Guest guest Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Oh Werner, Stuck on yourself? ;-) ;-) love, Ana - Werner Woehr Nisargadatta Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:34 AM Re: Short-circuit the thought process Oh friend of horses, Why do you need others to justify and explain your own structure, hangups, fears, hopes, fallings and raisings ? Forget me and anyone else and stick to gaining self-knowlege. Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > I take it you're enjoying yourself here? > > > > > In a message dated 10/20/2005 1:47:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr@p... writes: > > Phil, > > You already made that step to see yourself a stupidhead and now you > ask if one has the courage to die for God. Please see: > > The definition, the explanation are security strategies not to be > helpless, not to be alone in this vastness, to be a someone and not a > noone. And awareness, God, the Divine are all just those definitions. > > Why should one die for a definition ? > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, you're right. What do all those stupidhead enlightened > masters know > > anyhoo? > > > > I don't see how calling it awareness instead of consciousness > somehow makes > > it seem more attainable or cool, in case that's your point, but > I'll assume > > that your belligerence is really a projection of your fear that > your ego will > > never experience enlightenment. It's true, as you approach that > knowingness, > > ego inches itself ever closer to the gallows. The question then > becomes, do > > you have the courage to die for the love of God? > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Suffering from authority complex, ay ? Werner Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > Oh Werner, > > Stuck on yourself? ;-) ;-) > > love, > Ana > - > Werner Woehr > Nisargadatta > Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:34 AM > Re: Short-circuit the thought process > > > Oh friend of horses, > > Why do you need others to justify and explain your own structure, > hangups, fears, hopes, fallings and raisings ? > > Forget me and anyone else and stick to gaining self-knowlege. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > I take it you're enjoying yourself here? > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/20/2005 1:47:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > Phil, > > > > You already made that step to see yourself a stupidhead and now > you > > ask if one has the courage to die for God. Please see: > > > > The definition, the explanation are security strategies not to be > > helpless, not to be alone in this vastness, to be a someone and not > a > > noone. And awareness, God, the Divine are all just those > definitions. > > > > Why should one die for a definition ? > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yeah, you're right. What do all those stupidhead enlightened > > masters know > > > anyhoo? > > > > > > I don't see how calling it awareness instead of consciousness > > somehow makes > > > it seem more attainable or cool, in case that's your point, but > > I'll assume > > > that your belligerence is really a projection of your fear that > > your ego will > > > never experience enlightenment. It's true, as you approach > that > > knowingness, > > > ego inches itself ever closer to the gallows. The question then > > becomes, do > > > you have the courage to die for the love of God? > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Lol, That would be a yes and a no ;-) Ana - Werner Woehr Nisargadatta Thursday, October 20, 2005 7:41 AM Re: Short-circuit the thought process Suffering from authority complex, ay ? Werner Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > Oh Werner, > > Stuck on yourself? ;-) ;-) > > love, > Ana > - > Werner Woehr > Nisargadatta > Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:34 AM > Re: Short-circuit the thought process > > > Oh friend of horses, > > Why do you need others to justify and explain your own structure, > hangups, fears, hopes, fallings and raisings ? > > Forget me and anyone else and stick to gaining self-knowlege. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > I take it you're enjoying yourself here? > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/20/2005 1:47:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > Phil, > > > > You already made that step to see yourself a stupidhead and now > you > > ask if one has the courage to die for God. Please see: > > > > The definition, the explanation are security strategies not to be > > helpless, not to be alone in this vastness, to be a someone and not > a > > noone. And awareness, God, the Divine are all just those > definitions. > > > > Why should one die for a definition ? > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yeah, you're right. What do all those stupidhead enlightened > > masters know > > > anyhoo? > > > > > > I don't see how calling it awareness instead of consciousness > > somehow makes > > > it seem more attainable or cool, in case that's your point, but > > I'll assume > > > that your belligerence is really a projection of your fear that > > your ego will > > > never experience enlightenment. It's true, as you approach > that > > knowingness, > > > ego inches itself ever closer to the gallows. The question then > > becomes, do > > > you have the courage to die for the love of God? > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >The definition, the explanation are security strategies not to be >helpless, not to be alone in this vastness, to be a someone and not a >noone. And awareness, God, the Divine are all just those definitions. language itself is the ultimate security strategy lolila Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 In a message dated 10/19/2005 10:31:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, anders_lindman writes: You cannot understand consciousness through thought. Maybe you can, but when? How much time do you need for thought to understand consciousness? One second? Two hours? Thirty years? And what will that understanding be? A thought? A memory? A thought happening in consciousness? Can you see what I am getting at? al. If what we mean by " consciousness " here is the Self, then it seems clear it can't be understood through thought. Thought arises out of consciousness as one of it's manifestations, and so cannot turn around and conceptualize it's creator. Consciousness is not a concept, nor does it conceptualize. The mind creation of consciousness, alone, is designed to conceptualize. It's the illusion that analyzes the illusion, but can never be used to conceive the inconceivable. .......Did I conceive the question right? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2005 Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/19/2005 10:31:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > anders_lindman writes: > > You cannot understand consciousness through thought. Maybe you can, > but when? How much time do you need for thought to understand > consciousness? One second? Two hours? Thirty years? And what will that > understanding be? A thought? A memory? A thought happening in > consciousness? Can you see what I am getting at? > > al. > > > > If what we mean by " consciousness " here is the Self, then it seems clear it > can't be understood through thought. Thought arises out of consciousness as > one of it's manifestations, and so cannot turn around and conceptualize it's > creator. Consciousness is not a concept, nor does it conceptualize. The mind > creation of consciousness, alone, is designed to conceptualize. It's the > illusion that analyzes the illusion, but can never be used to conceive the > inconceivable. > > ......Did I conceive the question right? > > Phil > Hi Phil, Yes, that was what I was thinking about. We cannot understand consciousness the way we understand, for example, that 2 + 2 = 4. Yet, we can " see " consciousness, even think about our own awareness as it happens, in realtime so to speak, and that is in itself a non-consceptual direct experience of consciousness. From the Ashtavakra Gita: Janaka said: How is one to acquire knowledge? How is one to attain liberation? And how is one to reach dispassion? Tell me this, sir. 1.1 Ashtavakra said: If you are seeking liberation, my son, avoid the objects of the senses like poison and cultivate tolerance, sincerity, compassion, contentment, and truthfulness as the antidote. 1.2 You do not consist of any of the elements -- earth, water, fire, air, or even ether. To be liberated, know yourself as consisting of consciousness, the witness of these. 1.3 If only you will remain resting in consciousness, seeing yourself as distinct from the body, then even now you will become happy, peaceful and free from bonds. 1.4 You do not belong to the brahmin or any other caste, you are not at any stage, nor are you anything that the eye can see. You are unattached and formless, the witness of everything -- so be happy. 1.5 Righteousness and unrighteousness, pleasure and pain are purely of the mind and are no concern of yours. You are neither the doer nor the reaper of the consequences, so you are always free. 1.6 You are the one witness of everything and are always completely free. The cause of your bondage is that you see the witness as something other than this. 1.7 Since you have been bitten by the black snake, the opinion about yourself that " I am the doer, " drink the antidote of faith in the fact that " I am not the doer, " and be happy. 1.8 Burn down the forest of ignorance with the fire of the understanding that " I am the one pure awareness, " and be happy and free from distress. 1.9 That in which all this appears is imagined like the snake in a rope; that joy, supreme joy, and awareness is what you are, so be happy. 1.10 If one thinks of oneself as free, one is free, and if one thinks of oneself as bound, one is bound. Here this saying is true, " Thinking makes it so. " 1.11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2005 Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 In a message dated 10/21/2005 5:55:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, nli10u writes: Exactly Werner, a question i have been ruminating upon for some time. One part of consciousness is all of consciousness, n'est pas? So, when I am no longer, er, connected, what will become of the consciousness that I have not identified as mine? er, that would be 'you'.. Another way of saying this is after my body-mind 'dies' if it will, does This all disappear/die with it? Solopsistic thinking to the extreme or just something no one living want to discuss? Or is it me? Ana I see what your pondering is here. If the world goes away when we're not conscious, everybody goes away. Maybe the difficulty here is the assumption that 'being' conscious is equivalent to consciousness itself. It's only perception within consciousness that has any relationship with the mind/body. When you croak, you won't cease to be consciousness nor will you cease to be aware, do just won't be perceiving yourself as a mind/body. What " disappears " is perception. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2005 Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 Right, I think it's a given that none of us can speak with authority on the matter. I personally love science, but long ago, I recognized the self imposed limits inherent in the nature of scientific investigation itself. This is as it should be, but science and God don't seem to mix well. When I wanna know how my refrigerator works, I look to science. When I wanna know how God works, I look to those who claim to have knowledge of this. The teachers tell us that God is pure, subjective awareness, which is consciousness at rest. The movement of consciousness is like the waves on the ocean, discernible from the ocean through conceptualization only. Movement of consciousness manifests in physicality, and while it may be true that, once it is no longer physically manifest, it dissolves back into awareness from which it arose, nothing ever ceased to exist that actually existed before. The ego/mind/body was never a valid entity to begin with. What 'we' are, have always been, and always will be is that pure awareness out of which the universe arises. This is terrifying to ego, but since ego is just a misconception anyhoo, who cares? Phil In a message dated 10/22/2005 11:53:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, anders_lindman writes: Yes, is consciousness needed in order for matter to appear, or is matter needed in order for consciousness to appear. I think this question has not been resolved by science. The ordinary view in mainstream science is that matter creates consciousness, but then there comes people like Deepak Chopra who says: " You are not in the world, the world is in you " If we take that as a literate statement, then it means that the universe is in consciousness, not consciousness in the universe. I am myself not sure which view is correct. And I don't see how other people could be so dogmatically sure, unless, of course, they know themselves as being the formless before it becomes form. al. Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > It seems to me that both you and the poet assume that consciousness has no > reality but is only made up of content. I can see how this belief would lead to > the conclusion that consciousness vanishes when there is no perceived > content, and that when we die, we're worm food. > > I accept your right to believe as you do, but when one holds so tightly to > one's beliefs that he feels justified in condemning all other beliefs as the > unwillingness to understand and accept, that locks belief in place, since now > ego has just as much investment in proving others to be deluded as others do > in finding God. > > If I believed I was destined to become worm food, I would find more > worthwhile pursuits, but that's just me. > > Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2005 Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are awareness and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats your only eternity. Werner You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything for eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness doesn't preclude being anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got here in the first place, only you only think you're here. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2005 Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 - ADHHUB Nisargadatta Saturday, October 22, 2005 5:45 PM Re: Re: Short-circuit the thought process In a message dated 10/21/2005 5:55:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, nli10u writes: Exactly Werner, a question i have been ruminating upon for some time. One part of consciousness is all of consciousness, n'est pas? So, when I am no longer, er, connected, what will become of the consciousness that I have not identified as mine? er, that would be 'you'.. Another way of saying this is after my body-mind 'dies' if it will, does This all disappear/die with it? Solopsistic thinking to the extreme or just something no one living want to discuss? Or is it me? Ana And you know this how? I see what your pondering is here. If the world goes away when we're not conscious, everybody goes away. Maybe the difficulty here is the assumption that 'being' conscious is equivalent to consciousness itself. It's only perception within consciousness that has any relationship with the mind/body. When you croak, you won't cease to be consciousness nor will you cease to be aware, do just won't be perceiving yourself as a mind/body. What " disappears " is perception. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 I don't know what you want. All that I believe I am will die. There is no possibility of an independent, egoic existence where I know myself to be anything. Enlightenment is the anhilation of any sense of separate self. Ego will not be transferred into awareness. How can I have a serious conversation with someone who's not listening? Perhaps it's not my fear of death that we're talking about here. Phil In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:55:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: Phil, How can I have a serious conversion with someone who doesn't dare to face his own death ? Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr@p... writes: > > But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are awareness > and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats > your only eternity. > > Werner > > > > You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything for > eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness doesn't preclude being > anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got here in the > first place, only you only think you're here. > > Phil > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 Hi Phil, What you wrote is confusing. You mix some things, like being conscious, consciousness, perception and also their relationship to body mind. Do you have the feeling you are clear about that ? I know that this what I call " spiritual pest " sits deep and that most seekers believing that they are awareness don't want to give that up. " Being conscious " ist just a different way to say " I am consciousness " but the point is that you " are " not conscious but you are all these contents of consciousness. There is no I or me which is conscious or which is the " knower " or which is awareness. I know you will read this lines and are not willing to understand and to accept it. So, why to go on with that ? See the following famous poem from Anna Elizabeth Frey which exactly expresses what I want to convey. Do not stand at my grave and weep; I am not there. I do not sleep. I am a thousand winds that blow. I am the diamond glints on snow. I am sunlight on ripened grain. I am the gentle autumn rain. When you awaken in the morning's hush I am the swift uplifting rush Of quiet birds in circled flight. I am the soft stars that shine at night. Do not stand at my grave and cry; I am not there. I did not die. Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > I see what your pondering is here. If the world goes away when we're not > conscious, everybody goes away. Maybe the difficulty here is the assumption that > 'being' conscious is equivalent to consciousness itself. It's only perception > within consciousness that has any relationship with the mind/body. When you > croak, you won't cease to be consciousness nor will you cease to be aware, do > just won't be perceiving yourself as a mind/body. What " disappears " is > perception. > > Phil > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman > 2005/10/23 Sun AM 02:52:42 EDT > Nisargadatta > Re: Short-circuit the thought process > > Good morning Beloved, Consciousness and the Universe arise simultaneously in awareness. This is 'abiding in/as.'. love, Ana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 It seems to me that both you and the poet assume that consciousness has no reality but is only made up of content. I can see how this belief would lead to the conclusion that consciousness vanishes when there is no perceived content, and that when we die, we're worm food. I accept your right to believe as you do, but when one holds so tightly to one's beliefs that he feels justified in condemning all other beliefs as the unwillingness to understand and accept, that locks belief in place, since now ego has just as much investment in proving others to be deluded as others do in finding God. If I believed I was destined to become worm food, I would find more worthwhile pursuits, but that's just me. Phil In a message dated 10/22/2005 4:37:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: Hi Phil, What you wrote is confusing. You mix some things, like being conscious, consciousness, perception and also their relationship to body mind. Do you have the feeling you are clear about that ? I know that this what I call " spiritual pest " sits deep and that most seekers believing that they are awareness don't want to give that up. " Being conscious " ist just a different way to say " I am consciousness " but the point is that you " are " not conscious but you are all these contents of consciousness. There is no I or me which is conscious or which is the " knower " or which is awareness. I know you will read this lines and are not willing to understand and to accept it. So, why to go on with that ? See the following famous poem from Anna Elizabeth Frey which exactly expresses what I want to convey. Do not stand at my grave and weep; I am not there. I do not sleep. I am a thousand winds that blow. I am the diamond glints on snow. I am sunlight on ripened grain. I am the gentle autumn rain. When you awaken in the morning's hush I am the swift uplifting rush Of quiet birds in circled flight. I am the soft stars that shine at night. Do not stand at my grave and cry; I am not there. I did not die. Werner --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > I see what your pondering is here. If the world goes away when we're not > conscious, everybody goes away. Maybe the difficulty here is the assumption that > 'being' conscious is equivalent to consciousness itself. It's only perception > within consciousness that has any relationship with the mind/body. When you > croak, you won't cease to be consciousness nor will you cease to be aware, do > just won't be perceiving yourself as a mind/body. What " disappears " is > perception. > > Phil > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 In European languages there is only one word for consciousness and awareness. In German it is " Bewusstsein " . That means only for English and Americans the universe and consciousness abide in awareness. Europeans are condemned to be food for worms, English can live eternally and are the " knowers " . But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are awareness and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats your only eternity. Werner Nisargadatta , <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > > > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > > 2005/10/23 Sun AM 02:52:42 EDT > > Nisargadatta > > Re: Short-circuit the thought process > > > > > > > > > Good morning Beloved, > Consciousness and the Universe arise simultaneously in > awareness. This is 'abiding in/as.'. > > love, > Ana > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 Phil, How can I have a serious conversion with someone who doesn't dare to face his own death ? Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr@p... writes: > > But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are awareness > and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats > your only eternity. > > Werner > > > > You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything for > eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness doesn't preclude being > anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got here in the > first place, only you only think you're here. > > Phil > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 The 'promise' is love,joy, peace, freedom. In some ways, freedom and security contradict each other. There is no desperation or need for security. It's a joyful exploration that's already brought me a dualistic form of all those 'promises'. Now tell me, what is it you're so afraid of that has you doing battle with those who seek something better? Phil In a message dated 10/23/2005 2:38:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: Phil, Tell me very seriously and honestly, what for do you need that wonderful " awareness " ? Why so desperately clinging to it ? What does it promise ? It is that promise you are keen on, right ? What is it ? God, the Self, Bahman ? What are those promising besides security ? Nothing else, isn't it ? Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > I don't know what you want. All that I believe I am will die. There is no > possibility of an independent, egoic existence where I know myself to be > anything. Enlightenment is the anhilation of any sense of separate self. Ego will > not be transferred into awareness. > > How can I have a serious conversation with someone who's not listening? > Perhaps it's not my fear of death that we're talking about here. > > Phil > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 Yes, self knowledge has always been the focus here. This is what humbles ego, something you might look into. Phil In a message dated 10/23/2005 3:09:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: Phil, I think you know exactly what I want. Tell me very seriously and honestly, what for do you need this wonderful " awareness " ? Why so desperately clinging to it ? What does it promise ? It is that promise you are keen on, right ? What is it ? God, the Self, Bahman ? What are those promising besides security ? Nothing else, isn't it ? You speak of egoic death but don't want to quit those concepts of cowards like God, Self, Brahman, Awareness. That is a contradiction, to die the egoic death and at the same time clinging to promising concepts. Maybe you just don't want to admit to yourself that you are just a cowardish hypocrite ? When one reads those posts here then one realizes that these godly topics are the most but Maharaj much more stressed undestanding oneself, self-knowledge is the key and not those laughable divine ideals whose home is a kindergarten spirituality. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 In a message dated 10/23/2005 3:21:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, nli10u writes: awareness is a linear extracurricular event evenly modulated and remotely oriented in a fraction of time, herein and herafter called now. Now now is an interesting phenomenon, a dimension of reprehension and suspension of events horizoned for it includes the indifference paid to in attending the attention of what one is not aware of and this is remotely suspect in object and subject within multi-sensoral beings whose inclinations and provacations and predilections have not yet incited and inticed an inner riot of who lives in capacity of understanding and therefore standing in multidimensional living or, just who can be at/in more than one place at a time.... hmmmm Ana .....................What? (Hehe) Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 Thought arises within consciousness. Phil In a message dated 10/23/2005 4:16:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: Anders, It is the other way round: Thought is prior to consciousness. First thought is produced in the brain and then it is shifted as thought packtes into that part of the brain which makes it conscious. As I could see you also started to partake in love babbling. I can understand that because is doesn't feel good to be an outsider. Question: Do you fear to be a nobody ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 Phil, I think you know exactly what I want. Tell me very seriously and honestly, what for do you need this wonderful " awareness " ? Why so desperately clinging to it ? What does it promise ? It is that promise you are keen on, right ? What is it ? God, the Self, Bahman ? What are those promising besides security ? Nothing else, isn't it ? You speak of egoic death but don't want to quit those concepts of cowards like God, Self, Brahman, Awareness. That is a contradiction, to die the egoic death and at the same time clinging to promising concepts. Maybe you just don't want to admit to yourself that you are just a cowardish hypocrite ? When one reads those posts here then one realizes that these godly topics are the most but Maharaj much more stressed undestanding oneself, self-knowledge is the key and not those laughable divine ideals whose home is a kindergarten spirituality. Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > I don't know what you want. All that I believe I am will die. There is no > possibility of an independent, egoic existence where I know myself to be > anything. Enlightenment is the anhilation of any sense of separate self. Ego will > not be transferred into awareness. > > How can I have a serious conversation with someone who's not listening? > Perhaps it's not my fear of death that we're talking about here. > > Phil > > > > > In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:55:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr@p... writes: > > Phil, > > How can I have a serious conversion with someone who doesn't dare to > face his own death ? > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are > awareness > > and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats > > your only eternity. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything > for > > eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness > doesn't preclude being > > anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got here > in the > > first place, only you only think you're here. > > > > Phil > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 - ADHHUB Nisargadatta Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:43 AM Re: Re: Short-circuit the thought process In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are awareness and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats your only eternity. Werner You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything for eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness doesn't preclude being anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got here in the first place, only you only think you're here. Phil awareness is a linear extracurricular event evenly modulated and remotely oriented in a fraction of time, herein and herafter called now. Now now is an interesting phenomenon, a dimension of reprehension and suspension of events horizoned for it includes the indifference paid to in attending the attention of what one is not aware of and this is remotely suspect in object and subject within multi-sensoral beings whose inclinations and provacations and predilections have not yet incited and inticed an inner riot of who lives in capacity of understanding and therefore standing in multidimensional living or, just who can be at/in more than one place at a time.... hmmmm Ana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 In a message dated 10/23/2005 6:08:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, anders_lindman writes: When love is trapped it becomes fear. That fear creates the illusion of separation which is needed in order to create the One and the Many. From Oneness to seeminly separation and then into the One and the Many. al. I would say that the illusion of separation is what leads to fear. If one is everything, what would one fear? If one believes oneself to be separate, there's great cause for fear. How would love be " trapped " ? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > - > ADHHUB@A... > Nisargadatta > Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:43 AM > Re: Re: Short-circuit the thought process > > > > In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr@p... writes: > > But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are awareness > and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats > your only eternity. > > Werner > > > > You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything for > eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness doesn't preclude being > anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got here in the > first place, only you only think you're here. > > Phil > > awareness is a linear extracurricular event evenly modulated > and remotely oriented in a fraction of time, herein and > herafter called now. Now now is an interesting phenomenon, > a dimension of reprehension and suspension of events horizoned > for it includes the indifference paid to in attending the attention > of what one is not aware of and this is remotely suspect in > object and subject within multi-sensoral beings whose inclinations > and provacations and predilections have not yet incited and inticed > an inner riot of who lives in capacity of understanding and therefore > standing in multidimensional living or, just who can be at/in more than > one place at a time.... > > hmmmm > > Ana > Awareness is prior to thought, even (and only) within this very now. Love comes out of awareness, not out of thought. Although thoughts can be inspired by love, they are not themselves the source of that love. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 Anders, It is the other way round: Thought is prior to consciousness. First thought is produced in the brain and then it is shifted as thought packtes into that part of the brain which makes it conscious. As I could see you also started to partake in love babbling. I can understand that because is doesn't feel good to be an outsider. Question: Do you fear to be a nobody ? Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > > > - > > ADHHUB@A... > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:43 AM > > Re: Re: Short-circuit the thought process > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/23/2005 1:24:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > But very serious now, as long as you believe that you are awareness > > and you are that which knows, you will be stuck forever and thats > > your only eternity. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > You're suggesting that it would be a bad thing to be everything for > > eternity? Seriously? That's what you are now. Being awareness > doesn't preclude being > > anything else, it transcends everything. That's how 'you' got > here in the > > first place, only you only think you're here. > > > > Phil > > > > awareness is a linear extracurricular event evenly modulated > > and remotely oriented in a fraction of time, herein and > > herafter called now. Now now is an interesting phenomenon, > > a dimension of reprehension and suspension of events horizoned > > for it includes the indifference paid to in attending the attention > > of what one is not aware of and this is remotely suspect in > > object and subject within multi-sensoral beings whose inclinations > > and provacations and predilections have not yet incited and inticed > > an inner riot of who lives in capacity of understanding and therefore > > standing in multidimensional living or, just who can be at/in more > than > > one place at a time.... > > > > hmmmm > > > > Ana > > > > > Awareness is prior to thought, even (and only) within this very now. > Love comes out of awareness, not out of thought. Although thoughts can > be inspired by love, they are not themselves the source of that love. > > al. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.