Guest guest Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 It's obvious that knowledge gets a bad rap in the bible by being used for an euphemism for fornication. Why do I use the word fornication? Because nowhere in the book of Genesis it's said God performed a marriage ceremony for Adam and Eve. They did it on their own after they ate from the fruit of knowledge and that's why sex is equated with knowing: " And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bare Cain, " Interesting that the fruit of knowing is a murderer, a snuffer of life. This equation of knowledge and sex is a profound 'piece' of intuition. It's knowledge, which procreates our world. Without meaning, sensory data is a chaotic creation. This by itself, is not a bad thing, order is good, meaning is good, but it doesn't stop there. Knowledge proceeds to carve our world into infinite slices, and multiplicity breads opposites, good and bad, pleasure and pain, you, I, they endlessly competing for a slice of the pie. Endless, fornication, procreation trying to know, to carve and indivisible whole. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 What Pete in his post is describing is the world of consciousness. The content of your consciousness is totally subjective, noone in this world has the same contents like you have. And therefore you are this consciousness. Always remember consciousness is its content, without content there is no consciousness. The expression that the obsever is the observed is just the same as to say you are consciousness. Werner Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > > It's obvious that knowledge gets a bad rap > in the bible by being used for an euphemism > for fornication. Why do I use the word > fornication? Because nowhere in the book of > Genesis it's said God performed a marriage > ceremony for Adam and Eve. They did it on > their own after they ate from the fruit of knowledge > and that's why sex is equated with knowing: > > " And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived > and bare Cain, " Interesting that the fruit of knowing > is a murderer, a snuffer of life. > > This equation of knowledge and sex is a profound > 'piece' of intuition. It's knowledge, which procreates > our world. Without meaning, sensory data is a > chaotic creation. This by itself, is not a bad thing, > order is good, meaning is good, but it doesn't stop > there. Knowledge proceeds to carve our world into > infinite slices, and multiplicity breads opposites, > good and bad, pleasure and pain, you, I, they > endlessly competing for a slice of the pie. > Endless, fornication, procreation trying to know, > to carve and indivisible whole. > > Pete > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 In a message dated 11/21/2005 11:47:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: What Pete in his post is describing is the world of consciousness. The content of your consciousness is totally subjective, noone in this world has the same contents like you have. And therefore you are this consciousness. Always remember consciousness is its content, without content there is no consciousness. The expression that the obsever is the observed is just the same as to say you are consciousness. Werner Content is that which consciousness is conscious of. Without consciousness, there is no content. Consciousness creates it's own content by virtue of it's ability to be conscious. The dream image is not consciousness itself, but rather the product of consciousness. The eye is not what is seen. There must be an eye to see, and then there is seeing. (An analogy) Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Phil, Without content there is no consciousnes. The idea that here is consciousness and there is the object it is consicous of, creates the division between me and the world. That is the trap most seekers falling into. Same with you now. As long as you don't understand that the observer is the observed then the self (ego) takes itself as the witness. But there is no witness, neither a silent witness nor an universal witness or whatever else your thinking, feeding on division, is inventing to maintain this division. That is not easy to see, most seekers don't see that. They babble all day long about universal consciousness, about the divine witness, about the Atman nd what else and don't realize how they are stuck in separation. All this talk about I am nothingness is just hot air, it is just vanity decoratiing itself with so called " truth " . But the separation, this division between the observer and the observed will go on. When you see that you are consciousness then no division is possible. And to repeat: Consciousness is its content, witout content there is no consciousness. There is not witness. What you might see as the witness already is this division between the see-er and the seen, but there is none - you are consciousness. There is no escape from this - without content there is no consciousness, it is its content and you are that content. Can you see that, when you are the content then there is no longer any separation possible because there is no longer a " you " or a " witness " , or a observer, or a see-er. Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/21/2005 11:47:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > > What Pete in his post is describing is the world of consciousness. > > The content of your consciousness is totally subjective, noone in > this world has the same contents like you have. And therefore you are > this consciousness. Always remember consciousness is its content, > without content there is no consciousness. The expression that the > obsever is the observed is just the same as to say you are > consciousness. > > Werner > > > > Content is that which consciousness is conscious of. Without consciousness, > there is no content. Consciousness creates it's own content by virtue of it's > ability to be conscious. The dream image is not consciousness itself, but > rather the product of consciousness. The eye is not what is seen. There must be > an eye to see, and then there is seeing. (An analogy) > > Phil > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 dear one without content there is no consciousness BUT Being IS, this is what " I " am! Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Phil, > > Without content there is no consciousnes. > > The idea that here is consciousness and there is the object it is > consicous of, creates the division between me and the world. That is > the trap most seekers falling into. Same with you now. > > As long as you don't understand that the observer is the observed > then the self (ego) takes itself as the witness. But there is no > witness, neither a silent witness nor an universal witness or > whatever else your thinking, feeding on division, is inventing to > maintain this division. > > That is not easy to see, most seekers don't see that. They babble all > day long about universal consciousness, about the divine witness, > about the Atman nd what else and don't realize how they are stuck in > separation. > > All this talk about I am nothingness is just hot air, it is just > vanity decoratiing itself with so called " truth " . But the separation, > this division between the observer and the observed will go on. > > When you see that you are consciousness then no division is possible. > > And to repeat: Consciousness is its content, witout content there is > no consciousness. > > There is not witness. What you might see as the witness already is > this division between the see-er and the seen, but there is none - > you are consciousness. > > There is no escape from this - without content there is no > consciousness, it is its content and you are that content. Can you > see that, when you are the content then there is no longer any > separation possible because there is no longer a " you " or > a " witness " , or a observer, or a see-er. > > Werner > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 11/21/2005 11:47:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > What Pete in his post is describing is the world of consciousness. > > > > The content of your consciousness is totally subjective, noone in > > this world has the same contents like you have. And therefore you > are > > this consciousness. Always remember consciousness is its content, > > without content there is no consciousness. The expression that the > > obsever is the observed is just the same as to say you are > > consciousness. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Content is that which consciousness is conscious of. Without > consciousness, > > there is no content. Consciousness creates it's own content by > virtue of it's > > ability to be conscious. The dream image is not consciousness > itself, but > > rather the product of consciousness. The eye is not what is seen. > There must be > > an eye to see, and then there is seeing. (An analogy) > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> wrote: > > Hi bigwaaba, yes, " Being Is " ......doesn't matter the consciousness, content, non- consciousness or non-content....or....or.... when " seer, seen and seeing " melt into ONE.....there is no more " seer or seen or seeing " ...... then....is " I am " remaining Regards Marc > dear one > without content there is no consciousness BUT Being IS, this is > what " I " am! > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Phil, > > > > Without content there is no consciousnes. > > > > The idea that here is consciousness and there is the object it is > > consicous of, creates the division between me and the world. That is > > the trap most seekers falling into. Same with you now. > > > > As long as you don't understand that the observer is the observed > > then the self (ego) takes itself as the witness. But there is no > > witness, neither a silent witness nor an universal witness or > > whatever else your thinking, feeding on division, is inventing to > > maintain this division. > > > > That is not easy to see, most seekers don't see that. They babble > all > > day long about universal consciousness, about the divine witness, > > about the Atman nd what else and don't realize how they are stuck > in > > separation. > > > > All this talk about I am nothingness is just hot air, it is just > > vanity decoratiing itself with so called " truth " . But the > separation, > > this division between the observer and the observed will go on. > > > > When you see that you are consciousness then no division is > possible. > > > > And to repeat: Consciousness is its content, witout content there is > > no consciousness. > > > > There is not witness. What you might see as the witness already is > > this division between the see-er and the seen, but there is none - > > you are consciousness. > > > > There is no escape from this - without content there is no > > consciousness, it is its content and you are that content. Can you > > see that, when you are the content then there is no longer any > > separation possible because there is no longer a " you " or > > a " witness " , or a observer, or a see-er. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/21/2005 11:47:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > What Pete in his post is describing is the world of > consciousness. > > > > > > The content of your consciousness is totally subjective, noone > in > > > this world has the same contents like you have. And therefore > you > > are > > > this consciousness. Always remember consciousness is its > content, > > > without content there is no consciousness. The expression that > the > > > obsever is the observed is just the same as to say you are > > > consciousness. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Content is that which consciousness is conscious of. Without > > consciousness, > > > there is no content. Consciousness creates it's own content by > > virtue of it's > > > ability to be conscious. The dream image is not consciousness > > itself, but > > > rather the product of consciousness. The eye is not what is > seen. > > There must be > > > an eye to see, and then there is seeing. (An analogy) > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Oh my Goodness, Waaba, What else is the " I am " or " being " if not the content of consciousness ? You are just not used to see consciousness as its content. For you there is still this separation between consciousness and the content - thats your whole problem. " I am " is just another expression for consciousmess which is its content or that the observer is the observed - again just the same thing. Werner Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> wrote: > > > dear one > without content there is no consciousness BUT Being IS, this is > what " I " am! > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Phil, > > > > Without content there is no consciousnes. > > > > The idea that here is consciousness and there is the object it is > > consicous of, creates the division between me and the world. That is > > the trap most seekers falling into. Same with you now. > > > > As long as you don't understand that the observer is the observed > > then the self (ego) takes itself as the witness. But there is no > > witness, neither a silent witness nor an universal witness or > > whatever else your thinking, feeding on division, is inventing to > > maintain this division. > > > > That is not easy to see, most seekers don't see that. They babble > all > > day long about universal consciousness, about the divine witness, > > about the Atman nd what else and don't realize how they are stuck > in > > separation. > > > > All this talk about I am nothingness is just hot air, it is just > > vanity decoratiing itself with so called " truth " . But the > separation, > > this division between the observer and the observed will go on. > > > > When you see that you are consciousness then no division is > possible. > > > > And to repeat: Consciousness is its content, witout content there is > > no consciousness. > > > > There is not witness. What you might see as the witness already is > > this division between the see-er and the seen, but there is none - > > you are consciousness. > > > > There is no escape from this - without content there is no > > consciousness, it is its content and you are that content. Can you > > see that, when you are the content then there is no longer any > > separation possible because there is no longer a " you " or > > a " witness " , or a observer, or a see-er. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/21/2005 11:47:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > What Pete in his post is describing is the world of > consciousness. > > > > > > The content of your consciousness is totally subjective, noone > in > > > this world has the same contents like you have. And therefore > you > > are > > > this consciousness. Always remember consciousness is its > content, > > > without content there is no consciousness. The expression that > the > > > obsever is the observed is just the same as to say you are > > > consciousness. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Content is that which consciousness is conscious of. Without > > consciousness, > > > there is no content. Consciousness creates it's own content by > > virtue of it's > > > ability to be conscious. The dream image is not consciousness > > itself, but > > > rather the product of consciousness. The eye is not what is > seen. > > There must be > > > an eye to see, and then there is seeing. (An analogy) > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 yes...and you are just used to see consciousness as its content my friend! to me, this is not the point.just different habits. i read your posting and what i find is that there is a sincere recongnition but still something blocked in the expression of it. Consciousness is not personal, i am you! Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Oh my Goodness, Waaba, > > What else is the " I am " or " being " if not the content of > consciousness ? > > You are just not used to see consciousness as its content. For you > there is still this separation between consciousness and the content - > thats your whole problem. > > " I am " is just another expression for consciousmess which is its > content or that the observer is the observed - again just the same > thing. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> wrote: > > > > > > dear one > > without content there is no consciousness BUT Being IS, this is > > what " I " am! > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Phil, > > > > > > Without content there is no consciousnes. > > > > > > The idea that here is consciousness and there is the object it is > > > consicous of, creates the division between me and the world. That > is > > > the trap most seekers falling into. Same with you now. > > > > > > As long as you don't understand that the observer is the observed > > > then the self (ego) takes itself as the witness. But there is no > > > witness, neither a silent witness nor an universal witness or > > > whatever else your thinking, feeding on division, is inventing to > > > maintain this division. > > > > > > That is not easy to see, most seekers don't see that. They babble > > all > > > day long about universal consciousness, about the divine witness, > > > about the Atman nd what else and don't realize how they are stuck > > in > > > separation. > > > > > > All this talk about I am nothingness is just hot air, it is just > > > vanity decoratiing itself with so called " truth " . But the > > separation, > > > this division between the observer and the observed will go on. > > > > > > When you see that you are consciousness then no division is > > possible. > > > > > > And to repeat: Consciousness is its content, witout content there > is > > > no consciousness. > > > > > > There is not witness. What you might see as the witness already > is > > > this division between the see-er and the seen, but there is none - > > > > you are consciousness. > > > > > > There is no escape from this - without content there is no > > > consciousness, it is its content and you are that content. Can > you > > > see that, when you are the content then there is no longer any > > > separation possible because there is no longer a " you " or > > > a " witness " , or a observer, or a see-er. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/21/2005 11:47:23 AM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > What Pete in his post is describing is the world of > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > The content of your consciousness is totally subjective, noone > > in > > > > this world has the same contents like you have. And therefore > > you > > > are > > > > this consciousness. Always remember consciousness is its > > content, > > > > without content there is no consciousness. The expression that > > the > > > > obsever is the observed is just the same as to say you are > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Content is that which consciousness is conscious of. Without > > > consciousness, > > > > there is no content. Consciousness creates it's own content by > > > virtue of it's > > > > ability to be conscious. The dream image is not consciousness > > > itself, but > > > > rather the product of consciousness. The eye is not what is > > seen. > > > There must be > > > > an eye to see, and then there is seeing. (An analogy) > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Waabe, go slowly, Look at this: In the whole world there is no second consciousness like your's. Your consciousness is unique, everyone's consciousness is unique. You cannot deny that. Remember: Consciousness is its content. You are that content. Consciousness is totally personal, totally subjective. When you and me are looking at a tree we won't see the same tree, we have a different view, we both have different background, coming from a different culture. You cannot deny that. Because you ARE your consciousness there is no longer a division between the see-er and the seen, right ? And therefore there is also no longer a separate self. When you now look at me then I am the content of your consciousness which is you and therefore you are me, but it remains a totally personal view, you cannot rely on its objectivity. I am your own jubjectivity. Can you see that ? Werner Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> wrote: > > yes...and you are just used to see consciousness as its content my > friend! > to me, this is not the point.just different habits. > i read your posting and what i find is that there is a sincere > recongnition but still something blocked in the expression of it. > Consciousness is not personal, i am you! > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Oh my Goodness, Waaba, > > > > What else is the " I am " or " being " if not the content of > > consciousness ? > > > > You are just not used to see consciousness as its content. For you > > there is still this separation between consciousness and the > content - > > thats your whole problem. > > > > " I am " is just another expression for consciousmess which is its > > content or that the observer is the observed - again just the same > > thing. > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > dear one > > > without content there is no consciousness BUT Being IS, this is > > > what " I " am! > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Phil, > > > > > > > > Without content there is no consciousnes. > > > > > > > > The idea that here is consciousness and there is the object it > is > > > > consicous of, creates the division between me and the world. > That > > is > > > > the trap most seekers falling into. Same with you now. > > > > > > > > As long as you don't understand that the observer is the > observed > > > > then the self (ego) takes itself as the witness. But there is no > > > > witness, neither a silent witness nor an universal witness or > > > > whatever else your thinking, feeding on division, is inventing > to > > > > maintain this division. > > > > > > > > That is not easy to see, most seekers don't see that. They > babble > > > all > > > > day long about universal consciousness, about the divine > witness, > > > > about the Atman nd what else and don't realize how they are > stuck > > > in > > > > separation. > > > > > > > > All this talk about I am nothingness is just hot air, it is just > > > > vanity decoratiing itself with so called " truth " . But the > > > separation, > > > > this division between the observer and the observed will go on. > > > > > > > > When you see that you are consciousness then no division is > > > possible. > > > > > > > > And to repeat: Consciousness is its content, witout content > there > > is > > > > no consciousness. > > > > > > > > There is not witness. What you might see as the witness already > > is > > > > this division between the see-er and the seen, but there is > none - > > > > > > you are consciousness. > > > > > > > > There is no escape from this - without content there is no > > > > consciousness, it is its content and you are that content. Can > > you > > > > see that, when you are the content then there is no longer any > > > > separation possible because there is no longer a " you " or > > > > a " witness " , or a observer, or a see-er. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/21/2005 11:47:23 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What Pete in his post is describing is the world of > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > The content of your consciousness is totally subjective, > noone > > > in > > > > > this world has the same contents like you have. And > therefore > > > you > > > > are > > > > > this consciousness. Always remember consciousness is its > > > content, > > > > > without content there is no consciousness. The expression > that > > > the > > > > > obsever is the observed is just the same as to say you are > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Content is that which consciousness is conscious of. Without > > > > consciousness, > > > > > there is no content. Consciousness creates it's own content > by > > > > virtue of it's > > > > > ability to be conscious. The dream image is not consciousness > > > > itself, but > > > > > rather the product of consciousness. The eye is not what is > > > seen. > > > > There must be > > > > > an eye to see, and then there is seeing. (An analogy) > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 dear friends spiritual discussions should revolve around Lord, divine knowledge, devotion and His service. Regarding the knowledge about self, it is sufficient if you know that you are not the Lord. time and discussions should be utilised to reach the goal who is the Lord and then please Him. Divine knowledge itself means the knowledge required to identify the Lord when He comes in human form. Self-realisation is an intermediate step and God-realisation is the ultimate and final step. Hence, let the discussions should be oriented in that direction. posted by: surya at the lotus feet of shri datta swami www.universal-spirituality.org Werner Woehr <wwoehr wrote: Waabe, go slowly, Look at this: In the whole world there is no second consciousness like your's. Your consciousness is unique, everyone's consciousness is unique. You cannot deny that. Remember: Consciousness is its content. You are that content. Consciousness is totally personal, totally subjective. When you and me are looking at a tree we won't see the same tree, we have a different view, we both have different background, coming from a different culture. You cannot deny that. Because you ARE your consciousness there is no longer a division between the see-er and the seen, right ? And therefore there is also no longer a separate self. When you now look at me then I am the content of your consciousness which is you and therefore you are me, but it remains a totally personal view, you cannot rely on its objectivity. I am your own jubjectivity. Can you see that ? Werner FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 slowly?!? why? maybe to stop me sometimes and remember that consciousness is its content? the seer, the seen and the seeing are one, yes. when this is seen is seen by the one. What i can't deny is the existence of this, this one that i am. when i look at you, i look at myself and i am the looking too. you are not what you think you are, you are me myself 100%. In the moment you read these words, i am reading them. What is now typing these letters is your self, not a person or a body named waaba supposed to be somewhere else on the planet. love Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Waabe, go slowly, > > Look at this: > > In the whole world there is no second consciousness like your's. Your > consciousness is unique, everyone's consciousness is unique. You > cannot deny that. Remember: Consciousness is its content. You are > that content. > > Consciousness is totally personal, totally subjective. When you and > me are looking at a tree we won't see the same tree, we have a > different view, we both have different background, coming from a > different culture. You cannot deny that. > > Because you ARE your consciousness there is no longer a division > between the see-er and the seen, right ? And therefore there is also > no longer a separate self. > > When you now look at me then I am the content of your consciousness > which is you and therefore you are me, but it remains a totally > personal view, you cannot rely on its objectivity. I am your own > jubjectivity. Can you see that ? > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> wrote: > > > > yes...and you are just used to see consciousness as its content my > > friend! > > to me, this is not the point.just different habits. > > i read your posting and what i find is that there is a sincere > > recongnition but still something blocked in the expression of it. > > Consciousness is not personal, i am you! > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Oh my Goodness, Waaba, > > > > > > What else is the " I am " or " being " if not the content of > > > consciousness ? > > > > > > You are just not used to see consciousness as its content. For > you > > > there is still this separation between consciousness and the > > content - > > > thats your whole problem. > > > > > > " I am " is just another expression for consciousmess which is its > > > content or that the observer is the observed - again just the > same > > > thing. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > dear one > > > > without content there is no consciousness BUT Being IS, this is > > > > what " I " am! > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Phil, > > > > > > > > > > Without content there is no consciousnes. > > > > > > > > > > The idea that here is consciousness and there is the object > it > > is > > > > > consicous of, creates the division between me and the world. > > That > > > is > > > > > the trap most seekers falling into. Same with you now. > > > > > > > > > > As long as you don't understand that the observer is the > > observed > > > > > then the self (ego) takes itself as the witness. But there is > no > > > > > witness, neither a silent witness nor an universal witness or > > > > > whatever else your thinking, feeding on division, is > inventing > > to > > > > > maintain this division. > > > > > > > > > > That is not easy to see, most seekers don't see that. They > > babble > > > > all > > > > > day long about universal consciousness, about the divine > > witness, > > > > > about the Atman nd what else and don't realize how they are > > stuck > > > > in > > > > > separation. > > > > > > > > > > All this talk about I am nothingness is just hot air, it is > just > > > > > vanity decoratiing itself with so called " truth " . But the > > > > separation, > > > > > this division between the observer and the observed will go > on. > > > > > > > > > > When you see that you are consciousness then no division is > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > And to repeat: Consciousness is its content, witout content > > there > > > is > > > > > no consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > There is not witness. What you might see as the witness > already > > > is > > > > > this division between the see-er and the seen, but there is > > none - > > > > > > > > you are consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > There is no escape from this - without content there is no > > > > > consciousness, it is its content and you are that content. > Can > > > you > > > > > see that, when you are the content then there is no longer > any > > > > > separation possible because there is no longer a " you " or > > > > > a " witness " , or a observer, or a see-er. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/21/2005 11:47:23 AM Pacific Standard > > > Time, > > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What Pete in his post is describing is the world of > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > The content of your consciousness is totally subjective, > > noone > > > > in > > > > > > this world has the same contents like you have. And > > therefore > > > > you > > > > > are > > > > > > this consciousness. Always remember consciousness is its > > > > content, > > > > > > without content there is no consciousness. The expression > > that > > > > the > > > > > > obsever is the observed is just the same as to say you > are > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Content is that which consciousness is conscious of. > Without > > > > > consciousness, > > > > > > there is no content. Consciousness creates it's own content > > by > > > > > virtue of it's > > > > > > ability to be conscious. The dream image is not > consciousness > > > > > itself, but > > > > > > rather the product of consciousness. The eye is not what > is > > > > seen. > > > > > There must be > > > > > > an eye to see, and then there is seeing. (An analogy) > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 my beloved, the Lord sometimes loves worldy discussion, would you like to please Him? I'm sure you would. Self and God are two names for the same One, this is the final instruction given only to the greatest devotee of the Lord. Always with you Nisargadatta , prakki surya <dattapr2000> wrote: > > dear friends > > spiritual discussions should revolve around Lord, divine knowledge, devotion and His service. Regarding the knowledge about self, it is sufficient if you know that you are not the Lord. > > time and discussions should be utilised to reach the goal who is the Lord and then please Him. Divine knowledge itself means the knowledge required to identify the Lord when He comes in human form. Self-realisation is an intermediate step and God-realisation is the ultimate and final step. Hence, let the discussions should be oriented in that direction. > > posted by: > surya > at the lotus feet of shri datta swami > www.universal-spirituality.org > > > Werner Woehr <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Waabe, go slowly, > Look at this: > In the whole world there is no second consciousness like your's. Your consciousness is unique, everyone's consciousness is unique. You cannot deny that. Remember: Consciousness is its content. You are > that content. > > Consciousness is totally personal, totally subjective. When you and me are looking at a tree we won't see the same tree, we have a different view, we both have different background, coming from a different culture. You cannot deny that. > > Because you ARE your consciousness there is no longer a division between the see-er and the seen, right ? And therefore there is also no longer a separate self. > > When you now look at me then I am the content of your consciousness which is you and therefore you are me, but it remains a totally personal view, you cannot rely on its objectivity. I am your own jubjectivity. Can you see that ? > > Werner > > > FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 The idea that here is consciousness and there is the object it is consicous of, creates the division between me and the world. That is the trap most seekers falling into. Same with you now. There is no object. I never said that. There is no division. How could a dream image be separate from the consciousness that dreams it? The reason I finally addressed your assertion that consciousness is it's content is that you repeat it ad nauseum as though it is truly meaningful. It is not meaningful. It's a concept only, which refers to something which is not a thing, which has a content of no things. Without any things, discussions of what is separate from what or not separate are meaningless. Consciousness is not different from awareness. It is only awareness 'in movement'; the quality of awareness that has the propensity to be conscious. If there is nothing that consciousness is conscious of, there is no real meaning to the idea of consciousness, and so in this sense you are correct in that without content, it has no meaning and would exist only as a concept. However, it cannot exist only as a concept because this concept is part of the content of consciousness and therefore there is something of which consciousness is conscious. And so consciousness, by it's nature, is conscious of something. This is not to say that this 'something' is a thing or exists outside of, or apart from, consciousness itself. Consciousness and it's content are two ways of conceptualizing the same thing, but within the context of those concepts, consciousness is required in order to generate it's own content. The content would never be if not for consciousness. The statement that " The observer is the observed " simply means that the observer (consciousness) is observing it's own content. It does not imply that the observed is the sum total of the observer as a concept. Phil In a message dated 11/22/2005 3:08:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Phil, Without content there is no consciousnes. The idea that here is consciousness and there is the object it is consicous of, creates the division between me and the world. That is the trap most seekers falling into. Same with you now. As long as you don't understand that the observer is the observed then the self (ego) takes itself as the witness. But there is no witness, neither a silent witness nor an universal witness or whatever else your ego, feeding on division, is inventing to maintain this division. That is not easy to see, most seekers don't see that. They babble all day long about universal consciousness, about the divine witness, about the Atman and don't realize how they are stuck in that separation. All this talk about I am nothingness is just hot air, is just is vanity decoratiing itself with so alled " truth " . But the separation, this division between the observer and the observed will go on. When you see that you are consciousness then no division is possible. And to repeat: Consciousness is its content, witout content there is no consciousness. There is not witness. What you might see as the witness already is this division between the see-er and the seen, but there is none - you are consciousness. Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/21/2005 11:47:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > > What Pete in his post is describing is the world of consciousness. > > The content of your consciousness is totally subjective, noone in > this world has the same contents like you have. And therefore you are > this consciousness. Always remember consciousness is its content, > without content there is no consciousness. The expression that the > obsever is the observed is just the same as to say you are > consciousness. > > Werner > > > > Content is that which consciousness is conscious of. Without consciousness, > there is no content. Consciousness creates it's own content by virtue of it's > ability to be conscious. The dream image is not consciousness itself, but > rather the product of consciousness. The eye is not what is seen. There must be > an eye to see, and then there is seeing. (An analogy) > > Phil > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 dear friend Divine Message of His Holiness Shri Datta Swami Any spiritual aspirant is an ordinary human being only and thus science is applicable for analysing yourself. In fact the process of elimination only can do the attainment of self or the casual body, which is a perfect scientific procedure. Self is the best item of the creation and the analysis of self is also science. When you are an item of creation, your ways and efforts cannot be supernatural and they must follow the natural rules of creation, which are again science only. Therefore you must use the logical scientific analysis in analysing yourself and your path to reach God. But God is beyond this creation who is the Creator. Therefore God cannot be analysed by science. When the goal is above science the scientific path cannot be meaningful because the scientific path will lead to such goal only, which can be analysed by science. For e.g.: let us take the path to Bombay, the path is on the Earth and Bombay is also on the Earth. A path that can be analysed by logic can reach the goal, which must be also analysed by the logic. If I start the journey to God and ask the path to reach Him, nobody can show the path because the God is invisible. An invisible goal will always have an invisible path. Nobody can travel in invisible path. One can show the path to a holy temple. If God exists in the statue, such path is a true path. The main purpose of reaching God is to know the whole knowledge of yourself, the correct path and the correct goal. The reason is that God is the best preacher since all the matters are related to God. Therefore the Human Incarnation is the correct place of God. The human incarnation consists of a visible human body so that the path to reach Him also becomes visible. Since God is in the human incarnation, by reaching that human body you have reached God. In fact God pervaded all over the body and you have reached the God. The God becomes visible through human body and therefore the path to reach God is also visible. The main purpose to reach God is to hear the correct version of the entire spiritual knowledge. Then through service you have to please the God. In the case of statue, it is not preaching any trace of knowledge. Moreover when we serve the statute it is not appearing pleased on its face. Due to these two reasons neither God is in the statute nor God is the statute (Na tasya Pratima- Veda). The statute in the human form is a model to indicate the human form of the Lord. The ignorant human beings who cannot accept the human form of the God due to egoism and jealousy can worship the statute as training for sometime to worship the human form of Lord in future (Pratimahyalpa Buddhinam- Smruti). But one should not sit in the training through out his life. If he sits in the training only, he is born as an inert object like stone (Bhutejya yanti- Gita) Sankara never told that the world is absolutely non-existent. He said that the world is Mithya, which means that it is neither existent nor non-existent (sadasat vilakshana). It is existent because it exists even though it is very very little. It is non-existent because its existence can be neglected, since it is very very little. People have misunderstood Sankara, who state that according to Sankara the world is non-existent. posted by: surya at the lotus feet of shri datta swami wwww.universal-spirituality.org bigwaaba <bigwaaba wrote: my beloved, the Lord sometimes loves worldy discussion, would you like to please Him? I'm sure you would. Self and God are two names for the same One, this is the final instruction given only to the greatest devotee of the Lord.Always with you FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 love is the only divine message and it is from noone to noone Nisargadatta , prakki surya <dattapr2000> wrote: > > dear friend > > Divine Message of His Holiness Shri Datta Swami > > Any spiritual aspirant is an ordinary human being only and thus science is applicable for analysing yourself. In fact the process of elimination only can do the attainment of self or the casual body, which is a perfect scientific procedure. Self is the best item of the creation and the analysis of self is also science. When you are an item of creation, your ways and efforts cannot be supernatural and they must follow the natural rules of creation, which are again science only. Therefore you must use the logical scientific analysis in analysing yourself and your path to reach God. > > But God is beyond this creation who is the Creator. Therefore God cannot be analysed by science. When the goal is above science the scientific path cannot be meaningful because the scientific path will lead to such goal only, which can be analysed by science. For e.g.: let us take the path to Bombay, the path is on the Earth and Bombay is also on the Earth. A path that can be analysed by logic can reach the goal, which must be also analysed by the logic. If I start the journey to God and ask the path to reach Him, nobody can show the path because the God is invisible. An invisible goal will always have an invisible path. Nobody can travel in invisible path. One can show the path to a holy temple. If God exists in the statue, such path is a true path. > > The main purpose of reaching God is to know the whole knowledge of yourself, the correct path and the correct goal. The reason is that God is the best preacher since all the matters are related to God. Therefore the Human Incarnation is the correct place of God. The human incarnation consists of a visible human body so that the path to reach Him also becomes visible. Since God is in the human incarnation, by reaching that human body you have reached God. In fact God pervaded all over the body and you have reached the God. The God becomes visible through human body and therefore the path to reach God is also visible. The main purpose to reach God is to hear the correct version of the entire spiritual knowledge. Then through service you have to please the God. > > In the case of statue, it is not preaching any trace of knowledge. Moreover when we serve the statute it is not appearing pleased on its face. Due to these two reasons neither God is in the statute nor God is the statute (Na tasya Pratima- Veda). The statute in the human form is a model to indicate the human form of the Lord. The ignorant human beings who cannot accept the human form of the God due to egoism and jealousy can worship the statute as training for sometime to worship the human form of Lord in future (Pratimahyalpa Buddhinam- Smruti). But one should not sit in the training through out his life. If he sits in the training only, he is born as an inert object like stone (Bhutejya yanti- Gita) > > Sankara never told that the world is absolutely non-existent. He said that the world is Mithya, which means that it is neither existent nor non-existent (sadasat vilakshana). It is existent because it exists even though it is very very little. It is non- existent because its existence can be neglected, since it is very very little. People have misunderstood Sankara, who state that according to Sankara the world is non-existent. > > posted by: > surya > at the lotus feet of shri datta swami > wwww.universal-spirituality.org > > > > bigwaaba <bigwaaba> wrote: > my beloved, the Lord sometimes loves worldy discussion, would you like to please Him? I'm sure you would. > Self and God are two names for the same One, this is the final instruction given only to the greatest devotee of the Lord.Always with you > > > FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. > > 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.