Guest guest Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Here's a question I've been meaning to ask for some time. Everything I experience is in consciousness, right? So the world and universe are manifestations in consciousness. But there must be something on the outside that causes the manifestations. Even though this outside existence can only be inferred, we do know it's there. I wonder how N would have explained this outside? What is it? How can we talk about it? How can it be not- two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > Here's a question I've been meaning to ask for some time. Everything I > experience is in consciousness, right? So the world and universe are > manifestations in consciousness. > > But there must be something on the outside that causes the > manifestations. Even though this outside existence can only be > inferred, we do know it's there. I wonder how N would have explained > this outside? What is it? How can we talk about it? How can it be not- > two? > For me, it's crucial to make a very clear distinction between subjective and objective reality. In dreams, of course, what appears to be real, is not, at least not in the way it seemed while we dreamed. Similarly, what may seem to signify one thing in the " real " world, might be experienced very differently on an emotional level. Spiritual " truth " is subjective truth, for me. I might say, for example, there is no " I, " or that " I am God, " on this list, but if I insist upon it in a court of law, I'll probably be put in a mental institution. Thus, the real world exists " out there, " or, at least, it's most practical to deal with it as if it was not self created. However, the spiritual world, subjective reality, how I feel and how I choose to feel, may best be treated as though I created it. I don't expect anyone to accept this, although it may seem all too obvious to others. There has to be a dialog for much of this to come to make sense. Very difficult on a list. ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > Here's a question I've been meaning to ask for some time. Everything I > experience is in consciousness, right? So the world and universe are > manifestations in consciousness. > > But there must be something on the outside that causes the > manifestations. Even though this outside existence can only be > inferred, we do know it's there. I wonder how N would have explained > this outside? What is it? How can we talk about it? How can it be not- > two? > there is nothing on the " outside " though it could be said that there is an " awareness " ... of...in...as...manifested consciousness work for U? Yours, Ana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > Here's a question I've been meaning to ask for some time. Everything I > experience is in consciousness, right? So the world and universe are > manifestations in consciousness. > > But there must be something on the outside that causes the > manifestations. Even though this outside existence can only be > inferred, we do know it's there. I wonder how N would have explained > this outside? What is it? How can we talk about it? How can it be not- > two? > the " other " is awareness, which he also calls the Absolute. It is not-two because consciousness is an *aspect of* awareness. Note that Nisargadatta takes the notions of awareness and consciousness much deeper than most. Many do not even distinguish awareness and consciousness. Also, many on this list are not aware, I expect, of how he connects awareness and " the Absolute " . But beware of getting technical with this stuff. Don't try to nail down a conceptual model. It is enough to know: * there is being/Being * being occurs within an Unspeakable Unknown (the Absolute/awareness) Nisargadatta's advice is to first become deeply acquainted with being. The avenue he recommends is via investigation of " I am " ... by which he means to be continually inquiring " what is behind " , " what is the root " of the sense " I am experiencing ___ (whatever) " ... Because while experience will vary, does the " I " that experiences that vary? Find out. What is common to *all* experience? Don't investigate that intellectually, but in the inquiry into " I am " continually dig deeper... find what never changes, what does not depend on the circumstance. This investigation is to be kept up vigilantly throughout the day. He says to not worry about the " Absolute " ... once you penetrate into understanding of " I am " the rest will unfold naturally of its own. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > Here's a question I've been meaning to ask for some time. Everything I > experience is in consciousness, right? So the world and universe are > manifestations in consciousness. > > But there must be something on the outside that causes the > manifestations. Even though this outside existence can only be > inferred, we do know it's there. I wonder how N would have explained > this outside? What is it? How can we talk about it? How can it be not- > two? it depend on " who " is looking inside/outside.... the manifestations appear because of the manifestation of an ego- mind.....looking the diversity in manifestation appear because of the manifestation of a busy ego-mind....looking the busy ego-mind....working nicely ....whole day long..... need to enter in a more or less long and deep sleep.....every day..... in order " to be Home " .....at least during deep sleep in reality there is no difference between inside/outside...... it happen that the ego-mind ...looking inside/outside.....see a world......as nice and peaceful......as the ego-mind looking.... the ego-mind feel to follow many plans and projects.....feel to create many things......feel to....just follow his/her " destination " ....long time wished....and desired.....and....dreamed....and.... .....until ....after had made many " experiences " .....the (dreaming) ego mind find out.....that, in reality.....It has never been this (dreaming) ego-mind....for real agree with this your statement: " So the world and universe are > manifestations in consciousness " Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno@> > wrote: > > > > Here's a question I've been meaning to ask for some time. Everything I > > experience is in consciousness, right? So the world and universe are > > manifestations in consciousness. > > > > But there must be something on the outside that causes the > > manifestations. Even though this outside existence can only be > > inferred, we do know it's there. I wonder how N would have explained > > this outside? What is it? How can we talk about it? How can it be not- > > two? > > > > the " other " is awareness, which he also calls the Absolute. > > It is not-two because consciousness is an *aspect of* > awareness. > > Note that Nisargadatta takes the notions of awareness and > consciousness much deeper than most. Many do not even > distinguish awareness and consciousness. Also, many on this > list are not aware, I expect, of how he connects awareness > and " the Absolute " . > > But beware of getting technical with this stuff. Don't try > to nail down a conceptual model. > > It is enough to know: > * there is being/Being > * being occurs within an Unspeakable Unknown > (the Absolute/awareness) > > Nisargadatta's advice is to first become deeply > acquainted with being. The avenue he recommends > is via investigation of " I am " ... by which he means > to be continually inquiring " what is behind " , " what > is the root " of the sense " I am experiencing ___ > (whatever) " ... Because while experience will vary, > does the " I " that experiences that vary? Find out. > What is common to *all* experience? Don't investigate > that intellectually, but in the inquiry into " I am " > continually dig deeper... find what never changes, what > does not depend on the circumstance. This investigation > is to be kept up vigilantly throughout the day. > > He says to not worry about the " Absolute " ... once you > penetrate into understanding of " I am " the rest will > unfold naturally of its own. > > Bill > And if you don't understand what Bill is writing of then don't feel inferior - Bill too doesn't understand what he is writing of. Therefore just start with what makes a bit sense for you, like the " I am " and forget the Absolute and awareness etc. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > Here's a question I've been meaning to ask for some time. Everything I > experience is in consciousness, right? So the world and universe are > manifestations in consciousness. > > But there must be something on the outside that causes the > manifestations. Even though this outside existence can only be > inferred, we do know it's there. I wonder how N would have explained > this outside? What is it? How can we talk about it? How can it be not- > two? > Close your eyes, look into your heart, repeat your questions, then... tell us later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 I wish it were that easy but have you ever seen one of those toys that allow you to create an impression of a face or a hand in steel pins? You push the " pins " forward and see the impression on the reverse side of the image you are making? http://dts.ystoretools.com/1270/images/250x1000/pinartblacfr.jpg or this: http://www.physlink.com/estore/cart/PinArtJunior.cfm Imagine that the toy is consciousness . We are so used to looking at the pins that we don't notice them, but are focused instead on the impression - the bit that changes constantly. That impression is all that we see of the " other " in consciousness. But in fact what we are looking at is part of our self, not the " other " . Yet there is other. Ok, ok. I can stop all this and look after I am. But I just can't get away from duality. There's always something beyond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > I wish it were that easy but have you ever seen one of those toys that > allow you to create an impression of a face or a hand in steel pins? > You push the " pins " forward and see the impression on the reverse side > of the image you are making? > > http://dts.ystoretools.com/1270/images/250x1000/pinartblacfr.jpg > > or this: > > http://www.physlink.com/estore/cart/PinArtJunior.cfm > > Imagine that the toy is consciousness . We are so used to looking at > the pins that we don't notice them, but are focused instead on the > impression - the bit that changes constantly. That impression is all > that we see of the " other " in consciousness. But in fact what we are > looking at is part of our self, not the " other " . Yet there is other. > > Ok, ok. I can stop all this and look after I am. But I just can't get > away from duality. There's always something beyond. > Don't let anyone define what you need to do. Nisargadatta says time and again that it doesn't matter what you do so long as the earnestness is complete. And you can investigate with complete earnestness only that which truly intrigues you. You are truly intrigued as to what creates the impressions in the pins: -> do you know that is any different than the " I am " ? I suggest that it is not. The " Absolute " doesn't create impressions. That is something in one of your early messages in this thread that I didn't comment on, and see now was important. The Absolute doesn't create consciousness. And there is no point in trying to figure out how consciousness got started (at this point anyway). The fact is that it is started and the 'I am' is the seed that drives it. So yeah, what is pushing those pins *is* the 'I am'. Go into that. And whatever you wonder, inquire also: where does the push for this wondering come from? What is the root? How far back, how deep can I go? Bill 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.