Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 -There seems to be a confusion in the terminologie " I AM " , for me. What do you all mean by I AM ?? When I refer to that, I connect with that " only " part in me that is changeless, it is always there, it is also what I call the witness. It is the dew drop that Niz describes in page 381 of I am that : " The witness is merely a point in awareness. It has no name and form. It is like the reflection of the sun in a drop of dew. The drop of dew has name and form, but the little point of light is caused by the sun. " The clearness and smoothness of the drop is a necessary condition but not sufficient by itself. Similarly, clarity and silence of the mind are necessary for the reflection of reality to appear in the mind, but by themselves they aren`t sufficient. There must be reality beyond it. Because reality is timelessly present, the stress is on the necessary conditions. I really would like to get clear on my terminologie w/ all of you. Greetings, Patricia _________________________ Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international. Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > -There seems to be a confusion in the terminologie " I > AM " , > for me. > What do you all mean by I AM ?? > When I refer to that, I connect with that " only " part > in me that is changeless, it is always there, it is > also what I call the witness. > It is the dew drop that Niz describes in page 381 of > I am that : > " The witness is merely a point in awareness. It has no > name and form. > It is like the reflection of the sun in a drop of dew. > The drop of dew has name and form, but the little > point of light is caused by the sun. " > > The clearness and smoothness of the drop is a > necessary condition but not sufficient by itself. > Similarly, clarity and silence of the mind are > necessary for the reflection of reality to appear in > the mind, but by themselves they aren`t sufficient. > There must be reality beyond it. Because reality is > timelessly present, the stress is on the necessary > conditions. > > I really would like to get clear on my terminologie w/ > all of you. > Greetings, > Patricia Clear terminology is an oxymoron. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Hi Patricia, I have wondered the same thing. I believe people love to tell you 'You don't understand.' Simply because you choose to refer to your existence as " I " or " Mine " , etc. Its much better to speak plainly than it is to dance around real issues by speaking only in some stilted advaita-like language. To me thats just being silly and often seems that those who raise a stink about it are indicators of someone who 'hasn't gotten it yet' and, more importantly, dosn't want you to 'get it' either; a way to always keep Understanding at a safe distance. Brian Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > -There seems to be a confusion in the terminologie " I > AM " , > for me. > What do you all mean by I AM ?? > When I refer to that, I connect with that " only " part > in me that is changeless, it is always there, it is > also what I call the witness. > It is the dew drop that Niz describes in page 381 of > I am that : > " The witness is merely a point in awareness. It has no > name and form. > It is like the reflection of the sun in a drop of dew. > The drop of dew has name and form, but the little > point of light is caused by the sun. " > > The clearness and smoothness of the drop is a > necessary condition but not sufficient by itself. > Similarly, clarity and silence of the mind are > necessary for the reflection of reality to appear in > the mind, but by themselves they aren`t sufficient. > There must be reality beyond it. Because reality is > timelessly present, the stress is on the necessary > conditions. > > I really would like to get clear on my terminologie w/ > all of you. > Greetings, > Patricia > > > > > > > > > ____________________ _____ > Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international. > Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > -There seems to be a confusion in the terminologie " I > > AM " , > > for me. > > What do you all mean by I AM ?? > > When I refer to that, I connect with that " only " part > > in me that is changeless, it is always there, it is > > also what I call the witness. > > It is the dew drop that Niz describes in page 381 of > > I am that : > > " The witness is merely a point in awareness. It has no > > name and form. > > It is like the reflection of the sun in a drop of dew. > > The drop of dew has name and form, but the little > > point of light is caused by the sun. " > > > > The clearness and smoothness of the drop is a > > necessary condition but not sufficient by itself. > > Similarly, clarity and silence of the mind are > > necessary for the reflection of reality to appear in > > the mind, but by themselves they aren`t sufficient. > > There must be reality beyond it. Because reality is > > timelessly present, the stress is on the necessary > > conditions. > > > > I really would like to get clear on my terminologie w/ > > all of you. > > Greetings, > > Patricia > > > > > > Clear terminology is an oxymoron. > > toombaru > Thinking searches for 'reality' ( a concept) with other concepts. The content of consciousness is searching within the content of consciousness for consciousness itself. It is stacking words to reach the moon. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 --- toombaru2006 <lastrain a écrit : Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > -There seems to be a confusion in the terminologie " I > AM " , > for me. > What do you all mean by I AM ?? > When I refer to that, I connect with that " only " part > in me that is changeless, it is always there, it is > also what I call the witness. > It is the dew drop that Niz describes in page 381 of > I am that : > " The witness is merely a point in awareness. It has no > name and form. > It is like the reflection of the sun in a drop of dew. > The drop of dew has name and form, but the little > point of light is caused by the sun. " > > The clearness and smoothness of the drop is a > necessary condition but not sufficient by itself. > Similarly, clarity and silence of the mind are > necessary for the reflection of reality to appear in > the mind, but by themselves they aren`t sufficient. > There must be reality beyond it. Because reality is > timelessly present, the stress is on the necessary > conditions. > > I really would like to get clear on my terminologie w/ > all of you. > Greetings, > Patricia Clear terminology is an oxymoron. toombaru >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OX : a big beast headed thing Moron : a total idiot Thanks for your prompt and obscure answer to my question, Toombaru. We are using words here, moron yourself. I didn`t ask what terminologie is about . I ask YOU what you understand by the term " I AM " of MR NIZ. Does it applie to you at all? How then? It seems to be a powerful tool to me at least. One of his most important tool. And one that is totally misunderstood. So, Toombaru, think again! Patricia ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Toomb, The content is consciousness. It doesn't do anything, it just appears and fades away. The sound of a bell appears and leaves ... Werner Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > The content of consciousness is searching within the content of consciousness for > consciousness itself. > > It is stacking words to reach the moon. > > > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > --- toombaru2006 <lastrain a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia > <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > -There seems to be a confusion in the terminologie > " I > > AM " , > > for me. > > What do you all mean by I AM ?? > > When I refer to that, I connect with that " only " > part > > in me that is changeless, it is always there, it is > > also what I call the witness. > > It is the dew drop that Niz describes in page 381 > of > > I am that : > > " The witness is merely a point in awareness. It has > no > > name and form. > > It is like the reflection of the sun in a drop of > dew. > > The drop of dew has name and form, but the little > > point of light is caused by the sun. " > > > > The clearness and smoothness of the drop is a > > necessary condition but not sufficient by itself. > > Similarly, clarity and silence of the mind are > > necessary for the reflection of reality to appear in > > the mind, but by themselves they aren`t sufficient. > > There must be reality beyond it. Because reality is > > timelessly present, the stress is on the necessary > > conditions. > > > > I really would like to get clear on my terminologie > w/ > > all of you. > > Greetings, > > Patricia > > > > > > Clear terminology is an oxymoron. > > toombaru > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > OX : a big beast headed thing > Moron : a total idiot > > Thanks for your prompt and obscure answer to my > question, Toombaru. > We are using words here, moron yourself. > I didn`t ask what terminologie is about . > I ask YOU what you understand by the term " I AM " of > MR NIZ. Does it applie to you at all? How then? > It seems to be a powerful tool to me at least. > One of his most important tool. > And one that is totally misunderstood. > > So, Toombaru, think again! > Patricia > Ramana encourages us to: " Go back the way you came " . Nisargadatta speaks of going beyond the I am. He tells us that it is the doorway into the dream of illusory separation......and the doorway out. I am is the incantation that opens the curtains into the fearful nightmare if illusory self- world dichotomy. I am is the egoic dirge....the pounding rhythm of the zombie jamboree. toombaru 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.