Guest guest Posted November 14, 2005 Report Share Posted November 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > > > P: Good, you have come far. Go farther still. > Get read of the notion that suffering requires > a permanent who to happen to. Consciousness is > a burden to itself. The who flashes in > consciousness the moment danger/suffering > appears. > The faculty to be conscious arose in animals > as a protection mechanism to avoid being eaten. > Whether the danger is real ( a truck coming > at you) or imaginary ( someone called you an > idiot) " who " is that momentary impulse to flee > from pain or retain pleasure. In humans due to > our capacity to project dangers/rewards into a > future this defensive posture has become > chronic. > Relaxing this chronic posture of > defense/acquisition is liberating consciousness > from its self imposed emergency state. > > Pete > Waa: so let counsciousness carry its own burden!! the " who " flashes in consciousness not as something separeted, it is >counsciousness. the " who " , the notions of the " who " and about it, the danger and the flashing...all is consciousness. There is no separated entity in all this. > love Hi Waa, P: You said, " All is consciousness. " Is consciousness the only existent for you? If that is so for you, why do you end your post with love? love by whom and for who? Are you like toomb who says, " I don't exist, no one exist. " And then cries when someone he knows dies. Are not his tears the truth, and his words a lie he uses only to dry those tears? He confuses temporality and impermanence with nonexistence. How about you? Are you confusing 'what is' with an impermanent consciousness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2005 Report Share Posted November 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > > > > > > P: Good, you have come far. Go farther still. > > Get read of the notion that suffering requires > > a permanent who to happen to. Consciousness is > > a burden to itself. The who flashes in > > consciousness the moment danger/suffering > > appears. > > The faculty to be conscious arose in animals > > as a protection mechanism to avoid being eaten. > > Whether the danger is real ( a truck coming > > at you) or imaginary ( someone called you an > > idiot) " who " is that momentary impulse to flee > > from pain or retain pleasure. In humans due to > > our capacity to project dangers/rewards into a > > future this defensive posture has become > > chronic. > > Relaxing this chronic posture of > > defense/acquisition is liberating consciousness > > from its self imposed emergency state. > > > > Pete > > > Waa: so let counsciousness carry its own burden!! > the " who " flashes in consciousness not as something separeted, it is > >counsciousness. the " who " , the notions of the " who " and about it, the > danger and the flashing...all is consciousness. There is no separated > entity in all this. > > love > > Hi Waa, > > P: You said, " All is consciousness. " Is consciousness > the only existent for you? If that is so for you, > why do you end your post with love? love by whom > and for who? Are you like toomb who says, " I don't > exist, no one exist. " And then cries when someone > he knows dies. Are not his tears the truth, and > his words a lie he uses only to dry those tears? He > confuses temporality and impermanence with nonexistence. > How about you? Are you confusing 'what is' with an > impermanent consciousness? > Did Ramana cry when Lakshmi died? Does Ramesh miss his sister? Does Wayne still miss that second lover? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2005 Report Share Posted November 14, 2005 In a message dated 11/14/2005 12:41:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: P: You said, " All is consciousness. " Is consciousness the only existent for you? If that is so for you, why do you end your post with love? love by whom and for who? Are you like toomb who says, " I don't exist, no one exist. " And then cries when someone he knows dies. Are not his tears the truth, and his words a lie he uses only to dry those tears? He confuses temporality and impermanence with nonexistence. How about you? Are you confusing 'what is' with an impermanent consciousness? There's actually a really good point being made here. Concepts are fun and sometimes useful, but it may be a mistake to confuse a concept that we think is true with what we are experiencing. Arriving at a conclusion based on a conceptual understanding can lead to all sorts of erroneous conclusions. Believing that the human has no volition and then concluding that it has no function in the totality of consciousness would be erroneous. Believing that we already know everything and concluding that the seeking should end would be an error. Concepts are very often used as self deceit to hold one's identity in place. Ironically, the idea that we don't exist and can do nothing may actually keep us from ever challenging the idea that we do exist; and idea which is clearly being held by one who has not realized the Self. The idea is only that one has no control over one's experience. This doesn't mean the experience that is occurring is not meaningful and should be dismissed. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2005 Report Share Posted November 15, 2005 yes, there is only consciousness. Love is the case when evetything is seen as your own self, which is the self of everyhting.I ended the posting with love because i was sure that love would have read those words and made a reply! About me, well, nobody can deny his own existence but i tell you that what you are is not an object, not an activity. right now you are not anyone of these objects, thoughts and feelings and sounds NOR you are the absence of anyone of them. love Waa Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > > > > > > P: Good, you have come far. Go farther still. > > Get read of the notion that suffering requires > > a permanent who to happen to. Consciousness is > > a burden to itself. The who flashes in > > consciousness the moment danger/suffering > > appears. > > The faculty to be conscious arose in animals > > as a protection mechanism to avoid being eaten. > > Whether the danger is real ( a truck coming > > at you) or imaginary ( someone called you an > > idiot) " who " is that momentary impulse to flee > > from pain or retain pleasure. In humans due to > > our capacity to project dangers/rewards into a > > future this defensive posture has become > > chronic. > > Relaxing this chronic posture of > > defense/acquisition is liberating consciousness > > from its self imposed emergency state. > > > > Pete > > > Waa: so let counsciousness carry its own burden!! > the " who " flashes in consciousness not as something separeted, it is > >counsciousness. the " who " , the notions of the " who " and about it, the > danger and the flashing...all is consciousness. There is no separated > entity in all this. > > love > > Hi Waa, > > P: You said, " All is consciousness. " Is consciousness > the only existent for you? If that is so for you, > why do you end your post with love? love by whom > and for who? Are you like toomb who says, " I don't > exist, no one exist. " And then cries when someone > he knows dies. Are not his tears the truth, and > his words a lie he uses only to dry those tears? He > confuses temporality and impermanence with nonexistence. > How about you? Are you confusing 'what is' with an > impermanent consciousness? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2005 Report Share Posted November 15, 2005 yes Phil, nothing has to be denied, and who could deny his own existence?!? what is relevant here is that all experiences, when not dismissed, naturally point back to the empty awareness in which they appear and disappear until consciousness recognizes itself as consciousness and come to rest. This is the only " conclusion " ! love waaba Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/14/2005 12:41:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > > P: You said, " All is consciousness. " Is consciousness > the only existent for you? If that is so for you, > why do you end your post with love? love by whom > and for who? Are you like toomb who says, " I don't > exist, no one exist. " And then cries when someone > he knows dies. Are not his tears the truth, and > his words a lie he uses only to dry those tears? He > confuses temporality and impermanence with nonexistence. > How about you? Are you confusing 'what is' with an > impermanent consciousness? > > > > There's actually a really good point being made here. Concepts are fun and > sometimes useful, but it may be a mistake to confuse a concept that we think > is true with what we are experiencing. Arriving at a conclusion based on a > conceptual understanding can lead to all sorts of erroneous conclusions. > Believing that the human has no volition and then concluding that it has no function > in the totality of consciousness would be erroneous. Believing that we > already know everything and concluding that the seeking should end would be an > error. Concepts are very often used as self deceit to hold one's identity in > place. > > Ironically, the idea that we don't exist and can do nothing may actually > keep us from ever challenging the idea that we do exist; and idea which is > clearly being held by one who has not realized the Self. The idea is only that one > has no control over one's experience. This doesn't mean the experience that > is occurring is not meaningful and should be dismissed. > > Phil > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2005 Report Share Posted November 15, 2005 Hi Waabe, When you give a closer look at what you wrote, you will see that there is no reason and no need to install an " empty awareness " where experiences appear and disappear. Just let them come and go. Be simple, no need for spiritual complication. Werner Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> wrote: > > yes Phil, nothing has to be denied, and who could deny his own > existence?!? what is relevant here is that all experiences, when not > dismissed, naturally point back to the empty awareness in which they > appear and disappear until consciousness recognizes itself as > consciousness and come to rest. This is the only " conclusion " ! > > love > waaba > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 11/14/2005 12:41:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > P: You said, " All is consciousness. " Is consciousness > > the only existent for you? If that is so for you, > > why do you end your post with love? love by whom > > and for who? Are you like toomb who says, " I don't > > exist, no one exist. " And then cries when someone > > he knows dies. Are not his tears the truth, and > > his words a lie he uses only to dry those tears? He > > confuses temporality and impermanence with nonexistence. > > How about you? Are you confusing 'what is' with an > > impermanent consciousness? > > > > > > > > There's actually a really good point being made here. Concepts are > fun and > > sometimes useful, but it may be a mistake to confuse a concept > that we think > > is true with what we are experiencing. Arriving at a conclusion > based on a > > conceptual understanding can lead to all sorts of erroneous > conclusions. > > Believing that the human has no volition and then concluding that > it has no function > > in the totality of consciousness would be erroneous. Believing > that we > > already know everything and concluding that the seeking should end > would be an > > error. Concepts are very often used as self deceit to hold one's > identity in > > place. > > > > Ironically, the idea that we don't exist and can do nothing may > actually > > keep us from ever challenging the idea that we do exist; and idea > which is > > clearly being held by one who has not realized the Self. The idea > is only that one > > has no control over one's experience. This doesn't mean the > experience that > > is occurring is not meaningful and should be dismissed. > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2005 Report Share Posted November 15, 2005 mmm...to install emptiness seem to be hard work! Awareness is NOT AT ALL a spiritual complication, it is what in which both spiritual complications and " be simple " happen. So yes, there is no reason for this to happen, nor there is any reason to avoid this. When i give a closer look to this, i always see this, myself. however...i agree with you!!! lol love Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Waabe, > > When you give a closer look at what you wrote, you will see that > there is no reason and no need to install an " empty awareness " where > experiences appear and disappear. Just let them come and go. Be > simple, no need for spiritual complication. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> wrote: > > > > yes Phil, nothing has to be denied, and who could deny his own > > existence?!? what is relevant here is that all experiences, when > not > > dismissed, naturally point back to the empty awareness in which > they > > appear and disappear until consciousness recognizes itself as > > consciousness and come to rest. This is the only " conclusion " ! > > > > love > > waaba > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/14/2005 12:41:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > P: You said, " All is consciousness. " Is consciousness > > > the only existent for you? If that is so for you, > > > why do you end your post with love? love by whom > > > and for who? Are you like toomb who says, " I don't > > > exist, no one exist. " And then cries when someone > > > he knows dies. Are not his tears the truth, and > > > his words a lie he uses only to dry those tears? He > > > confuses temporality and impermanence with nonexistence. > > > How about you? Are you confusing 'what is' with an > > > impermanent consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > There's actually a really good point being made here. Concepts > are > > fun and > > > sometimes useful, but it may be a mistake to confuse a concept > > that we think > > > is true with what we are experiencing. Arriving at a conclusion > > based on a > > > conceptual understanding can lead to all sorts of erroneous > > conclusions. > > > Believing that the human has no volition and then concluding > that > > it has no function > > > in the totality of consciousness would be erroneous. Believing > > that we > > > already know everything and concluding that the seeking should > end > > would be an > > > error. Concepts are very often used as self deceit to hold one's > > identity in > > > place. > > > > > > Ironically, the idea that we don't exist and can do nothing may > > actually > > > keep us from ever challenging the idea that we do exist; and idea > > which is > > > clearly being held by one who has not realized the Self. The idea > > is only that one > > > has no control over one's experience. This doesn't mean the > > experience that > > > is occurring is not meaningful and should be dismissed. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.