or affair. Rather, it is simply so that at any moment any

> aspect of our human potential could become manifest – be it

> openheartedness, cruelty, compassion, intelligence, stupidity,

> conditioned responses, insight, intuition etc. We need no theory to

> see this taking place both within ourselves and within others all the

> time. Our saints are as much capable of doing silly things as we

> are. Within the most depraved person we may see deeds of kindness

> and unselfish love. There is no clear line we could draw between

> absolute perfection and absolute depravity. We are always capable of

> both, and the only question that needs to be answered is to which

> extent we allow our lower, less integrated and fragmented life to

> manifest in contrast to our deeper, integrated, whole potential.

> Once we admit to this interflow between good and bad, sick and

> healthy, whole and fragmented, sane and insane, pure and impure, our

> approach to the way we consider the spiritualization of our being

> will become realistically, not idealistically, based.. We could then

> start to work from within the truth of our own reality, rather from a

> projected ideal. And the truth of human existence is that nothing

> can be predicted. There is nothing to ensure the constancy of some

> projected state of perfection – such as we have ascribed to our

> saints and their gods.

>

>

>

> What is possible, and realistically practicable, is that through

> correct inner work we could gradually shift the emphasis from

> responding to the challenges of life away from our normal fragmented

> vision to a more integral way of living. This is possible, because

> both are inherently aspects of our human potential. At the present

> humanity seems to be fascinated, dominated and controlled by the

> fragmented vision, with little of our deeper, more integral potential

> coming to the fore. What Spiritual Humanism suggests is that this

> need not be the case. If it is our interest, it is perfectly

> possible to explore and allow for the natural and gradual unfolding

> of our human potential to integrate itself into the functioning of

> our daily activities. This process is never complete. We are always

> vulnerable to falling back into those activities of bondage and

> fragmented living of which we are perfectly capable. There is no God

> out there to purify our souls eternally. It is up to us how we

> respond to the challenges of life: either fragmentarily or more

> holistically. Nothing can redeem us from our own self-created folly

> but correct inner work which allows for the gradual unfolding of our

> deeper intelligence of love, compassion and brotherliness. The

> responsibility is ours. We are not looking for perfection. We are

> modestly and with a sincere heart and mind looking for ways of living

> which do not fragment the wholeness of the living moment as an

> ongoing human activity. We live on a continuum from practical to

> impractical, good to bad, stupid to intelligent, love to unlove.

> Human life may never manifest just its higher more integrated states

> in some kind of idealized perfected state. What we could work

> towards is a shift within our being which will progressively manifest

> our non-dual aspects and leave behind that which binds us into

> fragmented living.

>

>

>

> Human life as we find it is therefore not in conflict with life

> itself. Life, as it finds itself in us, could not be cruel if it was

> not in our potential to be so. We could not murder if it was not in

> our potential to commit murder. We could not have compassion and

> love if it was not in our potential to manifest such refined aspects

> of our humanity. We always have every aspect of ourselves available

> as response-potential to any challenge. From within this confusion

> we somehow need to begin to make sense of things. And to become so

> identified with our lower being that we believe nothing we could do

> from this confused state will have the potential to relieve us from

> our uninspected reactive responses to life or could free us from our

> self-limitation, is to project a most negative and unproductive image

> onto an already confused state of fragmentation. And to then place

> our hopes on a God that has never helped us other than as a

> psychological crutch is mere vain imagining. From within the

> confusion of our present condition we need to take up the

> responsibility for becoming more human and humane. We have no

> choice. We cannot start with perfection as our measure. We need to

> start from where we are, and where we are is confusion. Confusion is

> our measure. Pain is our measure. Suffering is our measure. Not

> the idealized perfection of some God-image.

>

>

>

> From here we could work from within our present and real condition.

> Nothing is in conflict or exclusive or to be avoided. All is to be

> seen, re-cognized for what it is, and transcended. In this way we

> bring clarity into confusion. Insight into stupidity. Awareness

> into unawareness. In this way we move from darkness to less obscured

> clarity of vision, lightheartedness, freedom and participatory

> experience. It is all here. ` We are the door we will have to walk

> through' –J. Krishnamurti.

>

>

>

> Enjoy the walk!

>

>

>

> Hand in hand,

>

> Moller.

>

> www.spiritualhumanism.co.za

>

> Author of : `Spirituality Without God'.

 

 

I agree that the concept God could easily become a hinderance from

finding a factual higher state of being within ourselves. But God is

also a good pointer to that which we cannot understand by rational

thought. I sometimes like the concept 'nondual consciousness' more

than the concept of 'God'. But in some cases, a devotion to God could

perhaps be a good way to find a connection with life itself.

 

al.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " chefboy2160 "

<chefboy2160>

> wrote:

> > Dear friends,

> >

> >

> >

> > There seems to be a rather interesting relationship between the

> > notion of non-duality or wholeness and the fragmentary state of

> > ordinary, fragmented living. The traditions have divided these

into

> > two rather distinct categories of either/or. One is either in

the

> > state of wholeness or total fragmentation is the case. This

resulted

> > in tremendous confusion in the minds of all serious enquirers as

it

> > is interpreted to imply that the two states function in total

> > exclusion, the one from the other, and therefore it has been

> > suggested that nothing that can be done from the state of

> > fragmentation (unenlightenment) can lead to enlightenment or

> > wholeness. Because fragmentation is of a different order to that

of

> > wholeness or non-duality, it has become a kind of

> > conventional `wisdom' that the two can never meet. It is

therefore

> > not a question of whether anything *needs* to be done to bring

one to

> > enlightenment, but rather that nothing *can* be done to effect

this

> > change. This view paralyses the enquiring mind and instills a

kind

> > of primordial bewilderment in the heart of the true seeker.

> >

> >

> >

> > This notion is the inevitable consequence of the distinction the

> > traditions have made between humankind and God. Once the notion

of

> > God was introduced into the human psyche, That became more real,

> > permanent, infinite, eternal etc than mere human existence.

Human

> > existence therefore took on the lower status in its relationship

to

> > God and this was translated into the eternal separation between

> > humankind and God – despite the attempts by the great Upanishadic

> > philosophers to create unity between God and Its manifestation,

> > creation or modification in the form of manifest existence.

Because

> > God is nothing but an idea, any attempt to unify It with its

presumed

> > creation, must fail. And because enlightenment or wholeness has

> > always been described in relation to God, our own inner quest for

> > freedom, integral living, wholeness etc has been tainted with

this

> > fundamental dualistic relationship between humanity and its

gods.

> > And, within our search for wholeness, this God-philosophy

manifests

> > as a fundamental schism between wholeness and fragmentation. The

> > dualistic notion of all religions is a system based in

fragmentation,

> > and so where the one fragment is always seen as lower or inferior

to

> > the Other fragment, the two can never meet. The lower can never

> > become the Higher. There appears to be this universal divide

between

> > human life and God. The only way this could be overcome, is for

> > human life to become God-life. God is the only One, and so for

human

> > life to become One or undivided or non-dual or whole, it needs to

> > become the same as That which is One. In this way alone can

human

> > life become non-dual - that is, according to the religious

traditions

> > of humankind.

> >

> >

> >

> > If we now remove the image of God from our fertile imaginations,

and

> > therefore are left only with our human condition, we may discover

> > that none of the elaborate explanations and intricate

philosophical

> > footwork is necessary for human life to become whole. In itself

human

> > life is perfectly capable of experiencing an integrated living

> > reality which is completely human-based, and which has nothing

> > whatsoever in common with the notion of God or any Great Other

with

> > which we need to become identified in order to be whole. And

this

> > human-centric understanding of the spiritualization of our being

> > presents us with a simple fact of human existence: it is not an

> > either or affair. Rather, it is simply so that at any moment any

> > aspect of our human potential could become manifest – be it

> > openheartedness, cruelty, compassion, intelligence, stupidity,

> > conditioned responses, insight, intuition etc. We need no theory

to

> > see this taking place both within ourselves and within others all

the

> > time. Our saints are as much capable of doing silly things as we

> > are. Within the most depraved person we may see deeds of

kindness

> > and unselfish love. There is no clear line we could draw between

> > absolute perfection and absolute depravity. We are always

capable of

> > both, and the only question that needs to be answered is to which

> > extent we allow our lower, less integrated and fragmented life to

> > manifest in contrast to our deeper, integrated, whole potential.

> > Once we admit to this interflow between good and bad, sick and

> > healthy, whole and fragmented, sane and insane, pure and impure,

our

> > approach to the way we consider the spiritualization of our being

> > will become realistically, not idealistically, based.. We could

then

> > start to work from within the truth of our own reality, rather

from a

> > projected ideal. And the truth of human existence is that

nothing

> > can be predicted. There is nothing to ensure the constancy of

some

> > projected state of perfection – such as we have ascribed to our

> > saints and their gods.

> >

> >

> >

> > What is possible, and realistically practicable, is that through

> > correct inner work we could gradually shift the emphasis from

> > responding to the challenges of life away from our normal

fragmented

> > vision to a more integral way of living. This is possible,

because

> > both are inherently aspects of our human potential. At the

present

> > humanity seems to be fascinated, dominated and controlled by the

> > fragmented vision, with little of our deeper, more integral

potential

> > coming to the fore. What Spiritual Humanism suggests is that

this

> > need not be the case. If it is our interest, it is perfectly

> > possible to explore and allow for the natural and gradual

unfolding

> > of our human potential to integrate itself into the functioning

of

> > our daily activities. This process is never complete. We are

always

> > vulnerable to falling back into those activities of bondage and

> > fragmented living of which we are perfectly capable. There is no

God

> > out there to purify our souls eternally. It is up to us how we

> > respond to the challenges of life: either fragmentarily or more

> > holistically. Nothing can redeem us from our own self-created

folly

> > but correct inner work which allows for the gradual unfolding of

our

> > deeper intelligence of love, compassion and brotherliness. The

> > responsibility is ours. We are not looking for perfection. We

are

> > modestly and with a sincere heart and mind looking for ways of

living

> > which do not fragment the wholeness of the living moment as an

> > ongoing human activity. We live on a continuum from practical to

> > impractical, good to bad, stupid to intelligent, love to unlove.

> > Human life may never manifest just its higher more integrated

states

> > in some kind of idealized perfected state. What we could work

> > towards is a shift within our being which will progressively

manifest

> > our non-dual aspects and leave behind that which binds us into

> > fragmented living.

> >

> >

> >

> > Human life as we find it is therefore not in conflict with life

> > itself. Life, as it finds itself in us, could not be cruel if it

was

> > not in our potential to be so. We could not murder if it was not

in

> > our potential to commit murder. We could not have compassion and

> > love if it was not in our potential to manifest such refined

aspects

> > of our humanity. We always have every aspect of ourselves

available

> > as response-potential to any challenge. From within this

confusion

> > we somehow need to begin to make sense of things. And to become

so

> > identified with our lower being that we believe nothing we could

do

> > from this confused state will have the potential to relieve us

from

> > our uninspected reactive responses to life or could free us from

our

> > self-limitation, is to project a most negative and unproductive

image

> > onto an already confused state of fragmentation. And to then

place

> > our hopes on a God that has never helped us other than as a

> > psychological crutch is mere vain imagining. From within the

> > confusion of our present condition we need to take up the

> > responsibility for becoming more human and humane. We have no

> > choice. We cannot start with perfection as our measure. We need

to

> > start from where we are, and where we are is confusion.

Confusion is

> > our measure. Pain is our measure. Suffering is our measure.

Not

> > the idealized perfection of some God-image.

> >

> >

> >

> > From here we could work from within our present and real

condition.

> > Nothing is in conflict or exclusive or to be avoided. All is to

be

> > seen, re-cognized for what it is, and transcended. In this way

we

> > bring clarity into confusion. Insight into stupidity. Awareness

> > into unawareness. In this way we move from darkness to less

obscured

> > clarity of vision, lightheartedness, freedom and participatory

> > experience. It is all here. ` We are the door we will have to

walk

> > through' –J. Krishnamurti.

> >

> >

> >

> > Enjoy the walk!

> >

> >

> >

> > Hand in hand,

> >

> > Moller.

> >

> > www.spiritualhumanism.co.za

> >

> > Author of : `Spirituality Without God'.

>

>

> I agree that the concept God could easily become a hinderance from

> finding a factual higher state of being within ourselves. But God is

> also a good pointer to that which we cannot understand by rational

> thought. I sometimes like the concept 'nondual consciousness' more

> than the concept of 'God'. But in some cases, a devotion to God

could

> perhaps be a good way to find a connection with life itself.

>

> al.

 

I dont understand how a devotion to a higher being which does not

exhist can be a good way to find a connection to life itself.As far

as the historical ramifications of a belief in god I think we can

agree that it has done nothing benificial to help the human course.We

are the path that we have been seeking and it is up to us to self

investigate into our own human created pain.I dont feel that adding

somthing else to our allready laden pile of human baggage such as

Brahman,self,krishna or God is the way to investigate the true nature

of your own suffering.The non-dual moment is forever there for us to

enjoy but remember its still very easy to fall back into our old

programmed ways.The thought attention knot which binds us can weave a

myriad of actions and scenarios to feed upon.

Peace,Doug....

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " chefboy2160 " <chefboy2160>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> <anders_lindman> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " chefboy2160 "

> <chefboy2160>

> > wrote:

> > > Dear friends,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > There seems to be a rather interesting relationship between the

> > > notion of non-duality or wholeness and the fragmentary state of

> > > ordinary, fragmented living. The traditions have divided these

> into

> > > two rather distinct categories of either/or. One is either in

> the

> > > state of wholeness or total fragmentation is the case. This

> resulted

> > > in tremendous confusion in the minds of all serious enquirers as

> it

> > > is interpreted to imply that the two states function in total

> > > exclusion, the one from the other, and therefore it has been

> > > suggested that nothing that can be done from the state of

> > > fragmentation (unenlightenment) can lead to enlightenment or

> > > wholeness. Because fragmentation is of a different order to that

> of

> > > wholeness or non-duality, it has become a kind of

> > > conventional `wisdom' that the two can never meet. It is

> therefore

> > > not a question of whether anything *needs* to be done to bring

> one to

> > > enlightenment, but rather that nothing *can* be done to effect

> this

> > > change. This view paralyses the enquiring mind and instills a

> kind

> > > of primordial bewilderment in the heart of the true seeker.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > This notion is the inevitable consequence of the distinction the

> > > traditions have made between humankind and God. Once the notion

> of

> > > God was introduced into the human psyche, That became more real,

> > > permanent, infinite, eternal etc than mere human existence.

> Human

> > > existence therefore took on the lower status in its relationship

> to

> > > God and this was translated into the eternal separation between

> > > humankind and God – despite the attempts by the great Upanishadic

> > > philosophers to create unity between God and Its manifestation,

> > > creation or modification in the form of manifest existence.

> Because

> > > God is nothing but an idea, any attempt to unify It with its

> presumed

> > > creation, must fail. And because enlightenment or wholeness has

> > > always been described in relation to God, our own inner quest for

> > > freedom, integral living, wholeness etc has been tainted with

> this

> > > fundamental dualistic relationship between humanity and its

> gods.

> > > And, within our search for wholeness, this God-philosophy

> manifests

> > > as a fundamental schism between wholeness and fragmentation. The

> > > dualistic notion of all religions is a system based in

> fragmentation,

> > > and so where the one fragment is always seen as lower or inferior

> to

> > > the Other fragment, the two can never meet. The lower can never

> > > become the Higher. There appears to be this universal divide

> between

> > > human life and God. The only way this could be overcome, is for

> > > human life to become God-life. God is the only One, and so for

> human

> > > life to become One or undivided or non-dual or whole, it needs to

> > > become the same as That which is One. In this way alone can

> human

> > > life become non-dual - that is, according to the religious

> traditions

> > > of humankind.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > If we now remove the image of God from our fertile imaginations,

> and

> > > therefore are left only with our human condition, we may discover

> > > that none of the elaborate explanations and intricate

> philosophical

> > > footwork is necessary for human life to become whole. In itself

> human

> > > life is perfectly capable of experiencing an integrated living

> > > reality which is completely human-based, and which has nothing

> > > whatsoever in common with the notion of God or any Great Other

> with

> > > which we need to become identified in order to be whole. And

> this

> > > human-centric understanding of the spiritualization of our being

> > > presents us with a simple fact of human existence: it is not an

> > > either or affair. Rather, it is simply so that at any moment any

> > > aspect of our human potential could become manifest – be it

> > > openheartedness, cruelty, compassion, intelligence, stupidity,

> > > conditioned responses, insight, intuition etc. We need no theory

> to

> > > see this taking place both within ourselves and within others all

> the

> > > time. Our saints are as much capable of doing silly things as we

> > > are. Within the most depraved person we may see deeds of

> kindness

> > > and unselfish love. There is no clear line we could draw between

> > > absolute perfection and absolute depravity. We are always

> capable of

> > > both, and the only question that needs to be answered is to which

> > > extent we allow our lower, less integrated and fragmented life to

> > > manifest in contrast to our deeper, integrated, whole potential.

> > > Once we admit to this interflow between good and bad, sick and

> > > healthy, whole and fragmented, sane and insane, pure and impure,

> our

> > > approach to the way we consider the spiritualization of our being

> > > will become realistically, not idealistically, based.. We could

> then

> > > start to work from within the truth of our own reality, rather

> from a

> > > projected ideal. And the truth of human existence is that

> nothing

> > > can be predicted. There is nothing to ensure the constancy of

> some

> > > projected state of perfection – such as we have ascribed to our

> > > saints and their gods.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > What is possible, and realistically practicable, is that through

> > > correct inner work we could gradually shift the emphasis from

> > > responding to the challenges of life away from our normal

> fragmented

> > > vision to a more integral way of living. This is possible,

> because

> > > both are inherently aspects of our human potential. At the

> present

> > > humanity seems to be fascinated, dominated and controlled by the

> > > fragmented vision, with little of our deeper, more integral

> potential

> > > coming to the fore. What Spiritual Humanism suggests is that

> this

> > > need not be the case. If it is our interest, it is perfectly

> > > possible to explore and allow for the natural and gradual

> unfolding

> > > of our human potential to integrate itself into the functioning

> of

> > > our daily activities. This process is never complete. We are

> always

> > > vulnerable to falling back into those activities of bondage and

> > > fragmented living of which we are perfectly capable. There is no

> God

> > > out there to purify our souls eternally. It is up to us how we

> > > respond to the challenges of life: either fragmentarily or more

> > > holistically. Nothing can redeem us from our own self-created

> folly

> > > but correct inner work which allows for the gradual unfolding of

> our

> > > deeper intelligence of love, compassion and brotherliness. The

> > > responsibility is ours. We are not looking for perfection. We

> are

> > > modestly and with a sincere heart and mind looking for ways of

> living

> > > which do not fragment the wholeness of the living moment as an

> > > ongoing human activity. We live on a continuum from practical to

> > > impractical, good to bad, stupid to intelligent, love to unlove.

> > > Human life may never manifest just its higher more integrated

> states

> > > in some kind of idealized perfected state. What we could work

> > > towards is a shift within our being which will progressively

> manifest

> > > our non-dual aspects and leave behind that which binds us into

> > > fragmented living.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Human life as we find it is therefore not in conflict with life

> > > itself. Life, as it finds itself in us, could not be cruel if it

> was

> > > not in our potential to be so. We could not murder if it was not

> in

> > > our potential to commit murder. We could not have compassion and

> > > love if it was not in our potential to manifest such refined

> aspects

> > > of our humanity. We always have every aspect of ourselves

> available

> > > as response-potential to any challenge. From within this

> confusion

> > > we somehow need to begin to make sense of things. And to become

> so

> > > identified with our lower being that we believe nothing we could

> do

> > > from this confused state will have the potential to relieve us

> from

> > > our uninspected reactive responses to life or could free us from

> our

> > > self-limitation, is to project a most negative and unproductive

> image

> > > onto an already confused state of fragmentation. And to then

> place

> > > our hopes on a God that has never helped us other than as a

> > > psychological crutch is mere vain imagining. From within the

> > > confusion of our present condition we need to take up the

> > > responsibility for becoming more human and humane. We have no

> > > choice. We cannot start with perfection as our measure. We need

> to

> > > start from where we are, and where we are is confusion.

> Confusion is

> > > our measure. Pain is our measure. Suffering is our measure.

> Not

> > > the idealized perfection of some God-image.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > From here we could work from within our present and real

> condition.

> > > Nothing is in conflict or exclusive or to be avoided. All is to

> be

> > > seen, re-cognized for what it is, and transcended. In this way

> we

> > > bring clarity into confusion. Insight into stupidity. Awareness

> > > into unawareness. In this way we move from darkness to less

> obscured

> > > clarity of vision, lightheartedness, freedom and participatory

> > > experience. It is all here. ` We are the door we will have to

> walk

> > > through' –J. Krishnamurti.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Enjoy the walk!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Hand in hand,

> > >

> > > Moller.

> > >

> > > www.spiritualhumanism.co.za

> > >

> > > Author of : `Spirituality Without God'.

> >

> >

> > I agree that the concept God could easily become a hinderance from

> > finding a factual higher state of being within ourselves. But God is

> > also a good pointer to that which we cannot understand by rational

> > thought. I sometimes like the concept 'nondual consciousness' more

> > than the concept of 'God'. But in some cases, a devotion to God

> could

> > perhaps be a good way to find a connection with life itself.

> >

> > al.

>

> I dont understand how a devotion to a higher being which does not

> exhist can be a good way to find a connection to life itself.As far

> as the historical ramifications of a belief in god I think we can

> agree that it has done nothing benificial to help the human course.We

> are the path that we have been seeking and it is up to us to self

> investigate into our own human created pain.I dont feel that adding

> somthing else to our allready laden pile of human baggage such as

> Brahman,self,krishna or God is the way to investigate the true nature

> of your own suffering.The non-dual moment is forever there for us to

> enjoy but remember its still very easy to fall back into our old

> programmed ways.The thought attention knot which binds us can weave a

> myriad of actions and scenarios to feed upon.

> Peace,Doug....

 

 

All concepts are merely pointers. The seeker can use pointers such as

God, Brahman, Self e t c. Removing those pointers cannot be done.

People who call themselves followers of " pure advaita " or something

similar are ESSENTIALLY as much followers as any other religious

person. Instead of God they call what they are seeking or have " found "

Noumenon, or " true nature " , or even " what is " .

 

I sometimes like to call the undivisible witness for nondual

consciousness, but how is that in any way different from the word

" God " other than as a difference on a phenomenal level?

 

al.

[Guest guest]

Aha,

 

You sometimes like to call it such, and at which occasions you don't

like to call it such, on sundays ?

 

some more questions:

 

What the hell is an undivisible witness if there already doesn't

exists a normal witness beause the witness is just an invention of

thougt ?

 

And what nonsense is nondual consicousness ? Consciousness is neither

dual nor nondual, consciousness is its content. But if you want to

stick your nose into non/dual affairs then observe your thinking

because only there you will find duality.

 

How is that different from God ? It doesn't matter at all, it is all

crap, invented by your mind. Especially by your mind.

 

And the phenomenal " level " ? Hahaha, sounds all so damn smart

and " scientific " but it is all laughable baloney, Anders.

 

Werner

 

 

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

> I sometimes like to call the undivisible witness for nondual

> consciousness, but how is that in any way different from the word

> " God " other than as a difference on a phenomenal level?

>

> al.

[Guest guest]

> All concepts are merely pointers. The seeker can use pointers such as

> God, Brahman, Self e t c. Removing those pointers cannot be done.

> People who call themselves followers of " pure advaita " or something

> similar are ESSENTIALLY as much followers as any other religious

> person. Instead of God they call what they are seeking or

have " found "

> Noumenon, or " true nature " , or even " what is " .

>

> I sometimes like to call the undivisible witness for nondual

> consciousness, but how is that in any way different from the word

> " God " other than as a difference on a phenomenal level?

>

> al.

 

To what, may I ask, do all such concepts point? To what, for example,

do the God/Brahman/Self concepts point? For what can the seeker use

such so-called unremovable pointers?

 

There is something prior to all concepts. Who conceptualizes? Who

does the conceptualizing? Who does the pointing out of this or that?

What is the point of pointing? The point is to remove the pointers

and discover what is left. When the pointers are removed, what is one

left with? The pointer. Yet, there is still something prior to the

pointer. Find out what is prior to the pointer.

 

LW

[Guest guest]

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

> Aha,

>

> You sometimes like to call it such, and at which occasions you don't

> like to call it such, on sundays ?

>

> some more questions:

>

> What the hell is an undivisible witness if there already doesn't

> exists a normal witness beause the witness is just an invention of

> thougt ?

>

> And what nonsense is nondual consicousness ? Consciousness is neither

> dual nor nondual, consciousness is its content. But if you want to

> stick your nose into non/dual affairs then observe your thinking

> because only there you will find duality.

>

> How is that different from God ? It doesn't matter at all, it is all

> crap, invented by your mind. Especially by your mind.

>

> And the phenomenal " level " ? Hahaha, sounds all so damn smart

> and " scientific " but it is all laughable baloney, Anders.

>

> Werner

>

 

 

Consciousness is not only its content! Consciousness is also the

AWARENESS of the content. And that awareness is the nondual

consciousness. So nondual consciousness " contains " that which it is

observing. The content of consciousness is: " the observer is the

observed " . God is the nondual unmoved mover, nondual consciousness

observing phenomena into existence.

 

Simply notice that there is awareness of what is going on. That

awareness is in itself not a thing, not some content of any kind.

 

al.

 

>

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> <anders_lindman> wrote:

> >

> > I sometimes like to call the undivisible witness for nondual

> > consciousness, but how is that in any way different from the word

> > " God " other than as a difference on a phenomenal level?

> >

> > al.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " leafwalker1069 "

<Silver1069@h...> wrote:

> > All concepts are merely pointers. The seeker can use pointers such as

> > God, Brahman, Self e t c. Removing those pointers cannot be done.

> > People who call themselves followers of " pure advaita " or something

> > similar are ESSENTIALLY as much followers as any other religious

> > person. Instead of God they call what they are seeking or

> have " found "

> > Noumenon, or " true nature " , or even " what is " .

> >

> > I sometimes like to call the undivisible witness for nondual

> > consciousness, but how is that in any way different from the word

> > " God " other than as a difference on a phenomenal level?

> >

> > al.

>

> To what, may I ask, do all such concepts point? To what, for example,

> do the God/Brahman/Self concepts point? For what can the seeker use

> such so-called unremovable pointers?

>

> There is something prior to all concepts. Who conceptualizes? Who

> does the conceptualizing? Who does the pointing out of this or that?

> What is the point of pointing? The point is to remove the pointers

> and discover what is left. When the pointers are removed, what is one

> left with? The pointer. Yet, there is still something prior to the

> pointer. Find out what is prior to the pointer.

>

> LW

 

 

The act of pointing is (for me) simply the pointing to our awareness.

Just to notice that there is the awareness of what is going on. That

awareness is not a thing. That awareness is nondual in its root.

 

We need not try to remove the pointers. They are simply a part of the

rest of phenomena. They point to that which themselves are not:

awareness. Utterly simple.

 

The seeking process is for me to move closer to awareness itself.

 

al.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

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

> > Aha,

> >

> > You sometimes like to call it such, and at which occasions you don't

> > like to call it such, on sundays ?

> >

> > some more questions:

> >

> > What the hell is an undivisible witness if there already doesn't

> > exists a normal witness beause the witness is just an invention of

> > thougt ?

> >

> > And what nonsense is nondual consicousness ? Consciousness is neither

> > dual nor nondual, consciousness is its content. But if you want to

> > stick your nose into non/dual affairs then observe your thinking

> > because only there you will find duality.

> >

> > How is that different from God ? It doesn't matter at all, it is all

> > crap, invented by your mind. Especially by your mind.

> >

> > And the phenomenal " level " ? Hahaha, sounds all so damn smart

> > and " scientific " but it is all laughable baloney, Anders.

> >

> > Werner

> >

>

>

> Consciousness is not only its content! Consciousness is also the

> AWARENESS of the content. And that awareness is the nondual

> consciousness. So nondual consciousness " contains " that which it is

> observing. The content of consciousness is: " the observer is the

> observed " . God is the nondual unmoved mover, nondual consciousness

> observing phenomena into existence.

>

> Simply notice that there is awareness of what is going on. That

> awareness is in itself not a thing, not some content of any kind.

>

> al.

>

 

 

Any form of content is not awareness. Any question is not awareness.

And sense of individual self is not awareness. All thoughts are

content. All forms of physical matter is content. Any feeling or

emotion or sense of perception is content. But awareness itself is not

content. Awareness is that which is aware of content. The question

" who am I " is totally content. Awareness is that which is aware of the

question " who am I " . Awareness is not some THING, not even a Self.

 

al.

[Guest guest]

Anders,

 

Awareness is an old myth but it doesn't exist.

 

What we experience as being " aware of " is: At the same time being

aware of " me " and of objects. But this " me " doesn't exist, it is just

an artificial mental split: The appearance of thought and body is

identified as " me " in contrast to all those other objects which

represent the " world " . This separation we experience as being aware.

 

But body/thinking are also just appearances as the content of

consciousness like all the other objects too.

 

In reality this awareness/separation process is the base of neurosis:

A forced split between an object 'body/mind' and all the other

objects called 'world'.

 

Just remember: Awareness = Neurosis

 

Werner

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " >

>

> Consciousness is not only its content! Consciousness is also the

> AWARENESS of the content. And that awareness is the nondual

> consciousness. So nondual consciousness " contains " that which it is

> observing. The content of consciousness is: " the observer is the

> observed " . God is the nondual unmoved mover, nondual consciousness

> observing phenomena into existence.

>

> Simply notice that there is awareness of what is going on. That

> awareness is in itself not a thing, not some content of any kind.

>

> al.

>

[Guest guest]

holographic, inscriptive, descriptive, metamorphing and sizing oneself up and

down in

neural pathways along the currents of Kundalini or the double helix of DNA do

not

resuscitate (DNR) ample amplifications and reunifications of enumerations

ruminations

and runes ruining, therefore for there is/and/of a thing called awareness.

 

Awareness is Who of the We Are ,

As I Am.

 

ar

----- Original Message -d---

Werner Woehr

Nisargadatta

Thursday, September 29, 2005 8:39 AM

Re: Wholeness & Fragmentation

 

 

Anders,

 

Awareness is an old myth but it doesn't exist.

 

What we experience as being " aware of " is: At the same time being

aware of " me " and of objects. But this " me " doesn't exist, it is just

an artificial mental split: The appearance of thought and body is

identified as " me " in contrast to all those other objects which

represent the " world " . This separation we experience as being aware.

 

But body/thinking are also just appearances as the content of

consciousness like all the other objects too.

 

In reality this awareness/separation process is the base of neurosis:

A forced split between an object 'body/mind' and all the other

objects called 'world'.

 

Just remember: Awareness = Neurosis

 

Werner

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " >

>

> Consciousness is not only its content! Consciousness is also the

> AWARENESS of the content. And that awareness is the nondual

> consciousness. So nondual consciousness " contains " that which it is

> observing. The content of consciousness is: " the observer is the

> observed " . God is the nondual unmoved mover, nondual consciousness

> observing phenomena into existence.

>

> Simply notice that there is awareness of what is going on. That

> awareness is in itself not a thing, not some content of any kind.

>

> al.

>

 

 

 

 

 

**

 

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription,

sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

 

/mygroups?edit=1

 

Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta

group and click on Save Changes.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote:

> holographic, inscriptive, descriptive, metamorphing and sizing

oneself up and down in

> neural pathways along the currents of Kundalini or the double helix

of DNA do not

> resuscitate (DNR) ample amplifications and reunifications of

enumerations ruminations

> and runes ruining, therefore for there is/and/of a thing called

awareness.

>

> Awareness is Who of the We Are ,

> As I Am.

 

....i hope that it's not too much painfull...?

 

>

> ar

> ----- Original Message -d---

> Werner Woehr

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, September 29, 2005 8:39 AM

> Re: Wholeness & Fragmentation

>

>

> Anders,

>

> Awareness is an old myth but it doesn't exist.

>

> What we experience as being " aware of " is: At the same time being

> aware of " me " and of objects. But this " me " doesn't exist, it is

just

> an artificial mental split: The appearance of thought and body is

> identified as " me " in contrast to all those other objects which

> represent the " world " . This separation we experience as being

aware.

>

> But body/thinking are also just appearances as the content of

> consciousness like all the other objects too.

>

> In reality this awareness/separation process is the base of

neurosis:

> A forced split between an object 'body/mind' and all the other

> objects called 'world'.

>

> Just remember: Awareness = Neurosis

>

> Werner

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " >

> >

> > Consciousness is not only its content! Consciousness is also the

> > AWARENESS of the content. And that awareness is the nondual

> > consciousness. So nondual consciousness " contains " that which

it is

> > observing. The content of consciousness is: " the observer is the

> > observed " . God is the nondual unmoved mover, nondual

consciousness

> > observing phenomena into existence.

> >

> > Simply notice that there is awareness of what is going on. That

> > awareness is in itself not a thing, not some content of any

kind.

> >

> > al.

> **

>

> If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your

subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

>

> /mygroups?edit=1

>

> Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the

Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

> Anders,

>

> Awareness is an old myth but it doesn't exist.

>

> What we experience as being " aware of " is: At the same time being

> aware of " me " and of objects. But this " me " doesn't exist, it is just

> an artificial mental split: The appearance of thought and body is

> identified as " me " in contrast to all those other objects which

> represent the " world " . This separation we experience as being aware.

>

> But body/thinking are also just appearances as the content of

> consciousness like all the other objects too.

>

> In reality this awareness/separation process is the base of neurosis:

> A forced split between an object 'body/mind' and all the other

> objects called 'world'.

>

> Just remember: Awareness = Neurosis

>

> Werner

>

 

 

Of course awareness is a myth. Awareness is a POINTER. But what is

being aware of that pointer? See what I am getting (pointing) at?

 

al.

 

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " >

> >

> > Consciousness is not only its content! Consciousness is also the

> > AWARENESS of the content. And that awareness is the nondual

> > consciousness. So nondual consciousness " contains " that which it is

> > observing. The content of consciousness is: " the observer is the

> > observed " . God is the nondual unmoved mover, nondual consciousness

> > observing phenomena into existence.

> >

> > Simply notice that there is awareness of what is going on. That

> > awareness is in itself not a thing, not some content of any kind.

> >

> > al.

> >

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

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

wrote:

> > Anders,

> >

> > Awareness is an old myth but it doesn't exist.

> >

> > What we experience as being " aware of " is: At the same time being

> > aware of " me " and of objects. But this " me " doesn't exist, it is

just

> > an artificial mental split: The appearance of thought and body is

> > identified as " me " in contrast to all those other objects which

> > represent the " world " . This separation we experience as being

aware.

> >

> > But body/thinking are also just appearances as the content of

> > consciousness like all the other objects too.

> >

> > In reality this awareness/separation process is the base of

neurosis:

> > A forced split between an object 'body/mind' and all the other

> > objects called 'world'.

> >

> > Just remember: Awareness = Neurosis

> >

> > Werner

> >

>

>

> Of course awareness is a myth. Awareness is a POINTER. But what is

> being aware of that pointer? See what I am getting (pointing) at?

>

> al.

>

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " >

> > >

> > > Consciousness is not only its content! Consciousness is also the

> > > AWARENESS of the content. And that awareness is the nondual

> > > consciousness. So nondual consciousness " contains " that which

it is

> > > observing. The content of consciousness is: " the observer is the

> > > observed " . God is the nondual unmoved mover, nondual

consciousness

> > > observing phenomena into existence.

> > >

> > > Simply notice that there is awareness of what is going on. That

> > > awareness is in itself not a thing, not some content of any

kind.

> > >

> > > al.

> > >

 

Perhaps this can shed some light From Spirituality.

 

" We cannot find what we seek. We can only allow for its

manifestation. To seek and to find, is to add something new to our

lives.It is to add further complications to an allready complicated

and confused state. Truth,as Non-Dual reality,and freedom as an open-

ended emotional responsiveness, are allready part of our being and

therefore cannot be added to any aspect of existence,including

ourselves. In our human context the fullfillment we seek and hope to

find can only be allowed to reveal itself or to shine through the fog

of our culturally and self-imposed values of comformity and self

limitation.

If Truth is our intent and a deep abiding interest, we have little

choice but to enquire into, and to understand and transcend every

aspect of untruth unto which we have been conditioned.This will of

necessity include our preciously held notions about God, religion,

metaphysics, mysticism and spirituality. What is culturally

considered as valuable,beautiful and ultimately true and liberating,

are often little more than misconceptions about life, perpetuated

through uninspected repetition over a long period of time. We seldom

deeply question these values simply because they are presented to us

as such self-evident, revelatory truths. "

 

As old J. Krishnamurti said " There is only one God, and that is man

made perfect.

 

So perhaps we should be useing true self investigation into our own

cause of pain and suffering,or to use a metaphor from the old Indian

dudes to see the false as false.Also I see the great saints of old

and new as a hinderence along the Non-Dual path. They are forever

changed by there sudden transformation(enlightenment) into the

understanding of self ,brahman,God or whatever(sure sounds pretty

dualistic to me).I agree that Awareness = Neurosis. It is this kind

of thinking that reinforces our sense of seperation from life.Its

realy so simple and thats the problem.

peace,Doug............

[Guest guest]

Anders,

 

All explanations to prove awareness and its justifications are just an

escape to see that one is a split person. Without this split the

whole person would crumble apart.

 

Werner

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

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

wrote:

> > Anders,

> >

> > Awareness is an old myth but it doesn't exist.

> >

> > What we experience as being " aware of " is: At the same time being

> > aware of " me " and of objects. But this " me " doesn't exist, it is

just

> > an artificial mental split: The appearance of thought and body is

> > identified as " me " in contrast to all those other objects which

> > represent the " world " . This separation we experience as being

aware.

> >

> > But body/thinking are also just appearances as the content of

> > consciousness like all the other objects too.

> >

> > In reality this awareness/separation process is the base of

neurosis:

> > A forced split between an object 'body/mind' and all the other

> > objects called 'world'.

> >

> > Just remember: Awareness = Neurosis

> >

> > Werner

> >

>

>

> Of course awareness is a myth. Awareness is a POINTER. But what is

> being aware of that pointer? See what I am getting (pointing) at?

>

> al.

>

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " >

> > >

> > > Consciousness is not only its content! Consciousness is also the

> > > AWARENESS of the content. And that awareness is the nondual

> > > consciousness. So nondual consciousness " contains " that which

it is

> > > observing. The content of consciousness is: " the observer is the

> > > observed " . God is the nondual unmoved mover, nondual

consciousness

> > > observing phenomena into existence.

> > >

> > > Simply notice that there is awareness of what is going on. That

> > > awareness is in itself not a thing, not some content of any

kind.

> > >

> > > al.

> > >

[Guest guest]

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

> Anders,

>

> All explanations to prove awareness and its justifications are just an

> escape to see that one is a split person. Without this split the

> whole person would crumble apart.

>

> Werner

 

 

Yes, trying to prove awareness would be as silly as to trying to prove

that oneself exists. Imagine trying to prove to other people that you

exist by writing a PhD about it. )) Even more silly would be if

other people did agree that you exist. Then they say: " now that you

have proven that you exist, we want you to prove that you also are

aware " . " Why do you want me to do that? " , you ask them. " Because we

really don't know if you are aware or merely a part of our own dream " .

" Okaaay... " , you say, " time for me to abandon these therories, I

guess... "

 

al.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " leafwalker1069 "

> <Silver1069@h...> wrote:

> > > All concepts are merely pointers. The seeker can use pointers

such as

> > > God, Brahman, Self e t c. Removing those pointers cannot be

done.

> > > People who call themselves followers of " pure advaita " or

something

> > > similar are ESSENTIALLY as much followers as any other religious

> > > person. Instead of God they call what they are seeking or

> > have " found "

> > > Noumenon, or " true nature " , or even " what is " .

> > >

> > > I sometimes like to call the undivisible witness for nondual

> > > consciousness, but how is that in any way different from the

word

> > > " God " other than as a difference on a phenomenal level?

> > >

> > > al.

> >

> > To what, may I ask, do all such concepts point? To what, for

example,

> > do the God/Brahman/Self concepts point? For what can the seeker

use

> > such so-called unremovable pointers?

> >

> > There is something prior to all concepts. Who conceptualizes?

Who

> > does the conceptualizing? Who does the pointing out of this or

that?

> > What is the point of pointing? The point is to remove the

pointers

> > and discover what is left. When the pointers are removed, what

is one

> > left with? The pointer. Yet, there is still something prior to

the

> > pointer. Find out what is prior to the pointer.

> >

> > LW

>

>

> The act of pointing is (for me) simply the pointing to our

awareness.

> Just to notice that there is the awareness of what is going on. That

> awareness is not a thing. That awareness is nondual in its root.

>

> We need not try to remove the pointers. They are simply a part of

the

> rest of phenomena. They point to that which themselves are not:

> awareness. Utterly simple.

>

> The seeking process is for me to move closer to awareness itself.

>

> al.

 

Who is aware of being aware that he is aware? The seeker who is

aware of being aware is no longer a seeker. He is awareness itself.

All seeking stops with the awareness of awareness, ad infinitum. The

content of awareness is like a disappearing vapor; it is evanescent.

Even the memory of being aware is like that. When I forget that I am

aware, I am in a passing state of forgetfulness. The state of

forgetfulness and the state of awareness are two different states.

They are dual in nature and come and go like any other event. I am

conscious of my forgetfulness only when it dawns on me that I have

slipped into this state. I am conscious of my awareness when I have

slipped into that state. What am I? What causes the DAWNING of

being conscious of either state? Enlightenment?

 

LW

[Guest guest]

Right, dear,

 

Thats what I would say.

 

And if you need some material to kill time why not find some mind-

food which is of more practical value for your daily life than all

those artificial problems you til now invented and dealt with. Yawn

 

Werner

 

 

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

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

wrote:

> > Anders,

> >

> > All explanations to prove awareness and its justifications are

just an

> > escape to see that one is a split person. Without this split the

> > whole person would crumble apart.

> >

> > Werner

>

>

> Yes, trying to prove awareness would be as silly as to trying to

prove

> that oneself exists. Imagine trying to prove to other people that

you

> exist by writing a PhD about it. )) Even more silly would be if

> other people did agree that you exist. Then they say: " now that you

> have proven that you exist, we want you to prove that you also are

> aware " . " Why do you want me to do that? " , you ask them. " Because we

> really don't know if you are aware or merely a part of our own

dream " .

> " Okaaay... " , you say, " time for me to abandon these therories, I

> guess... "

>

> al.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " leafwalker1069 "

<Silver1069@h...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> <anders_lindman> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " leafwalker1069 "

> > <Silver1069@h...> wrote:

> > > > All concepts are merely pointers. The seeker can use pointers

> such as

> > > > God, Brahman, Self e t c. Removing those pointers cannot be

> done.

> > > > People who call themselves followers of " pure advaita " or

> something

> > > > similar are ESSENTIALLY as much followers as any other religious

> > > > person. Instead of God they call what they are seeking or

> > > have " found "

> > > > Noumenon, or " true nature " , or even " what is " .

> > > >

> > > > I sometimes like to call the undivisible witness for nondual

> > > > consciousness, but how is that in any way different from the

> word

> > > > " God " other than as a difference on a phenomenal level?

> > > >

> > > > al.

> > >

> > > To what, may I ask, do all such concepts point? To what, for

> example,

> > > do the God/Brahman/Self concepts point? For what can the seeker

> use

> > > such so-called unremovable pointers?

> > >

> > > There is something prior to all concepts. Who conceptualizes?

> Who

> > > does the conceptualizing? Who does the pointing out of this or

> that?

> > > What is the point of pointing? The point is to remove the

> pointers

> > > and discover what is left. When the pointers are removed, what

> is one

> > > left with? The pointer. Yet, there is still something prior to

> the

> > > pointer. Find out what is prior to the pointer.

> > >

> > > LW

> >

> >

> > The act of pointing is (for me) simply the pointing to our

> awareness.

> > Just to notice that there is the awareness of what is going on. That

> > awareness is not a thing. That awareness is nondual in its root.

> >

> > We need not try to remove the pointers. They are simply a part of

> the

> > rest of phenomena. They point to that which themselves are not:

> > awareness. Utterly simple.

> >

> > The seeking process is for me to move closer to awareness itself.

> >

> > al.

>

> Who is aware of being aware that he is aware? The seeker who is

> aware of being aware is no longer a seeker. He is awareness itself.

> All seeking stops with the awareness of awareness, ad infinitum. The

> content of awareness is like a disappearing vapor; it is evanescent.

> Even the memory of being aware is like that. When I forget that I am

> aware, I am in a passing state of forgetfulness. The state of

> forgetfulness and the state of awareness are two different states.

> They are dual in nature and come and go like any other event. I am

> conscious of my forgetfulness only when it dawns on me that I have

> slipped into this state. I am conscious of my awareness when I have

> slipped into that state. What am I? What causes the DAWNING of

> being conscious of either state? Enlightenment?

>

> LW

 

 

I think there is always awareness, but often one becomes deeply

trapped in the thought stream but even then there is the awareness -

one in not unconscious like in deep sleep. Awareness can be on a

higher level, when one is aware of the thoughts and not just trapped

in them. Maybe enlightenment is the state when one more or less rest

in awareness itself, so to speak. Ken Wilber, for example, talks about

the Witness as awareness itself.

 

al.

[Guest guest]

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

> Right, dear,

>

> Thats what I would say.

>

> And if you need some material to kill time why not find some mind-

> food which is of more practical value for your daily life than all

> those artificial problems you til now invented and dealt with. Yawn

>

> Werner

 

 

My ideas about evolution reaching a higher level is a bit practical,

sort of. Even though the idea may be incorrect, it gives an

interesting perspective, especially in relation to Ken Wilber's

theories. Potentially the idea of a planetary organim emerging could

give a new theoretical framework for looking at humanity, society,

evolution e t c from a higher perspective.

 

al.

 

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> <anders_lindman> wrote:

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

> wrote:

> > > Anders,

> > >

> > > All explanations to prove awareness and its justifications are

> just an

> > > escape to see that one is a split person. Without this split the

> > > whole person would crumble apart.

> > >

> > > Werner

> >

> >

> > Yes, trying to prove awareness would be as silly as to trying to

> prove

> > that oneself exists. Imagine trying to prove to other people that

> you

> > exist by writing a PhD about it. )) Even more silly would be if

> > other people did agree that you exist. Then they say: " now that you

> > have proven that you exist, we want you to prove that you also are

> > aware " . " Why do you want me to do that? " , you ask them. " Because we

> > really don't know if you are aware or merely a part of our own

> dream " .

> > " Okaaay... " , you say, " time for me to abandon these therories, I

> > guess... "

> >

> > al.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " leafwalker1069 "

> <Silver1069@h...> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> > <anders_lindman> wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " leafwalker1069 "

> > > <Silver1069@h...> wrote:

> > > > > All concepts are merely pointers. The seeker can use

pointers

> > such as

> > > > > God, Brahman, Self e t c. Removing those pointers cannot be

> > done.

> > > > > People who call themselves followers of " pure advaita " or

> > something

> > > > > similar are ESSENTIALLY as much followers as any other

religious

> > > > > person. Instead of God they call what they are seeking or

> > > > have " found "

> > > > > Noumenon, or " true nature " , or even " what is " .

> > > > >

> > > > > I sometimes like to call the undivisible witness for nondual

> > > > > consciousness, but how is that in any way different from

the

> > word

> > > > > " God " other than as a difference on a phenomenal level?

> > > > >

> > > > > al.

> > > >

> > > > To what, may I ask, do all such concepts point? To what, for

> > example,

> > > > do the God/Brahman/Self concepts point? For what can the

seeker

> > use

> > > > such so-called unremovable pointers?

> > > >

> > > > There is something prior to all concepts. Who

conceptualizes?

> > Who

> > > > does the conceptualizing? Who does the pointing out of this

or

> > that?

> > > > What is the point of pointing? The point is to remove the

> > pointers

> > > > and discover what is left. When the pointers are removed,

what

> > is one

> > > > left with? The pointer. Yet, there is still something prior

to

> > the

> > > > pointer. Find out what is prior to the pointer.

> > > >

> > > > LW

> > >

> > >

> > > The act of pointing is (for me) simply the pointing to our

> > awareness.

> > > Just to notice that there is the awareness of what is going on.

That

> > > awareness is not a thing. That awareness is nondual in its root.

> > >

> > > We need not try to remove the pointers. They are simply a part

of

> > the

> > > rest of phenomena. They point to that which themselves are not:

> > > awareness. Utterly simple.

> > >

> > > The seeking process is for me to move closer to awareness

itself.

> > >

> > > al.

> >

> > Who is aware of being aware that he is aware? The seeker who is

> > aware of being aware is no longer a seeker. He is awareness

itself.

> > All seeking stops with the awareness of awareness, ad infinitum.

The

> > content of awareness is like a disappearing vapor; it is

evanescent.

> > Even the memory of being aware is like that. When I forget that

I am

> > aware, I am in a passing state of forgetfulness. The state of

> > forgetfulness and the state of awareness are two different

states.

> > They are dual in nature and come and go like any other event. I

am

> > conscious of my forgetfulness only when it dawns on me that I

have

> > slipped into this state. I am conscious of my awareness when I

have

> > slipped into that state. What am I? What causes the DAWNING of

> > being conscious of either state? Enlightenment?

> >

> > LW

>

>

> I think there is always awareness, but often one becomes deeply

> trapped in the thought stream but even then there is the awareness -

> one in not unconscious like in deep sleep. Awareness can be on a

> higher level, when one is aware of the thoughts and not just trapped

> in them. Maybe enlightenment is the state when one more or less rest

> in awareness itself, so to speak. Ken Wilber, for example, talks

about

> the Witness as awareness itself.

>

> al.

 

Yes, indeed. However, when we notice that we are caught in that

trap, is it not that " explosive realization " that Nisargadatta talked

about? It does'nt just dawn on us that we are caught. It hits us in

the face, so to speak. I suddenly remember that I have forgotten.

Conversely, I suddenly forget to remember. That suddenness: how

does it happen?

 

LW

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " leafwalker1069 "

<Silver1069@h...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> <anders_lindman> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " leafwalker1069 "

> > <Silver1069@h...> wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> > > <anders_lindman> wrote:

> > > > Nisargadatta , " leafwalker1069 "

> > > > <Silver1069@h...> wrote:

> > > > > > All concepts are merely pointers. The seeker can use

> pointers

> > > such as

> > > > > > God, Brahman, Self e t c. Removing those pointers cannot be

> > > done.

> > > > > > People who call themselves followers of " pure advaita " or

> > > something

> > > > > > similar are ESSENTIALLY as much followers as any other

> religious

> > > > > > person. Instead of God they call what they are seeking or

> > > > > have " found "

> > > > > > Noumenon, or " true nature " , or even " what is " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I sometimes like to call the undivisible witness for nondual

> > > > > > consciousness, but how is that in any way different from

> the

> > > word

> > > > > > " God " other than as a difference on a phenomenal level?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > al.

> > > > >

> > > > > To what, may I ask, do all such concepts point? To what, for

> > > example,

> > > > > do the God/Brahman/Self concepts point? For what can the

> seeker

> > > use

> > > > > such so-called unremovable pointers?

> > > > >

> > > > > There is something prior to all concepts. Who

> conceptualizes?

> > > Who

> > > > > does the conceptualizing? Who does the pointing out of this

> or

> > > that?

> > > > > What is the point of pointing? The point is to remove the

> > > pointers

> > > > > and discover what is left. When the pointers are removed,

> what

> > > is one

> > > > > left with? The pointer. Yet, there is still something prior

> to

> > > the

> > > > > pointer. Find out what is prior to the pointer.

> > > > >

> > > > > LW

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The act of pointing is (for me) simply the pointing to our

> > > awareness.

> > > > Just to notice that there is the awareness of what is going on.

> That

> > > > awareness is not a thing. That awareness is nondual in its root.

> > > >

> > > > We need not try to remove the pointers. They are simply a part

> of

> > > the

> > > > rest of phenomena. They point to that which themselves are not:

> > > > awareness. Utterly simple.

> > > >

> > > > The seeking process is for me to move closer to awareness

> itself.

> > > >

> > > > al.

> > >

> > > Who is aware of being aware that he is aware? The seeker who is

> > > aware of being aware is no longer a seeker. He is awareness

> itself.

> > > All seeking stops with the awareness of awareness, ad infinitum.

> The

> > > content of awareness is like a disappearing vapor; it is

> evanescent.

> > > Even the memory of being aware is like that. When I forget that

> I am

> > > aware, I am in a passing state of forgetfulness. The state of

> > > forgetfulness and the state of awareness are two different

> states.

> > > They are dual in nature and come and go like any other event. I

> am

> > > conscious of my forgetfulness only when it dawns on me that I

> have

> > > slipped into this state. I am conscious of my awareness when I

> have

> > > slipped into that state. What am I? What causes the DAWNING of

> > > being conscious of either state? Enlightenment?

> > >

> > > LW

> >

> >

> > I think there is always awareness, but often one becomes deeply

> > trapped in the thought stream but even then there is the awareness -

> > one in not unconscious like in deep sleep. Awareness can be on a

> > higher level, when one is aware of the thoughts and not just trapped

> > in them. Maybe enlightenment is the state when one more or less rest

> > in awareness itself, so to speak. Ken Wilber, for example, talks

> about

> > the Witness as awareness itself.

> >

> > al.

>

> Yes, indeed. However, when we notice that we are caught in that

> trap, is it not that " explosive realization " that Nisargadatta talked

> about? It does'nt just dawn on us that we are caught. It hits us in

> the face, so to speak. I suddenly remember that I have forgotten.

> Conversely, I suddenly forget to remember. That suddenness: how

> does it happen?

>

> LW

 

 

I think there is an evolutionary force that pulls us towards

awareness. That awareness shines eternally and we are that awareness

itself, but evolution is the game of reaching from unawareness and

total separation (the Big Bang) and closer and closer to awareness

itself. We will never reach " pure " awareness. We already are pure

awareness. But we will probably reach higher and higher in the form of

Lila, the play of form, evolution, and become more and more " aware " .

 

al.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote:

>

> -

> anders_lindman

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 30, 2005 5:33 AM

> Re: Wholeness & Fragmentation

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " leafwalker1069 "

> <Silver1069@h...> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> > <anders_lindman> wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " leafwalker1069 "

> > > <Silver1069@h...> wrote:

> > > > > All concepts are merely pointers. The seeker can use pointers

> > such as

> > > > > God, Brahman, Self e t c. Removing those pointers cannot be

> > done.

> > > > > People who call themselves followers of " pure advaita " or

> > something

> > > > > similar are ESSENTIALLY as much followers as any other

religious

> > > > > person. Instead of God they call what they are seeking or

> > > > have " found "

> > > > > Noumenon, or " true nature " , or even " what is " .

> > > > >

> > > > > I sometimes like to call the undivisible witness for nondual

> > > > > consciousness, but how is that in any way different from the

> > word

> > > > > " God " other than as a difference on a phenomenal level?

> > > > >

> > > > > al.

> > > >

> > > > To what, may I ask, do all such concepts point? To what, for

> > example,

> > > > do the God/Brahman/Self concepts point? For what can the

seeker

> > use

> > > > such so-called unremovable pointers?

> > > >

> > > > There is something prior to all concepts. Who conceptualizes?

> > Who

> > > > does the conceptualizing? Who does the pointing out of this or

> > that?

> > > > What is the point of pointing? The point is to remove the

> > pointers

> > > > and discover what is left. When the pointers are removed, what

> > is one

> > > > left with? The pointer. Yet, there is still something

prior to

> > the

> > > > pointer. Find out what is prior to the pointer.

> > > >

> > > > LW

> > >

> > >

> > > The act of pointing is (for me) simply the pointing to our

> > awareness.

> > > Just to notice that there is the awareness of what is going

on. That

> > > awareness is not a thing. That awareness is nondual in its root.

> > >

> > > We need not try to remove the pointers. They are simply a part of

> > the

> > > rest of phenomena. They point to that which themselves are not:

> > > awareness. Utterly simple.

> > >

> > > The seeking process is for me to move closer to awareness itself.

> > >

> > > al.

> >

> > Who is aware of being aware that he is aware? The seeker who is

> > aware of being aware is no longer a seeker. He is awareness

itself.

> > All seeking stops with the awareness of awareness, ad infinitum.

The

> > content of awareness is like a disappearing vapor; it is

evanescent.

> > Even the memory of being aware is like that. When I forget that

I am

> > aware, I am in a passing state of forgetfulness. The state of

> > forgetfulness and the state of awareness are two different states.

> > They are dual in nature and come and go like any other event. I am

> > conscious of my forgetfulness only when it dawns on me that I have

> > slipped into this state. I am conscious of my awareness when I

have

> > slipped into that state. What am I? What causes the DAWNING of

> > being conscious of either state? Enlightenment?

> >

> > LW

>

>

> I think there is always awareness, but often one becomes deeply

> trapped in the thought stream but even then there is the awareness -

> one in not unconscious like in deep sleep. Awareness can be on a

> higher level, when one is aware of the thoughts and not just trapped

> in them. Maybe enlightenment is the state when one more or less rest

> in awareness itself, so to speak. Ken Wilber, for example, talks about

> the Witness as awareness itself.

>

> al.

>

> Morning darling,

>

> Awareness is only this. We are fragmented individual pieces of

this. Like parts of light.

> When we identify with awareness or light the light moves outward,

expanding and what

> we see is light where ignorance was. Where it ends, I do not

know. Infinity and beyond,

> as Buzz Lightyear from Toy Story, says.

>

> Love you " al. "

>

> ar

>

 

 

I believe you are right. Even though I only experience myself as a

separate human being, I think there must be an interconnectedness

between all things, so, as Deepak Chopra says: " The world is in you,

you are not in the world " sounds very valid to me. The next step is to

actually experience this directly as one's true reality. That would be

very cool. :=)

 

The world of form is probably a gigantic 3D hologram and we experience

it through " awareness " , the eternal cosmic Playstation. If I remember

correctly, Nis has said almost the same thing, but did not use words

like " cosmic Playstation " .

 

al.