Guest guest Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 “This is all true. If this is a knowing for you, it is done and no argument can be made. If it is not done, then perhaps the concepts are being used to deny the very process by which this knowing occurs. There is no seeker with any independent volition, and yet seeking is 'occurring'. This seeking leads to knowing, even though this knowing occurs in consciousness rather than the dream character. There is a pretense of belief which occurs in all of us quite readily and naturally, and this is why conceptual understanding changes nothing. To choose the belief that we are all one, without the experience of oneness, has no effect on one's experience. To choose the belief that the human mind/ego does not exist does not yield the experience of it's dissolution. This must all come about through awareness of consciousness through the exploration of it's own boundaries of awareness. Seeking does occur, and with very good reason. To resist the seeking on the conceptual basis that there is no seeker is simply the exploration of another boundary. Nothing can be done about this.” Consciousness resisting consciousness through its seeking (prefer the term ignorance here “avidya”) seems the natural conclusion to your post; this is concurred since consciousness is the culprit and not some separate entity (seeker). Is Advaita-Vedanta a belief system or more an investigation into the Self by revealing what it is not? Is oneness an “experience” or more a realization of Totality? Where does “choice” even fit in with this? MStrinado Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 dear friend A mother feeds her child singing that the moon will come down from the sky if the child eats the food. She is worried about the welfare of her child and does not bother about the truth. The mother grows this body, which is perished by this birth. But a teacher (Guru) grows the soul by knowledge, which is permanent in all births, and the knowledge accompanies the soul forever. The love and compassion of a Guru on his student is million times more than that of the mother. ‘Sadguru’ is the God of the mother who came down as the teacher and the love of the Sadguru is beyond description. Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva are the three incarnations of the three divine forms (viz. Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma) of the same Sadguru, who is Lord Dattatreya (Datta). The commentaries of these three Gurus may look different, which are meant for the people with different mental maturity at different times. But the essence in these three commentaries is one and the same. First, Sankaracharya came, who was the incarnation of Lord Shiva in human form. India was full of atheists who were either Buddhists or Purva mimamsakas. An atheist can never tolerate the greatness of God and so denies His existence. Sankara said, “ I am Shiva” (“Sivoham…”). Can an atheist tolerate this and accept that another man is God? But, the Sadguru should also uplift the atheist. Sankara made a trick. He told that every man is God. An atheist likes his own greatness and so becomes the follower of Sankara. Atleast some atheists changed. Sankara equally distributed God, which is like a treasure to all. There is a secret in this trick. When an atheist says, “I am God” he has accepted God! Sankara: Do you exist? Atheist: Yes I exist. Sankara: You are God. So God exists. So, at that time, the goal of Sankara, was only the first step i.e., atheists should become theists. When a bull is running, you have to run along with it for some time and then only you can stop it. Similarly, you have to follow an egoistic person for sometime and then only you can bring him gradually into your grip. The psychology of a student is well understood by a good teacher. This is the concept of incarnation (Avatara). Ava= down, Tara= coming i.e., coming down to the psychological level of the student. As we go down, the truth is to be hidden and the upliftment of the student becomes more important. Some disciples became fully pure and got rid of jealousy and ego in course of time through constantly serving Sankara and they were eligible to grasp the truth. Sankara revealed the truth to such deserving disciples. Sankara swallowed molten lead and asked them to swallow the same if they were God. The disciples were unable to swallow the same and fell at the feet of Sankara since they grasped the truth. But, Sankara limited this revelation of the truth to some of His close deserving disciples only, since others were not able to grasp the truth due to their egoism. Sankara left the earth at this stage. at the lotus feet of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org MStrinado <discern1 wrote: Is Advaita-Vedanta a belief system or more an investigation into the Self by revealing what it is not? Is oneness an “experience” or more a realization of Totality? Where does “choice” even fit in with this? MStrinado FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 - " MStrinado " <discern1 <Nisargadatta > Friday, November 04, 2005 11:09 PM Re: Seeing I to I --- " This is all true. If this is a knowing for you, it is done and no argument can be made. If it is not done, then perhaps the concepts are being used to deny the very process by which this knowing occurs. There is no seeker with any independent volition, and yet seeking is 'occurring'. This seeking leads to knowing, even though this knowing occurs in consciousness rather than the dream character. There is a pretense of belief which occurs in all of us quite readily and naturally, and this is why conceptual understanding changes nothing. To choose the belief that we are all one, without the experience of oneness, has no effect on one's experience. To choose the belief that the human mind/ego does not exist does not yield the experience of it's dissolution. This must all come about through awareness of consciousness through the exploration of it's own boundaries of awareness. Seeking does occur, and with very good reason. To resist the seeking on the conceptual basis that there is no seeker is simply the exploration of another boundary. Nothing can be done about this. " Consciousness resisting consciousness through its seeking (prefer the term ignorance here " avidya " ) seems the natural conclusion to your post; this is concurred since consciousness is the culprit and not some separate entity (seeker). Is Advaita-Vedanta a belief system or more an investigation into the Self by revealing what it is not? Is oneness an " experience " or more a realization of Totality? Where does " choice " even fit in with this? MStrinado Good morning, I can only speak for myself. As such I always seemed to be aware of choices of behaviour, I knew I had to be entirely honest with myself, to be impeccable with my knowledge and reasoning. This is a human multidimensional experience, as such, we experience according to what we choose, although we are totally unaware of how and what we choose until we choose awareness. Until we choose awareness our experiences will be self-limiting. Even so, as self-limiting as our awareness and experiences are, these experiences are manifestations are indeed proof that we are the cause of how we think. Thinking is concrete thought on one level of our multimensional experience. To ask at each turn who am I is to be able to move to another experience inherent in our multimensionality. Imo. Ultimately in this venue of thinking, of thought, we experience our nascent Oneness, when we do, we fill in our own life with our heart's desires. This is love. This is bliss. Here. Now. Ana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 Good morning, I can only speak for myself. As such I always seemed to be aware of choices of behaviour, I knew I had to be entirely honest with myself, to be impeccable with my knowledge and reasoning. This is a human multidimensional experience, as such, we experience according to what we choose, although we are totally unaware of how and what we choose until we choose awareness. Until we choose awareness our experiences will be self-limiting. Even so, as self-limiting as our awareness and experiences are, these experiences are manifestations are indeed proof that we are the cause of how we think. Thinking is concrete thought on one level of our multimensional experience. To ask at each turn who am I is to be able to move to another experience inherent in our multimensionality. Imo. Ultimately in this venue of thinking, of thought, we experience our nascent Oneness, when we do, we fill in our own life with our heart's desires. This is love. This is bliss. Here. Now. Ana Greetings, Ana Firstly, am enjoying your poetry posts. Exquisite talent. Does the poet have a " choice " to create? Is it not rather a spontaneous flood of creativity that flows from the manifested " I Am " ; one that colors and enhances this multidimensional reality you mention? True, consciousness explodes into multidimensional episodic behaviour; yet it is consciousness and not some self-limiting persona that enflames the poetic heart. " Conventional " awareness is experiential and thus limited and divided. Primoridal awareness is limitless...spaceless...deathless. IT is the sheer animating power of bodhi (undivided awareness); bodhipower is THAT which animates consciousness into shaping poetic expression. Who is this " we " that causes the multidimensional behavior of thinking? Is it really a causal phenomena, or more a momentary burp within self-same essence? MStrinado Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 - MStrinado Nisargadatta Saturday, November 05, 2005 11:59 AM Re: Seeing I to I --- Good morning, I can only speak for myself. As such I always seemed to be aware of choices of behaviour, I knew I had to be entirely honest with myself, to be impeccable with my knowledge and reasoning. This is a human multidimensional experience, as such, we experience according to what we choose, although we are totally unaware of how and what we choose until we choose awareness. Until we choose awareness our experiences will be self-limiting. Even so, as self-limiting as our awareness and experiences are, these experiences are manifestations are indeed proof that we are the cause of how we think. Thinking is concrete thought on one level of our multimensional experience. To ask at each turn who am I is to be able to move to another experience inherent in our multimensionality. Imo. Ultimately in this venue of thinking, of thought, we experience our nascent Oneness, when we do, we fill in our own life with our heart's desires. This is love. This is bliss. Here. Now. Ana Greetings, Ana Firstly, am enjoying your poetry posts. Exquisite talent. Does the poet have a " choice " to create? Is it not rather a spontaneous flood of creativity that flows from the manifested " I Am " ; one that colors and enhances this multidimensional reality you mention? True, consciousness explodes into multidimensional episodic behaviour; yet it is consciousness and not some self-limiting persona that enflames the poetic heart. " Conventional " awareness is experiential and thus limited and divided. Primoridal awareness is limitless...spaceless...deathless. IT is the sheer animating power of bodhi (undivided awareness); bodhipower is THAT which animates consciousness into shaping poetic expression. Who is this " we " that causes the multidimensional behavior of thinking? Is it really a causal phenomena, or more a momentary burp within self-same essence? MStrinado Hi M, I would say this: One aspect of multidimensionality is just that: the occurence and significance of One. One mind One heart, One breath One creative fire, manifesting as the facets of many, superimposed and exposed in the lateral convention of subject-object offered as prose or verse to rehearse and cause either an action or reaction, a choice of love and bliss or separation once again. We have never been apart except to experience " other " , or is creation at all " boring " , unless we become entrenched in these mind-bones empty of marrow of the Soul., or the Spirit afire, our very self-same essence, the breath of ignorance or God, our choiceless choice until awareness walks in, tips his hat, smiles, grins and says " hi " I'm Dr. Death, you've been waiting for me? Hurry and slow down to the rhythm of your heartbeat as the Love of yourself and the primordial power of seeing both the darkness and the light. Ana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 " Hi M, I would say this: One aspect of multidimensionality is just that: the occurence and significance of One. One mind One heart, One breath One creative fire, manifesting as the facets of many, superimposed and exposed in the lateral convention of subject-object offered as prose or verse to rehearse and cause either an action or reaction, a choice of love and bliss or separation once again. We have never been apart except to experience " other " , or is creation at all " boring " , unless we become entrenched in these mind-bones empty of marrow of the Soul., or the Spirit afire, our very self-same essence, the breath of ignorance or God, our choiceless choice until awareness walks in, tips his hat, smiles, grins and says " hi " I'm Dr. Death, you've been waiting for me? Hurry and slow down to the rhythm of your heartbeat as the Love of yourself and the primordial power of seeing both the darkness and the light. Ana " What cool flame Hides The effervescent Self Positionless Motionless Deathless Priomordial tea That quenches the thristless thirst On the Sweet Lips of Nothingess MStrinado Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 " Hi M, I would say this: One aspect of multidimensionality is just that: the occurence and significance of One. One mind One heart, One breath One creative fire, manifesting as the facets of many, superimposed and exposed in the lateral convention of subject-object offered as prose or verse to rehearse and cause either an action or reaction, a choice of love and bliss or separation once again. We have never been apart except to experience " other " , or is creation at all " boring " , unless we become entrenched in these mind-bones empty of marrow of the Soul., or the Spirit afire, our very self-same essence, the breath of ignorance or God, our choiceless choice until awareness walks in, tips his hat, smiles, grins and says " hi " I'm Dr. Death, you've been waiting for me? Hurry and slow down to the rhythm of your heartbeat as the Love of yourself and the primordial power of seeing both the darkness and the light. Ana " Ana, One minor change to this in reflection of your post...hopefully the spacing will come out right this go-around... What dark flame Hides The effervescent Self Positionless Motionless Deathless Primordial tea That quenches the thirstless thirst On the Sweet Lips of Nothingness... MStrinado Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 In a message dated 11/5/2005 9:08:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: This is all true. If this is a knowing for you, it is done and no argument can be made. If it is not done, then perhaps the concepts are being used to deny the very process by which this knowing occurs. There is no seeker with any independent volition, and yet seeking is 'occurring'. This seeking leads to knowing, even though this knowing occurs in consciousness rather than the dream character. There is a pretense of belief which occurs in all of us quite readily and naturally, and this is why conceptual understanding changes nothing. To choose the belief that we are all one, without the experience of oneness, has no effect on one's experience. To choose the belief that the human mind/ego does not exist does not yield the experience of it's dissolution. This must all come about through awareness of consciousness through the exploration of it's own boundaries of awareness. Seeking does occur, and with very good reason. To resist the seeking on the conceptual basis that there is no seeker is simply the exploration of another boundary. Nothing can be done about this. Consciousness resisting consciousness through its seeking (prefer the term ignorance here avidya) seems the natural conclusion to your post; this is concurred since consciousness is the culprit and not some separate entity (seeker). Agreed. The seeker resisting is the outpicturing of the apparent ignorance of consciousness. Is Advaita-Vedanta a belief system or more an investigation into the Self by revealing what it is not? Is oneness an experience or more a realization of Totality? Where does choice even fit in with this? Not an expert on Advaita, but it seems simple: consciousness is all there is. The idea that the self can inquire about the origin of the Self is an interesting one given that premise. Oneness is not an experience, since there is no experiencer. The being of oneness is nothing but the removal of ego identity that results in struggle, eh? Choice is entirely illusion since there is no human volition at all. I've heard it said that consciousness is what chooses, and in the context of the totality, I guess this could be said, but there is no choosing going on as we would understand it. In the illusion, choosing seemingly occurs and often seems effective, but the choosing, itself, is part of the 'play'. There is nothing doing the choosing. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/5/2005 9:08:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > > This is all true. If this is a knowing for you, it is done and no argument > can be made. If it is not done, then perhaps the concepts are being used to > deny the very process by which this knowing occurs. There is no seeker with any > independent volition, and yet seeking is 'occurring'. This seeking leads to > knowing, even though this knowing occurs in consciousness rather than the > dream character. > > There is a pretense of belief which occurs in all of us quite readily and > naturally, and this is why conceptual understanding changes nothing. To choose > the belief that we are all one, without the experience of oneness, has no > effect on one's experience. To choose the belief that the human mind/ego does > not exist does not yield the experience of it's dissolution. > > This must all come about through awareness of consciousness through the > exploration of it's own boundaries of awareness. Seeking does occur, and > with very good reason. To resist the seeking on the conceptual basis that there > is no seeker is simply the exploration of another boundary. Nothing can be > done about this. > > > > Consciousness resisting consciousness through its seeking (prefer the term > ignorance here avidya) seems the natural conclusion to your post; this is > concurred since consciousness is the culprit and not some separate entity > (seeker). Agreed. The seeker resisting is the outpicturing of the apparent ignorance > of consciousness. > > > Is Advaita-Vedanta a belief system or more an investigation into the Self by > revealing what it is not? Is oneness an experience or more a realization of > Totality? Where does choice even fit in with this? > > > Not an expert on Advaita, but it seems simple: consciousness is all there > is. The idea that the self can inquire about the origin of the Self is an > interesting one given that premise. > > Oneness is not an experience, since there is no experiencer. The being of > oneness is nothing but the removal of ego identity that results in struggle, eh? > > Choice is entirely illusion since there is no human volition at all. I've > heard it said that consciousness is what chooses, and in the context of the > totality, I guess this could be said, but there is no choosing going on as we > would understand it. In the illusion, choosing seemingly occurs and often seems > effective, but the choosing, itself, is part of the 'play'. There is nothing > doing the choosing. > > Phil The acceptance of the concept 'choice' and the attempt to define what it is by using other concepts, can only lead deeper into the labyrinth of confusion. If the identification as self is seen through......all concepts that appear to define it............evaporate. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2005 Report Share Posted November 6, 2005 In a message dated 11/6/2005 2:14:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: > Choice is entirely illusion since there is no human volition at all. I've > heard it said that consciousness is what chooses, and in the context of the > totality, I guess this could be said, but there is no choosing going on as we > would understand it. In the illusion, choosing seemingly occurs and often seems > effective, but the choosing, itself, is part of the 'play'. There is nothing > doing the choosing. > > Phil The acceptance of the concept 'choice' and the attempt to define what it is by using other concepts, can only lead deeper into the labyrinth of confusion. If the identification as self is seen through......all concepts that appear to define it............evaporate. toombaru Actually, the way I see it, the acceptance of 'choice' as an illusion makes the concept meaningless, thereby simplifying rather than confusing. However, the refusal to even challenge concepts which are already in the mind, whether one chooses to admit that or not, on the basis that to do so only ads mental complexity, locks the existing complexity in place. All the old tired, worn out concepts remain, rambling around in the mind and coloring perception and actions, while we insist that they simply don't exist in hopes that they will somehow vanish. Tis not so. I just read a post that contained a quote from this forum's namesake: " Appearances will dissolve on investigation, and the underlying reality will come to the surface. " Nisargadatta Maharaj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2005 Report Share Posted November 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/6/2005 2:14:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > > Choice is entirely illusion since there is no human volition at > all. I've > > heard it said that consciousness is what chooses, and in the > context of the > > totality, I guess this could be said, but there is no choosing > going on as we > > would understand it. In the illusion, choosing seemingly occurs > and often seems > > effective, but the choosing, itself, is part of the 'play'. There > is nothing > > doing the choosing. > > > > Phil > > > > The acceptance of the concept 'choice' and the attempt to define > what it is by using other concepts, can only lead deeper into the > labyrinth of confusion. > > If the identification as self is seen through......all concepts that > appear to define it............evaporate. > > > > toombaru > > > > Actually, the way I see it, Why do you assume that this phantom...this clot of mnemonic debris...that is called 'I' can 'see' anything? It is merely an instrument through which the one consciousness perceives.....It sees no more then the eye can see. the acceptance of 'choice' as an illusion makes > the concept meaningless, thereby simplifying rather than confusing. It is not the presence or negation of concepts that is the cause and resolution of illusion .....it is the identification as the seer....the assumption of being a separate entity......that is the pin prick that opens the curtains to the play. However, > the refusal to even challenge concepts which are already in the mind, The 'mind' is nothing other then a flow of concepts. whether > one chooses to admit that or not, on the basis that to do so only ads mental > complexity, locks the existing complexity in place. The only glue that binds is identification........if that is removed...the house of mirrors explodes. > > All the old tired, worn out concepts remain, rambling around in the mind and > coloring perception and actions, while we insist that they simply don't > exist in hopes that they will somehow vanish. Tis not so. The 'we' emerges concurrently from within the concepts. They are the same. > > I just read a post that contained a quote from this forum's namesake: > > > " Appearances will dissolve on investigation, and the > underlying reality will come to the surface. " > > Nisargadatta Maharaj > It was never below the surface. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 Hi Toomb, The brain is processing the input from the senses through a 'filter' and then the result is made conscious. Therefore one also could say the content of consiousness is that filter or what is made conscious is just one's own tinted subjective show. Therefore it is not wrong to say " I am consciousness " because consciousness is its content and " I " is just a different word for subjectivity. And so is quite legitimate to say: " actually, as I see it " . But it is always good to remember that there is no see-er but just the seen (which is one's subjective movie). Werner Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 11/6/2005 2:14:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > Choice is entirely illusion since there is no human volition at > > all. I've > > > heard it said that consciousness is what chooses, and in the > > context of the > > > totality, I guess this could be said, but there is no choosing > > going on as we > > > would understand it. In the illusion, choosing seemingly occurs > > and often seems > > > effective, but the choosing, itself, is part of the 'play'. There > > is nothing > > > doing the choosing. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > The acceptance of the concept 'choice' and the attempt to define > > what it is by using other concepts, can only lead deeper into the > > labyrinth of confusion. > > > > If the identification as self is seen through......all concepts that > > appear to define it............evaporate. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Actually, the way I see it, > > > > Why do you assume that this phantom...this clot of mnemonic debris...that is called 'I' can > 'see' anything? > > It is merely an instrument through which the one consciousness perceives.....It sees no > more then the eye can see. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 In a message dated 11/7/2005 3:26:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: > Actually, the way I see it, Why do you assume that this phantom...this clot of mnemonic debris...that is called 'I' can 'see' anything? It is merely an instrument through which the one consciousness perceives.....It sees no more then the eye can see. Pretending that there is no existence is as fruitless as pretending that the human has volition. They are two sides of the same coin, and they are both engaged from an erroneous perspective. Don't assume you know what can and cannot be seen from that perspective. the acceptance of 'choice' as an illusion makes > the concept meaningless, thereby simplifying rather than confusing. It is not the presence or negation of concepts that is the cause and resolution of illusion .....it is the identification as the seer....the assumption of being a separate entity......that is the pin prick that opens the curtains to the play. The mechanism which hold tight to concepts is all that locks in place this assumption of being a separate entity. One such concept is the idea that conceptualizing is not an obstruction to realization. How tightly is this concept being held? However, > the refusal to even challenge concepts which are already in the mind, The 'mind' is nothing other then a flow of concepts Does this relate in some way to the issue of refusing to challenge those concepts? Yes, it's a flow of concepts. This is, itself, a concept. This is problematic given the desire to cease them. whether > one chooses to admit that or not, on the basis that to do so only ads mental > complexity, locks the existing complexity in place. The only glue that binds is identification........if that is removed...the house of mirrors explodes. How is this false identification held in place? Identification is not the glue; it is what is being glued. What is the glue that binds it? > All the old tired, worn out concepts remain, rambling around in the mind and > coloring perception and actions, while we insist that they simply don't > exist in hopes that they will somehow vanish. Tis not so. The 'we' emerges concurrently from within the concepts. They are the same. Yes, so cease the concepts. Can you? Of course not. There is no you present to do this. What must occur for the concepts to cease? Perhaps the knowing that the concepts are not meaningful. Where does this knowing take place? In consciousness, of course. By what means might this awareness occur? Through the experience that it is having right now. It's appropriate to deny volition within the human vehicle, but not to deny the witness that is consciousness. This is that which you hope will become aware, and the means by which this will occur is the very experience that you deny. Consciousness seeks an expansion of it's awareness through the only means available to it: this human vehicle of perception. Consciousness (you) peers through the vehicle called Tumbaru, and sees nothing, because the lens cap has not been removed. This is so because the vehicle insists that it has no function but to obliterate itself. Heheee. Alas, nothing can be done about this. And yet, it can change. This is the wonder of it all. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 In a message dated 11/7/2005 3:26:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Hi Toomb, The brain is processing the input from the senses through a 'filter' and then the result is made conscious. Therefore one also could say the content of consiousness is that filter or what is made conscious is just one's own tinted subjective show. Therefore it is not wrong to say " I am consciousness " because consciousness is its content and " I " is just a different word for subjectivity. And so is quite legitimate to say: " actually, as I see it " . But it is always good to remember that there is no see-er but just the seen (which is one's subjective movie). Werner Yes indeedy. All is created within consciousness and there is an " I " creating and perceiving it's own creation out of it's awareness of Self. Awareness, creation and perception are the same. The " show " is not meaningless. It's included in the Totality of what 'we' are. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/7/2005 3:26:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Hi Toomb, > > The brain is processing the input from the senses through a 'filter' > and then the result is made conscious. Therefore one also could say > the content of consiousness is that filter or what is made conscious > is just one's own tinted subjective show. Therefore it is not wrong > to say " I am consciousness " because consciousness is its content > and " I " is just a different word for subjectivity. > > And so is quite legitimate to say: " actually, as I see it " . > > But it is always good to remember that there is no see-er but just > the seen (which is one's subjective movie). > > Werner > > > > Yes indeedy. All is created within consciousness and there is an " I " > creating and perceiving it's own creation out of it's awareness of Self. Awareness, > creation and perception are the same. The " show " is not meaningless. It's > included in the Totality of what 'we' are. > > Phil sounds fine..... thank you maybe it's not possible to percieve something....in the totality of (awareness) what 'we are'........ seer, seen and seeing become One...in this 'Totality' peace and Regards Marc > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 - dennis_travis33 Nisargadatta Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:28 AM Re: Seeing I to I --- Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/7/2005 3:26:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Hi Toomb, > > The brain is processing the input from the senses through a 'filter' > and then the result is made conscious. Therefore one also could say > the content of consiousness is that filter or what is made conscious > is just one's own tinted subjective show. Therefore it is not wrong > to say " I am consciousness " because consciousness is its content > and " I " is just a different word for subjectivity. > > And so is quite legitimate to say: " actually, as I see it " . > > But it is always good to remember that there is no see-er but just > the seen (which is one's subjective movie). > > Werner > > > > Yes indeedy. All is created within consciousness and there is an " I " > creating and perceiving it's own creation out of it's awareness of Self. Awareness, > creation and perception are the same. The " show " is not meaningless. It's > included in the Totality of what 'we' are. > > Phil sounds fine..... thank you maybe it's not possible to percieve something....in the totality of (awareness) what 'we are'........ seer, seen and seeing become One...in this 'Totality' peace and Regards Marc By george, Marc's got it... enlightenment: seeing the seen as the seer... hmmm how simple was/is that? Never was any 'other' way. cheers! > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > - > dennis_travis33 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:28 AM > Re: Seeing I to I --- > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 11/7/2005 3:26:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Hi Toomb, > > > > The brain is processing the input from the senses through > a 'filter' > > and then the result is made conscious. Therefore one also could > say > > the content of consiousness is that filter or what is made > conscious > > is just one's own tinted subjective show. Therefore it is not wrong > > to say " I am consciousness " because consciousness is its content > > and " I " is just a different word for subjectivity. > > > > And so is quite legitimate to say: " actually, as I see it " . > > > > But it is always good to remember that there is no see-er but just > > the seen (which is one's subjective movie). > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Yes indeedy. All is created within consciousness and there is > an " I " > > creating and perceiving it's own creation out of it's awareness of > Self. Awareness, > > creation and perception are the same. The " show " is not > meaningless. It's > > included in the Totality of what 'we' are. > > > > Phil > > sounds fine..... > thank you > > maybe it's not possible to percieve something....in the totality of > (awareness) what 'we are'........ > > seer, seen and seeing become One...in this 'Totality' > > peace and Regards > > Marc > > > By george, Marc's got it... > > enlightenment: seeing the seen as the seer... hmmm how simple was/is that? Never was any 'other' way. > > cheers! do you still percieve a " George " ...or " Marc " ....or " Anna " ....? it's very simple indead, Anna.....give up this fictions.... and BE yourSelf > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 - dennis_travis33 Nisargadatta Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:46 AM Re: Seeing I to I --- Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > - > dennis_travis33 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:28 AM > Re: Seeing I to I --- > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 11/7/2005 3:26:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Hi Toomb, > > > > The brain is processing the input from the senses through > a 'filter' > > and then the result is made conscious. Therefore one also could > say > > the content of consiousness is that filter or what is made > conscious > > is just one's own tinted subjective show. Therefore it is not wrong > > to say " I am consciousness " because consciousness is its content > > and " I " is just a different word for subjectivity. > > > > And so is quite legitimate to say: " actually, as I see it " . > > > > But it is always good to remember that there is no see-er but just > > the seen (which is one's subjective movie). > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Yes indeedy. All is created within consciousness and there is > an " I " > > creating and perceiving it's own creation out of it's awareness of > Self. Awareness, > > creation and perception are the same. The " show " is not > meaningless. It's > > included in the Totality of what 'we' are. > > > > Phil > > sounds fine..... > thank you > > maybe it's not possible to percieve something....in the totality of > (awareness) what 'we are'........ > > seer, seen and seeing become One...in this 'Totality' > > peace and Regards > > Marc > > > By george, Marc's got it... > > enlightenment: seeing the seen as the seer... hmmm how simple was/is that? Never was any 'other' way. > > cheers! do you still percieve a " George " ...or " Marc " ....or " Anna " ....? it's very simple indead, Anna.....give up this fictions.... and BE yourSelf Done, now what do I do all by myself? ;-) > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > - > dennis_travis33 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:46 AM > Re: Seeing I to I --- > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dennis_travis33 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:28 AM > > Re: Seeing I to I --- > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/7/2005 3:26:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Hi Toomb, > > > > > > The brain is processing the input from the senses through > > a 'filter' > > > and then the result is made conscious. Therefore one also > could > > say > > > the content of consiousness is that filter or what is made > > conscious > > > is just one's own tinted subjective show. Therefore it is not > wrong > > > to say " I am consciousness " because consciousness is its > content > > > and " I " is just a different word for subjectivity. > > > > > > And so is quite legitimate to say: " actually, as I see it " . > > > > > > But it is always good to remember that there is no see-er but > just > > > the seen (which is one's subjective movie). > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes indeedy. All is created within consciousness and there is > > an " I " > > > creating and perceiving it's own creation out of it's awareness > of > > Self. Awareness, > > > creation and perception are the same. The " show " is not > > meaningless. It's > > > included in the Totality of what 'we' are. > > > > > > Phil > > > > sounds fine..... > > thank you > > > > maybe it's not possible to percieve something....in the totality > of > > (awareness) what 'we are'........ > > > > seer, seen and seeing become One...in this 'Totality' > > > > peace and Regards > > > > Marc > > > > > > By george, Marc's got it... > > > > enlightenment: seeing the seen as the seer... hmmm how simple > was/is that? Never was any 'other' way. > > > > cheers! > > do you still percieve a " George " ...or " Marc " ....or " Anna " ....? > > it's very simple indead, Anna.....give up this fictions.... > > and BE yourSelf > > > Done, now what do I do all by myself? ;-) enjoy the infinite love...that you 'are'.... express,describe this love....in however you like too..... just be yourSelf Regards Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 In a message dated 11/8/2005 9:41:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: > Yes indeedy. All is created within consciousness and there is an " I " > creating and perceiving it's own creation out of it's awareness of Self. Awareness, > creation and perception are the same. The " show " is not meaningless. It's > included in the Totality of what 'we' are. > > Phil sounds fine..... thank you maybe it's not possible to percieve something....in the totality of (awareness) what 'we are'........ seer, seen and seeing become One...in this 'Totality' peace and Regards Marc Yup, it all comes down to One 'thang'. What astounds me is that this One creates a Self delusion of ignorance, and out of this arises a dream of life, and then the dreamer falls into his own dream and dreams a dream of awakening to the One. The circle is complete. All things are possible for such a One. And we are that One. Absolutely amazing. It's good to be here with you, Marc. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 In a message dated 11/8/2005 9:41:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: > sounds fine..... > thank you > > maybe it's not possible to percieve something....in the totality of > (awareness) what 'we are'........ > > seer, seen and seeing become One...in this 'Totality' > > peace and Regards > > Marc > > > By george, Marc's got it... > > enlightenment: seeing the seen as the seer... hmmm how simple was/is that? Never was any 'other' way. > > cheers! do you still percieve a " George " ...or " Marc " ....or " Anna " ....? it's very simple indead, Anna.....give up this fictions.... and BE yourSelf Done, now what do I do all by myself? ;-) I know!......Lets dream a dream of other! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/8/2005 9:41:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > > Yes indeedy. All is created within consciousness and there is > an " I " > > creating and perceiving it's own creation out of it's awareness of > Self. Awareness, > > creation and perception are the same. The " show " is not > meaningless. It's > > included in the Totality of what 'we' are. > > > > Phil > > sounds fine..... > thank you > > maybe it's not possible to percieve something....in the totality of > (awareness) what 'we are'........ > > seer, seen and seeing become One...in this 'Totality' > > peace and Regards > > Marc > > > > Yup, it all comes down to One 'thang'. What astounds me is that this One > creates a Self delusion of ignorance, and out of this arises a dream of life, > and then the dreamer falls into his own dream and dreams a dream of awakening > to the One. The circle is complete. All things are possible for such a One. > And we are that One. > Absolutely amazing. > > It's good to be here with you, Marc. > > Phil thanks for your message... nice talk indead " this One " creates many things....?.... how could the " One " create something what is not already " the One " ....?.... all this " creations " are of " our " dreams..... it's a play of forms....a reflection of the changless and formless Self... nothing realy ever happen in the " One " ....and if the perception " think so " .....it's, indead, included in the dream of dreams.....in Maya one need a heart filled up with love....the love of God..... God who " show " the " One " by awareness of " all this " ..... " all things are possible for such a One " ....? ....maybe " all dreams are dreamable for such a One " .... Regards and peace Marc > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 In a message dated 11/9/2005 2:38:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: > Yup, it all comes down to One 'thang'. What astounds me is that this One > creates a Self delusion of ignorance, and out of this arises a dream of life, > and then the dreamer falls into his own dream and dreams a dream of awakening > to the One. The circle is complete. All things are possible for such a One. > And we are that One. > Absolutely amazing. > > It's good to be here with you, Marc. > > Phil thanks for your message... nice talk indead " this One " creates many things....?.... how could the " One " create something what is not already " the One " ....?.... all this " creations " are of " our " dreams..... it's a play of forms....a reflection of the changless and formless Self... nothing realy ever happen in the " One " ....and if the perception " think so " .....it's, indead, included in the dream of dreams.....in Maya one need a heart filled up with love....the love of God..... God who " show " the " One " by awareness of " all this " ..... " all things are possible for such a One " ....? ....maybe " all dreams are dreamable for such a One " .... Regards and peace Marc Yes. I let my words get very 'spiritually incorrect' at times. They are, after all, just words, eh? Who's to say where dreams end and reality takes hold? The trembling heart cares only for it's own perception and, though that perception be a dream, it seeks awakening from the dream rather than knowledge of it, which changes nothing. It holds it's own experience above such wisdom and even in the light of day the dream remains. It simply loses it's power to cause the heart to tremble. That's all that matters. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2005 Report Share Posted November 10, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/9/2005 2:38:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > > Yup, it all comes down to One 'thang'. What astounds me is that > this One > > creates a Self delusion of ignorance, and out of this arises a > dream of life, > > and then the dreamer falls into his own dream and dreams a dream > of awakening > > to the One. The circle is complete. All things are possible for > such a One. > > And we are that One. > > Absolutely amazing. > > > > It's good to be here with you, Marc. > > > > Phil > > thanks for your message... > nice talk indead > > " this One " creates many things....?.... > > how could the " One " create something what is not already " the > One " ....?.... > > all this " creations " are of " our " dreams..... > it's a play of forms....a reflection of the changless and formless > Self... > > nothing realy ever happen in the " One " ....and if the > perception " think so " .....it's, indead, included in the dream of > dreams.....in Maya > > one need a heart filled up with love....the love of God..... > > God who " show " the " One " by awareness of " all this " ..... > > " all things are possible for such a One " ....? > > ...maybe " all dreams are dreamable for such a One " .... > > Regards and peace > > Marc > > > > Yes. I let my words get very 'spiritually incorrect' at times. They are, > after all, just words, eh? > > Who's to say where dreams end and reality takes hold? The trembling heart > cares only for it's own perception and, though that perception be a dream, it > seeks awakening from the dream rather than knowledge of it, which changes > nothing. It holds it's own experience above such wisdom and even in the light of > day the dream remains. It simply loses it's power to cause the heart to > tremble. That's all that matters. > > Phil Hi Phil, ....thanks for this words ....of truth " who's to say where dreams end and reality takes hold " .....? don't know " who " this could be.....other than the Self in reality, there is no choice of ourself concerning This..... it depend on how much one is attached (aware of) to Self.... the one " who " take the dream for real......has no (real) choice......means, the heart will tremble..... the one " who " know about the dream.....give this choice....to the Self...... Regards and peace Marc > > > 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.