If all is in consciousness then who other people`?

[Guest guest]

If all is in consciousness, how is it explained the talking to other

people? If I am talking to another, other must objective exist, and he

talking back. Oh.

 

Is this correct?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac "

<tigerlily_du_lac wrote:

>

> If all is in consciousness, how is it explained the talking to other

> people? If I am talking to another, other must objective exist, and he

> talking back. Oh.

>

> Is this correct?

 

 

no. but it's not wrong either. nothing is just one way or the other.

 

and all ways are always more ways than both ways. and all is not in

 

consciousness. consciousness is in all. and 'it's' all AND nothing at

 

all. it's hard to explain and impossible to understand. but it can be

 

known, is known, as that identity that is the all expressed as no on,

 

who as no one knows itself as that which is not 'other'. other than

 

that, there is no such thing as correct or incorrect, right or

 

wrong...just swirling nonsense which believes and belies. and to some

 

purling poo-poos it's just ALL nonsense. what ya gonna do? call

 

ghostbusters!

 

your loose papoose pal,

 

..b bobji baba

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac "

> <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote:

> >

> > If all is in consciousness, how is it explained the talking to

other

> > people? If I am talking to another, other must objective exist,

and he

> > talking back. Oh.

> >

> > Is this correct?

>

>

> no. but it's not wrong either. nothing is just one way or the

other.

>

> and all ways are always more ways than both ways. and all is not

in

>

> consciousness. consciousness is in all. and 'it's' all AND nothing

at

>

> all. it's hard to explain and impossible to understand. but it can

be

>

> known, is known, as that identity that is the all expressed as no

on,

>

> who as no one knows itself as that which is not 'other'. other

than

>

> that, there is no such thing as correct or incorrect, right or

>

> wrong...just swirling nonsense which believes and belies. and to

some

>

> purling poo-poos it's just ALL nonsense. what ya gonna do? call

>

> ghostbusters!

>

> your loose papoose pal,

>

> .b bobji baba

>

Lily the worst you can do is following the words of a compulsive

dripping tongue.

 

Ain't that right.........Bobbert?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac "

<tigerlily_du_lac wrote:

>

> If all is in consciousness, how is it explained the talking to other

> people? If I am talking to another, other must objective exist, and

he

> talking back. Oh.

>

> Is this correct?

>

 

nonduality is probably the most boring story of all.

consciousness speaks, talking to itself in different forms.

better be a good story or it gets boring quick.

that's why i think the brahman show didn't last in broadway

and like an old full moon it was cut in pieces

made into new stars

like krishna, shiva, kali, rama, arjuna.

in bollywood walk of fame.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac "

<tigerlily_du_lac wrote:

>

> If all is in consciousness, how is it explained the talking to other

> people? If I am talking to another, other must objective exist, and

he

> talking back. Oh.

>

> Is this correct?

 

 

nobody ever talked to anybody.....except within the bubble of an

(ignorant) ego-mind

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

> nobody ever talked to anybody.....except within the bubble of an

> (ignorant) ego-mind

 

Without ego mind you could not become man you are now. Child can know

only what child know. Ego, so must be correct.

 

Is this correct?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac "

<tigerlily_du_lac wrote:

>

> > nobody ever talked to anybody.....except within the bubble of an

> > (ignorant) ego-mind

>

> Without ego mind you could not become man you are now. Child can know

> only what child know. Ego, so must be correct.

>

> Is this correct?

 

 

yes....without ego mind....it wouldn't be possible to imagine the " one "

one is now

 

this doesn't mean, that the one you imagine to be....is real Self

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac "

<tigerlily_du_lac wrote:

>

> If all is in consciousness, how is it explained the talking to other

> people? If I am talking to another, other must objective exist, and

he

> talking back. Oh.

>

> Is this correct?

>

 

 

How do waves in ONE ocean

" talk " to each other?

 

Are they separate or together?

 

Do they have independent existence,

inter-dependent existence or

ocean-dependent existence?