Guest guest Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 > > > tom...you have no free choic(i)e in this matter. > > he who suggested this book had no free will in doing so. > > it wasn't his decision to tell you this. > > it's the result of an 'unchosen' 'first prize' winner for the Nobel. > > not a runner up or a third placer now...a 'first' prize winner... > > in his own unchosen fields of psychology AT all. > > his researches which he did not choose..led him ultimately.. > > to the winning that was not decided by the judges who had no choice. > > this is all just the way it is. > > w. knows this without deciding anything at all. > > it just plain IS. > > and it will be interesting for you because you have no choice. > > remember tom..if you read it in a book...it's god's truth. > > especially if it was unconsciously written without choice. > > and if you believe that...you know there MUST be WMD in Iraq. > > .b b.b. > You are right--neither you nor I nor Bush, Cheney, Saddam, nor Mr. Rogers , Elmer Fudd, Tiny Tim, nor Tweetie Pie has any choice at any time. Everything we think and do is gift. It is a strange situation and what does it prove? Your gift will prsent one explantion and my gift will present another.You'r right from your side and I'm right from mine. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > > > > tom...you have no free choic(i)e in this matter. > > > > he who suggested this book had no free will in doing so. > > > > it wasn't his decision to tell you this. > > > > it's the result of an 'unchosen' 'first prize' winner for the > Nobel. > > > > not a runner up or a third placer now...a 'first' prize winner... > > > > in his own unchosen fields of psychology AT all. > > > > his researches which he did not choose..led him ultimately.. > > > > to the winning that was not decided by the judges who had no > choice. > > > > this is all just the way it is. > > > > w. knows this without deciding anything at all. > > > > it just plain IS. > > > > and it will be interesting for you because you have no choice. > > > > remember tom..if you read it in a book...it's god's truth. > > > > especially if it was unconsciously written without choice. > > > > and if you believe that...you know there MUST be WMD in Iraq. > > > > .b b.b. > > > You are right--neither you nor I nor Bush, Cheney, Saddam, nor Mr. > Rogers , Elmer Fudd, Tiny Tim, nor Tweetie Pie has any choice at any > time. Everything we think and do is gift. It is a strange situation > and what does it prove? Your gift will prsent one explantion and my > gift will present another.You'r right from your side and I'm right > from mine. Z my side? your side? who or what has put up a fence? neither 'side' is 'right' nor 'wrong'. neither 'side' exists. all together there are no parts. tout ensemble. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 Hello, I would say, if science is used for mere academic purposes it is bound to add more smoke to an already smoky conglomerate of ideas and concepts. But if the quest has already become burning, intelligent investigation can help to understand oneself better, in my opinion. For me these fascinating findings of Libet (I just saw a film about it in TV) seem to confirm what I am already feeling: my utter helplessness, or, as Tom has put it very nicely instead: the gift. Maybe, when science is coming to a point where it has to question more and more the almighty power of human will this is a good sign, but then again I am maybe fooled by my ever naive optimism (another of those gifts :-)) One more thing. Tom mentions " the choice-feeling " that " overrides any kind of intellectual opposition " . I think this feeling of choice is not unjustified. Practically we are choosing all the time. But the choices that we make are not run by a mysterious instance called " free will " . This is the crucial error. Instead they are run by complex mechanisms, originally aimed at survival. They are part of our equally complex and complicated personalities, which are not what they are taken for. Stefan Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: >Thanks for the link. I will check it out. I must say however that >scientific proofs for the non-existence of choice will never really >carry conviction.The choice-feeling will override any kind of >intellectual opposition.I am sure you know this.It needs to be seen >suddenly that there is no choice--the way you suddenly see the face >that is hidden among the tree leaves in puzzle drawings--then choice >takes a hit. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hello, > One more thing. Tom mentions " the choice-feeling " that " overrides any > kind of intellectual opposition " . I think this feeling of choice is > not unjustified. Practically we are choosing all the time. But the > choices that we make are not run by a mysterious instance called " free > will " . This is the crucial error. Instead they are run by complex > mechanisms, originally aimed at survival. They are part of our equally > complex and complicated personalities, which are not what they are > taken for. > > Stefan > > > You say that choices are not run by free will but by " complex mechanisms and complicated personalities " .All I know about them is that they happen--just like the thoughts that explain them as run by this or that.All I know is they happen. After a choice happens there may arise an image of complex processes--parallel and serial-- and...who needs it? But as you say it can make a great deal of difference depending on how interesting this stuff is to you.Interest is a kind of intuition. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 - > > To repeat again: Consciousness is meomory. " Consciousness is memory " is totally incorrect. Perhaps Werner reading too much neuroscience in disguise. Neuroscience merely intellectualizes the concept of memory relative to consciousness. Consciousness is All That is... thus cannot be grasped by the limiting intellectual so-called mind. If that bothers anybody... get over it. Resistance is futile. Always with Gratitude, Bob C. Fillmore, CA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Bob " <rgcbob wrote: >> " Consciousness is memory " is totally incorrect. > > Yes, you are right. Consciousness is not memory--but human consciousness is direly infested with memory to the point that it is not hard to understand why someone might make such a statement. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bob " <rgcbob@> wrote: > >> " Consciousness is memory " is totally incorrect. > > > > > Yes, you are right. Consciousness is not memory--but human > consciousness is direly infested with memory to the point that it is > not hard to understand why someone might make such a statement. Z > No, no, Tom, You definitely have heard before of short term memory an I too already had metioned it to you. But it seems that you have not got what I explained to you because I am not good in explaining. But try to undersstand in the case of STM that it is a kind of memory which at the same time also is conscious. People who's brain got demanged where the STM is located have totally lost consciousness. Consciousness is memory. There is no single case known of any person who's STM was demaged and the person still was conscious. Consciousness is its content. No content, no consciousness. There is no consciousness without a content. The so called pure consciousness, the clean mirror is an old myth and is used til today as a metaphor for consciousness but that metaphor is absolute nonsense. It is wrong. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 consciousness just is. energy manifesting. its impersonal and has no direction, a game of creation and destruction. also what apparently comes from eckhart tolle is amazingly brilliant, dianaWerner Woehr <wwoehr wrote: Nisargadatta , "tom" <jeusisbuen wrote:>> Nisargadatta , "Bob" <rgcbob@> wrote:> >> "Consciousness is memory" is totally incorrect.> >> >> Yes, you are right. Consciousness is not memory--but human > consciousness is direly infested with memory to the point that it is > not hard to understand why someone might make such a statement. Z>No, no, Tom,You definitely have heard before of short term memory an I too already had metioned it to you. But it seems that you have not got what I explained to you because I am not good in explaining.But try to undersstand in the case of STM that it is a kind of memory which at the same time also is conscious. People who's brain got demanged where the STM is located have totally lost consciousness.Consciousness is memory. There is no single case known of any person who's STM was demaged and the person still was conscious.Consciousness is its content. No content, no consciousness. There is no consciousness without a content. The so called pure consciousness, the clean mirror is an old myth and is used til today as a metaphor for consciousness but that metaphor is absolute nonsense. It is wrong.Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Nisargadatta , diana shellam <diana.shellam wrote: > > consciousness just is. energy manifesting. its impersonal and has no direction, a game of creation and destruction. also what apparently comes from eckhart tolle is amazingly brilliant, diana Namaste, Eckart Tolle is money maker and vendor of reworked philosophy that's all. The silly bugger wrote this month that the ego began about 6000 years ago........just another charlatan..........Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , diana shellam <diana.shellam@> > wrote: > > > > consciousness just is. energy manifesting. its impersonal and has no > direction, a game of creation and destruction. also what apparently > comes from eckhart tolle is amazingly brilliant, diana > > Namaste, > > Eckart Tolle is money maker and vendor of reworked philosophy that's > all. The silly bugger wrote this month that the ego began about 6000 > years ago........just another charlatan..........> Namaste, Sounds like his drinking,of Judeo Christian tradition, has made him drunk then. Anyone who can infer no ego before 6000 BC and write that down in his teachings is on a different planet. So those in the ancient world had no egos, no egos in the Ramayana period, or any other period before 6000 BC. What is says about Tolle is that he doesn't really understand what an ego is, he thinks it is the ego of common parlance only. I agree he does good work with his books in informing people of something other than what they think. It is just that I have always wondered about him and his inferences to being enlightened that's all. Same old same old...........Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , diana shellam <diana.shellam@> > wrote: > > > > consciousness just is. energy manifesting. its impersonal and has no > direction, a game of creation and destruction. also what apparently > comes from eckhart tolle is amazingly brilliant, diana > > Namaste, > > Eckart Tolle is money maker and vendor of reworked philosophy that's > all. The silly bugger wrote this month that the ego began about 6000 > years ago........just another charlatan..........> This notion appears to have originated in the Sept Common Ground, at http://commonground.ca/iss/0709194/cg194_tolle.shtml The relevant paragraph is: " There's some evidence that the ego started about 6,000 years ago, but nobody can say for sure. Before that, humans were in a state of innocence. When we go beyond the dysfunction of the ego, we regain our original innocence, but on a much deeper level. This is why Jesus said unless we Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 > > No, no, Tom, > > You definitely have heard before of short term memory an I too already > had metioned it to you. But it seems that you have not got what I > explained to you because I am not good in explaining. > > But try to undersstand in the case of STM that it is a kind of memory > which at the same time also is conscious. People who's brain got > demanged where the STM is located have totally lost consciousness. > > Consciousness is memory. There is no single case known of any person > who's STM was demaged and the person still was conscious. > > Consciousness is its content. No content, no consciousness. There is no > consciousness without a content. The so called pure consciousness, the > clean mirror is an old myth and is used til today as a metaphor for > consciousness but that metaphor is absolute nonsense. It is wrong. > > Werner > Werner: Nisargadatta distinguished between consciousness and what is called pure awareness. Consciousness is awareness that has content. It arises with content--as I understand it--and when there is no content then consciousness falls away and what is left is pure being- -and that does not depend on STM or any other thing. You seem to have great faith is these ideas that are floating in awareness, these stories asbfout short term memory and long term and all the rest. They are thee because awareness is there before them. Or so it seems to me. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Nisargadatta , diana shellam <diana.shellam wrote: > > consciousness just is. energy manifesting. its impersonal and has no direction, a game of creation and destruction. also what apparently comes from eckhart tolle is amazingly brilliant, diana Yes, consciousness is being and being is wonderfully fine stuff, much finer than the stuff of memory. To call memory being is like calling a net made of hausers a spider's web--a poor simile but the best I can do in a hurry. You are right, consciousness is so different , it is positively weird.It is not stuff at all. Memeory is. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 > > Sounds like his drinking,of Judeo Christian tradition, has made him > drunk then. > Anyone who can infer no ego before 6000 BC and write that down in his > teachings is on a different planet. > So those in the ancient world had no egos, no egos in the Ramayana > period, or any other period before 6000 BC. What is says about Tolle > is that he doesn't really understand what an ego is, he thinks it is > the ego of common parlance only. > I agree he does good work with his books in informing people of > something other than what they think. It is just that I have always > wondered about him and his inferences to being enlightened that's all. > > Same old same old...........> Maybe he just doesn't know history very well. Seems to me he has a pretty good idea of what ego is. A bunch of memories. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > > No, no, Tom, > > > > You definitely have heard before of short term memory an I too > already > > had metioned it to you. But it seems that you have not got what I > > explained to you because I am not good in explaining. > > > > But try to undersstand in the case of STM that it is a kind of > memory > > which at the same time also is conscious. People who's brain got > > demanged where the STM is located have totally lost consciousness. > > > > Consciousness is memory. There is no single case known of any > person > > who's STM was demaged and the person still was conscious. > > > > Consciousness is its content. No content, no consciousness. There > is no > > consciousness without a content. The so called pure consciousness, > the > > clean mirror is an old myth and is used til today as a metaphor > for > > consciousness but that metaphor is absolute nonsense. It is wrong. > > > > Werner > > > Werner: Nisargadatta distinguished between consciousness and what is > called pure awareness. Consciousness is awareness that has content. > It arises with content--as I understand it--and when there is no > content then consciousness falls away and what is left is pure being- > -and that does not depend on STM or any other thing. You seem to > have great faith is these ideas that are floating in awareness, > these stories asbfout short term memory and long term and all the > rest. They are thee because awareness is there before them. Or so it > seems to me. Z > Yes, Tom, I know what Niz had said and now I know you know it too. But I am telling you what neurology has investigated and the reason that you don't like it is because it is no that romantic and promising as Niz's words. I am wondering if your capacity is really that limited to hold different views about consciousness and pondering them ? Does those insights science has about consciousness pull away the carpet of romance with spiritual dreams under your feet or what is it that you are afraid of ? Or is your mind just to lazy to learn some more which even seems contradictory ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Hi Werner, if we say " consciousness is memory " , do we also have to conclude: there is no such event like " the present moment " ? Stefan Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: >Consciousness is memory. There is no single case known of any >person who's STM was demaged and the person still was conscious. 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.