Guest guest Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 The quantum mechanic teach that everything depends on a observer.Ramana Maharshi spoke that perception is priort o creation in his Drishti-Srishti vada theory.George Berkerley told something similar.John Levy [Atmananda diciple] wrote something similar too in his book " the nature of man according Vedanta " .Sankara for other part denied that the objects were projections of the perception of the jiva.My points is: If this Drishti-Srishti-vada theory have some validity then that mean for example that when I left a plant in my backyard and there is nobody observing it ,there is no growing because the plant cease to exist? That is not my experience after returning to my backyard 2 week latter and see the growing plant. Someone can answer, God o Conciousness observe the plant and keep it existing and growing,but how we reconcile this with the statement made by Nisargadatta Maharaj that without a body/mind instrument Conciousness can't know any object.The conclusion might be that objects exist by itself without the need for an observer, if we follow Shankara statement, or we we can conclude that the object not exists without an observer, but in the last conclussion how we explain change in the object between the time lapsus that there is not an observer present? How we explain diggestion or other internal process that we are not aware of? Atagrasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Nisargadatta , " atagrasin " <k1c2 wrote: > > but how we reconcile this with the statement > made by Nisargadatta Maharaj that without a body/mind instrument > Conciousness can't know any object.The conclusion might be that > objects exist by itself without the need for an observer, if we > follow Shankara statement, or we we can conclude that the object not > exists without an observer, but in the last conclussion how we > explain change in the object between the time lapsus that there is > not an observer present? How we explain diggestion or other internal > process that we are not aware of? > Atagrasin > I think what Nis was getting at with the statement that without a bodymind there is no knowledge of an object is this:You can only know an object while it is a content of you conscousness. When you see the tree then you know it. When it is gone, then all you know is memory. Nothing else at all. You don't know if the tree is growing or has been cut down.Anything you " know " about it when it is out of sight and out of touch and taste and smell and hearing is imaginary.In fact most of what you know about it when it is in your face is imaginary also but that is another question. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " atagrasin " <k1c2@> wrote: > > > > but how we reconcile this with the statement > > made by Nisargadatta Maharaj that without a body/mind instrument > > Conciousness can't know any object.The conclusion might be that > > objects exist by itself without the need for an observer, if we > > follow Shankara statement, or we we can conclude that the object > not > > exists without an observer, but in the last conclussion how we > > explain change in the object between the time lapsus that there is > > not an observer present? How we explain diggestion or other > internal > > process that we are not aware of? > > Atagrasin > > > I think what Nis was getting at with the statement that without a > bodymind there is no knowledge of an object is this:You can only > know an object while it is a content of you conscousness. When you > see the tree then you know it. When it is gone, then all you know is > memory. Nothing else at all. You don't know if the tree is growing > or has been cut down.Anything you " know " about it when it is out of > sight and out of touch and taste and smell and hearing is > imaginary.In fact most of what you know about it when it is in your > face is imaginary also but that is another question. Z once more with feeling.. Aphorisms by Franklin Merrell Wolff: APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT AN OBJECT I. Consciousness-without-an-object is. 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, Consciousness-without-an-object is. 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object is the power of awareness that projects objects. 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, consciousness of absence of objects arises. 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the same. 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is born. 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between Time and Timelessness. 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the world-containing Space. 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then knowledge of the Spatial Void is born. 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the Universe of Objects. 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic Consciousness. 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. 24. All objects exist as tensions within Consciousness-without-an-object that tend ever to flow into their own complements or others. 25. The ultimate effect of the flow of all objects into their complements is mutual cancellation in complete Equilibrium. 26. Consciousness of the field of tensions is the Universe. 27. Consciousness of Equilibrium is Nirvana. 28. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither tension nor Equilibrium. 29. The state of tensions is the state of ever-becoming. 30. Ever-becoming is endless-dying. 31. So the state of consciousness of objects is a state of ever-renewing promises that pass into death at the moment of fulfillment. 32. Thus when consciousness is attached to objects the agony of birth and death never ceases. 33. In the state of Equilibrium where birth cancels death the deathless Bliss of Nirvana is realized. 34. But Consciousness-without-an object is neither agony nor bliss. 35. Out of the Great Void, which is Consciousness-without-an-object, the Universe is creatively projected. 36. The Universe as experienced is the created negation that ever resists. 37. The creative act is bliss, the resistance, unending pain. 38. Endless resistance is the Universe of experience; the agony of crucifixion. 39. Ceaseless creativeness is Nirvana, the Bliss beyond human conceiving. 40. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither creativeness nor resistance. 41. Ever-becoming and ever-ceasing-to-be are endless action. 42. When ever-becoming cancels the ever-ceasing-to-be then Rest is realized. 43. Ceaseless action is the Universe. 44. Unending Rest is Nirvana. 45. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither Action nor Rest. 46. When consciousness is attached to objects it is restricted through the forms imposed by the world-containing Space, by Time, and by Law. 47. When consciousness is disengaged from objects, Liberation from the forms of the world-containing Space, of Time, and of Law is attained. 48. Attachment to objects is consciousness bound within the Universe. 49. Liberation from such attachment is the State of unlimited Nirvanic Freedom. 50. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither bondage nor freedom. 51. Consciousness-without-an-object may be symbolized by a SPACE that is unaffected by the presence or absence of objects, for which there is neither Time nor Timelessness; neither a world-containing Space nor a Spatial Void, neither Tension nor Equilibrium; neither Resistance nor Creativeness; neither Agony nor Bliss; neither Action nor Rest; and neither Restriction nor Freedom. 52. As the GREAT SPACE is not to be identified with the Universe, so neither is It to be identified with any Self. 53. The GREAT SPACE is not God, but the comprehender of all Gods, as well as of all lesser creatures. 54. The GREAT SPACE, or Consciousness-without-an-object, is the Sole Reality upon which all objects and all selves depend and derive their existence. 55. The GREAT SPACE comprehends both the Path of the Universe and the Path of Nirvana. 56. Beside the GREAT SPACE there is none other. OM TAT SAT a fan, ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " atagrasin " <k1c2 wrote: > > The quantum mechanic teach that everything depends on a > observer.Ramana Maharshi spoke that perception is priort o creation > in his Drishti-Srishti vada theory.George Berkerley told something > similar.John Levy [Atmananda diciple] wrote something similar too in > his book " the nature of man according Vedanta " .Sankara for other > part denied that the objects were projections of the perception of > the jiva.My points is: If this Drishti-Srishti-vada theory have some > validity then that mean for example that when I left a plant in my > backyard and there is nobody observing it ,there is no growing > because the plant cease to exist? That is not my experience after > returning to my backyard 2 week latter and see the growing plant. > Someone can answer, God o Conciousness observe the plant and keep it > existing and growing,but how we reconcile this with the statement > made by Nisargadatta Maharaj that without a body/mind instrument > Conciousness can't know any object.The conclusion might be that > objects exist by itself without the need for an observer, if we > follow Shankara statement, or we we can conclude that the object not > exists without an observer, but in the last conclussion how we > explain change in the object between the time lapsus that there is > not an observer present? How we explain diggestion or other internal > process that we are not aware of? > Atagrasin observer is related to the observed..... like a bird is related to the sky....flying through.... nothing is ever created by any observer..... except the idea/fiction of an " observer " creating something.... and yes, so.... " objects " exist by itself without the need for an " observer " .....the idea of " observer " Itself*....is an object......like all other appearing objects Marc * few great examples in here.....of nice dreaming " observers " .... living in a box.....and Thinking...... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " atagrasin " <k1c2@> wrote: > > > > > > but how we reconcile this with the statement > > > made by Nisargadatta Maharaj that without a body/mind instrument > > > Conciousness can't know any object.The conclusion might be that > > > objects exist by itself without the need for an observer, if we > > > follow Shankara statement, or we we can conclude that the object > > not > > > exists without an observer, but in the last conclussion how we > > > explain change in the object between the time lapsus that there is > > > not an observer present? How we explain diggestion or other > > internal > > > process that we are not aware of? > > > Atagrasin > > > > > I think what Nis was getting at with the statement that without a > > bodymind there is no knowledge of an object is this:You can only > > know an object while it is a content of you conscousness. When you > > see the tree then you know it. When it is gone, then all you know is > > memory. Nothing else at all. You don't know if the tree is growing > > or has been cut down.Anything you " know " about it when it is out of > > sight and out of touch and taste and smell and hearing is > > imaginary.In fact most of what you know about it when it is in your > > face is imaginary also but that is another question. Z > > > once more with feeling.. > > Aphorisms by Franklin Merrell Wolff: > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT AN OBJECT > > I. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > 4. When objects vanish, > yet remaining through all unaffected, > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > 6. Within the bosom of > Consciousness-without-an-object is > the power of awareness that projects objects. > > 7. When objects are projected, > the power of awareness as subject is presupposed, > yet Consciousness-without-an-object > remains unchanged. > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object > lie both the Universe and Nirvana, > yet to Consciousness-without-an-object > these two are the same. > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is born. > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of > the Universe, and to be aware of the Universe > is to be aware of Time. > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > between Time and Timelessness. > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > world-containing Space. > > 18. When awareness cognizes the > world-containing Space then knowledge of > the Spatial Void is born. > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the > Universe of Objects. > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic Consciousness. > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object > there is no difference between the world-containing > Space and the Spatial Void. > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born > the Law is invoked as a Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > 24. All objects exist as tensions within > Consciousness-without-an-object that tend ever > to flow into their own complements or others. > > 25. The ultimate effect of the flow of all objects > into their complements is mutual cancellation > in complete Equilibrium. > > 26. Consciousness of the field of tensions is the Universe. > > 27. Consciousness of Equilibrium is Nirvana. > > 28. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither tension > nor Equilibrium. > > 29. The state of tensions is the state of ever-becoming. > > 30. Ever-becoming is endless-dying. > > 31. So the state of consciousness of objects > is a state of ever-renewing promises that pass into death at the > moment of fulfillment. > > 32. Thus when consciousness is attached to objects the agony of birth > and death never ceases. > > 33. In the state of Equilibrium > where birth cancels death the deathless Bliss of Nirvana is realized. > > 34. But Consciousness-without-an object is neither agony nor bliss. > > 35. Out of the Great Void, > which is Consciousness-without-an-object, > the Universe is creatively projected. > > 36. The Universe as experienced is the created negation that ever resists. > > 37. The creative act is bliss, the resistance, unending pain. > > 38. Endless resistance is the Universe of experience; the agony of > crucifixion. > > 39. Ceaseless creativeness is Nirvana, the Bliss beyond human conceiving. > > 40. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither > creativeness nor resistance. > > 41. Ever-becoming and ever-ceasing-to-be are endless action. > > 42. When ever-becoming cancels the ever-ceasing-to-be then Rest is > realized. > > 43. Ceaseless action is the Universe. > > 44. Unending Rest is Nirvana. > > 45. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither Action nor Rest. > > 46. When consciousness is attached to objects > it is restricted through the forms imposed by the world- containing > Space, by Time, and by Law. > > 47. When consciousness is disengaged from > objects, Liberation from the forms of the > world-containing Space, of Time, and of Law > is attained. > > 48. Attachment to objects is consciousness bound within the Universe. > > 49. Liberation from such attachment is the State of unlimited Nirvanic > Freedom. > > 50. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither bondage nor freedom. > > 51. Consciousness-without-an-object > may be symbolized by a SPACE that is > unaffected by the presence or absence of objects, > for which there is neither Time nor Timelessness; > neither a world-containing Space nor a Spatial Void, > neither Tension nor Equilibrium; > neither Resistance nor Creativeness; > neither Agony nor Bliss; neither Action nor Rest; > and neither Restriction nor Freedom. > > 52. As the GREAT SPACE is not to be > identified with the Universe, so neither is It to be identified > with any Self. > > 53. The GREAT SPACE is not God, > but the comprehender of all Gods, > as well as of all lesser creatures. > > 54. The GREAT SPACE, or Consciousness-without-an-object, is the > Sole Reality upon which all objects and all selves depend and > derive their existence. > > 55. The GREAT SPACE comprehends both the Path of the Universe and the > Path of Nirvana. > > 56. Beside the GREAT SPACE there is none other. > > OM TAT SAT > > a fan, > > .b b.b. > ......yes " Consciousness-without-an-object " thats It Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " atagrasin " <k1c2@> wrote: > > > > The quantum mechanic teach that everything depends on a > > observer.Ramana Maharshi spoke that perception is priort o creation > > in his Drishti-Srishti vada theory.George Berkerley told something > > similar.John Levy [Atmananda diciple] wrote something similar too in > > his book " the nature of man according Vedanta " .Sankara for other > > part denied that the objects were projections of the perception of > > the jiva.My points is: If this Drishti-Srishti-vada theory have some > > validity then that mean for example that when I left a plant in my > > backyard and there is nobody observing it ,there is no growing > > because the plant cease to exist? That is not my experience after > > returning to my backyard 2 week latter and see the growing plant. > > Someone can answer, God o Conciousness observe the plant and keep it > > existing and growing,but how we reconcile this with the statement > > made by Nisargadatta Maharaj that without a body/mind instrument > > Conciousness can't know any object.The conclusion might be that > > objects exist by itself without the need for an observer, if we > > follow Shankara statement, or we we can conclude that the object not > > exists without an observer, but in the last conclussion how we > > explain change in the object between the time lapsus that there is > > not an observer present? How we explain diggestion or other internal > > process that we are not aware of? > > Atagrasin > > > observer is related to the observed..... > like a bird is related to the sky....flying through.... > Not quite, Marc, The observerver IS the observed. Which means there is no observer at all. > nothing is ever created by any observer..... > except the idea/fiction of an " observer " creating something.... > > and yes, so.... " objects " exist by itself without the need for > an " observer " Not quite, Marc, Only when an object becomes the content of consciousness you will know of its existence. Therefore taking it in a very strict way then without consciousness there are no objects, no world, no universe, there are no people telling that consciousness also IS when there are no objects, which is this ancient metaphor of pure consciouness, of a mirror which stays clean and unpolluted of all which is reflecting in it. But consciousness is not a mirror. Consciousness is its content - no content no consciousness. > > ....the idea of " observer " Itself*....is an object......like all > other appearing objects No, no, Marc. The observer is not an object. An observer simply does not exist. The illusion of an obsever is created by thought saying " I obseve this, I observe that " . It is thought which claims to be the observer. But thought doesn't observe anything. Thought only is naming and categorizing the contents of consciousness. Werner > > > Marc > > > * few great examples in here.....of nice dreaming " observers " .... > living in a box.....and Thinking...... > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Dear Atagrasin, you are asking a very good question. Let me give it a try. " Growing " involves both change and the concept of continuity. Nisargadatta says that there cannot be change unless there is a changeless background. This background is the real, change is unreal. But why? When you look at the plant after it has grown up, how do you know that it has grown? Only through memory. But, how real is memory? It is flux, imagination, conceptual, unreliable. The idea of memory itself is memory! Only that which never changes is called " real " in Nisargadattas terminology. This is an insight with quite harsh consequences, especially when it is realized that literally all perception is memory (and therefor changing, unreal). The perceiver, the personality itself is memory. It comes down the unreality of time (and with it: space). Below is an excerpt from Nisargadatta Maharaj. " Your being a person is due to the illusion of space and time; you imagine yourself to be at a certain point occupying a certain volume; your personality is due to your self-identification with the body. Your thoughts and feelings exist in succession, they have their span in time and make you imagine yourself, because of memory, as having duration. In reality time and space exist in you; you do not exist in them. They are modes of perception, but they are not the only ones. Time and space are like words written on paper; the paper is real, the words merely a convention. " Greetings Stefan Nisargadatta , " atagrasin " <k1c2 wrote: >That is not my experience after >returning to my backyard 2 week latter and see the growing plant. >Someone can answer, God o Conciousness observe the plant and keep it >existing and growing,but how we reconcile this with the statement >made by Nisargadatta Maharaj that without a body/mind instrument >Conciousness can't know any object.The conclusion might be that >objects exist by itself without the need for an observer, if we >follow Shankara statement, or we we can conclude that the object not >exists without an observer, but in the last conclussion how we >explain change in the object between the time lapsus that there is >not an observer present? How we explain diggestion or other internal >process that we are not aware of? >Atagrasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " atagrasin " <k1c2@> wrote: > > > > > > The quantum mechanic teach that everything depends on a > > > observer.Ramana Maharshi spoke that perception is priort o > creation > > > in his Drishti-Srishti vada theory.George Berkerley told something > > > similar.John Levy [Atmananda diciple] wrote something similar too > in > > > his book " the nature of man according Vedanta " .Sankara for other > > > part denied that the objects were projections of the perception of > > > the jiva.My points is: If this Drishti-Srishti-vada theory have > some > > > validity then that mean for example that when I left a plant in my > > > backyard and there is nobody observing it ,there is no growing > > > because the plant cease to exist? That is not my experience after > > > returning to my backyard 2 week latter and see the growing plant. > > > Someone can answer, God o Conciousness observe the plant and keep > it > > > existing and growing,but how we reconcile this with the statement > > > made by Nisargadatta Maharaj that without a body/mind instrument > > > Conciousness can't know any object.The conclusion might be that > > > objects exist by itself without the need for an observer, if we > > > follow Shankara statement, or we we can conclude that the object > not > > > exists without an observer, but in the last conclussion how we > > > explain change in the object between the time lapsus that there is > > > not an observer present? How we explain diggestion or other > internal > > > process that we are not aware of? > > > Atagrasin > > > > > > observer is related to the observed..... > > like a bird is related to the sky....flying through.... > > > > > Not quite, Marc, > > The observerver IS the observed. Which means there is no observer at > all. -yes....if you like....why not no problem with this... > > > > nothing is ever created by any observer..... > > except the idea/fiction of an " observer " creating something.... > > > > and yes, so.... " objects " exist by itself without the need for > > an " observer " > > > Not quite, Marc, > > Only when an object becomes the content of consciousness you will > know of its existence. Therefore taking it in a very strict way then > without consciousness there are no objects, no world, no universe, > there are no people telling that consciousness also IS when there are > no objects, which is this ancient metaphor of pure consciouness, of a > mirror which stays clean and unpolluted of all which is reflecting in > it. > > But consciousness is not a mirror. Consciousness is its content - no > content no consciousness. -didn't talk about consciousness it's clear that consciousness is necessary......to talk about objects, observer, observed.....etc.... still this different point of view.....concerning consciousness consciousness don't need any content to stay being consciousness you tend to relate consciousness Always with a content.... take the example of a car..... would be somewhat strange to " see " a car...Only in move but yes, true.....you need the car in order to reach the destination awareness give the opportunity to " see " , that one Is already ....wherever one could get...... consciousness in move....create a content..... a content which ....come and go.....so, not stable > > > > > > ....the idea of " observer " Itself*....is an object......like all > > other appearing objects > > > No, no, Marc. > > The observer is not an object. An observer simply does not exist. The > illusion of an obsever is created by thought saying " I obseve this, I > observe that " . It is thought which claims to be the observer. But > thought doesn't observe anything. Thought only is naming and > categorizing the contents of consciousness. > > Werner -yes, the observer simply does't exist....just like the object.... both only exist through a working mind (moving consciousness) observer and object don't make any difference to each....for real > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > * few great examples in here.....of nice dreaming " observers " .... > > living in a box.....and Thinking...... > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > > observer is related to the observed..... > > > like a bird is related to the sky....flying through.... > > > > > > > > > Not quite, Marc, > > > > The observerver IS the observed. Which means there is no observer > at > > all. > > > -yes....if you like....why not > no problem with this... > > > > > > > > > nothing is ever created by any observer..... > > > except the idea/fiction of an " observer " creating something.... > > > > > > and yes, so.... " objects " exist by itself without the need for > > > an " observer " > > > > > > Not quite, Marc, > > > > Only when an object becomes the content of consciousness you will > > know of its existence. Therefore taking it in a very strict way > then > > without consciousness there are no objects, no world, no universe, > > there are no people telling that consciousness also IS when there > are > > no objects, which is this ancient metaphor of pure consciouness, of > a > > mirror which stays clean and unpolluted of all which is reflecting > in > > it. > > > > But consciousness is not a mirror. Consciousness is its content - > no > > content no consciousness. > > > -didn't talk about consciousness > it's clear that consciousness is necessary......to talk about > objects, observer, observed.....etc.... > > still this different point of view.....concerning consciousness > > consciousness don't need any content to stay being consciousness > > you tend to relate consciousness Always with a content.... > > Marc, First of all there is no stand-alone consciousness. And second, consciousness is in no way related to a content, consciousness IS the content, no content no consciousness ! In short, such a thing as consciousness does not exist. There are only contents which appear, getting conscious, ad disappear again. Similar like a sparkles glow up and disappear again. I am well conscious of this belief in a pure consciousness which eternally existed and never will leave. It is told to be the creator, God, the source out of which everything springs and in which everything will disappear again. Because today we live in a world where neuroscience and quantum mechanics have delivered tremendous findings and discoveries that we slowly by slowly should say good bye to magiccians, elfs, fairy tales and to all those thousands of different gods and saviours of the past. Consciousness itself does not exist, it never did, and it never will. There are only parts of the brain where memory neurons are firering and sparkling: An effect which ancient times have called consciousness. Werner > take the example of a car..... > would be somewhat strange to " see " a car...Only in move > > but yes, true.....you need the car in order to reach the destination > > awareness give the opportunity to " see " , that one Is > already ....wherever one could get...... > > consciousness in move....create a content..... > a content which ....come and go.....so, not stable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....the idea of " observer " Itself*....is an object......like all > > > other appearing objects > > > > > > No, no, Marc. > > > > The observer is not an object. An observer simply does not exist. > The > > illusion of an obsever is created by thought saying " I obseve this, > I > > observe that " . It is thought which claims to be the observer. But > > thought doesn't observe anything. Thought only is naming and > > categorizing the contents of consciousness. > > > > Werner > > -yes, the observer simply does't exist....just like the object.... > > both only exist through a working mind (moving consciousness) > > observer and object don't make any difference to each....for real > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > * few great examples in here.....of nice dreaming " observers " .... > > > living in a box.....and Thinking...... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > No, no, Marc. > > The observer is not an object. An observer simply does not exist. The > illusion of an obsever is created by thought saying " I obseve this, I > observe that " . It is thought which claims to be the observer. But > thought doesn't observe anything. Thought only is naming and > categorizing the contents of consciousness. > > Werner well i thought so. i see you think so too. Who could not think that? what a thought eh. no one (who is not, of course) not having that same thought...unthinkable!. everyone thinks that thought, or IS thought of or by that very thought (which of course is the very thing that is not)....in a way of thinking that is. this makes tons of sense. but actually that sense is just a thought....which is only a name of the thoughts that are going on. and furthermore and in addition and let me also say plus...it all happens milleseconds from the time it actually is. so it happens before it happens..you know that. that which is this that we are thinking about now. just moments after 'it' really happened, at least that's the thought you have been expressing. but that doesn't matter because that thought is just and only about the contents of that thought and is not really a 'thought in the terms one thinks about a thought. good show old bean. you are so illusionary. well now you've got it! what are you thinking?????????????? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > First of all there is no stand-alone consciousness. And second, > consciousness is in no way related to a content, consciousness IS the > content, no content no consciousness ! so 'you' are conscious of this. how lovely. well ok.. if 'no stand-alone consciousness' is on first.. and 'consciosness is in no way related to conciousness' is on second.. who's on third and who's pitching? i think that 'who's' on third and 'i don't know' is pitching but i don't really know. not that i'm conscious of anyway. what's the story you are trying to pitch? > In short, such a thing as consciousness does not exist. can't hear you. you're seemingly unconscious. There are > only contents which appear, getting conscious, ad disappear again. > Similar like a sparkles glow up and disappear again. i know sparkles. sparkles is a friend of mine. and you're no sparkles guy. but you can disappear anytime you consciously want to w. > I am well conscious of this belief in a pure consciousness which > eternally existed and never will leave. It is told to be the creator, > God, the source out of which everything springs and in which > everything will disappear again. oh who told you that nonsense? how can 'you' be very conscious of this. you're just a content of that consciousness. you can't possibly be conscious of that which is the container of the thought which you are. you lie. > Because today we live in a world where neuroscience and quantum > mechanics have delivered tremendous findings and discoveries that we > slowly by slowly should say good bye to magiccians, elfs, fairy tales > and to all those thousands of different gods and saviours of the >past. well of course this is just happening today. in the world we live in today. like those appearing and disappearing thingies, it just popped up and wasn't there before. who is this 'we' who 'live' in what world? who is there here to say goodbye to all those myths? can they consciously do that in some unconscious but thoughtful way even though thoughts are just about what they are about and not real? you're a whiz kid w. what makes neuroscience (ha ha..there's that silly word) and quantum mechanics real? and how can those contents of thought 'discover' anything more fundamental than themselves? you have strange gods. but you have strong faith. i watch you bow to that pseudoscience. do you pray to it to? > Consciousness itself does not exist, it never did, and it never will. > There are only parts of the brain where memory neurons are firering > and sparkling: An effect which ancient times have called > consciousness. > > Werner what nutzoid crap you believe in! .b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > observer is related to the observed..... > > > > like a bird is related to the sky....flying through.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not quite, Marc, > > > > > > The observerver IS the observed. Which means there is no observer > > at > > > all. > > > > > > -yes....if you like....why not > > no problem with this... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing is ever created by any observer..... > > > > except the idea/fiction of an " observer " creating something.... > > > > > > > > and yes, so.... " objects " exist by itself without the need for > > > > an " observer " > > > > > > > > > Not quite, Marc, > > > > > > Only when an object becomes the content of consciousness you will > > > know of its existence. Therefore taking it in a very strict way > > then > > > without consciousness there are no objects, no world, no > universe, > > > there are no people telling that consciousness also IS when there > > are > > > no objects, which is this ancient metaphor of pure consciouness, > of > > a > > > mirror which stays clean and unpolluted of all which is > reflecting > > in > > > it. > > > > > > But consciousness is not a mirror. Consciousness is its content - > > no > > > content no consciousness. > > > > > > -didn't talk about consciousness > > it's clear that consciousness is necessary......to talk about > > objects, observer, observed.....etc.... > > > > still this different point of view.....concerning consciousness > > > > consciousness don't need any content to stay being consciousness > > > > you tend to relate consciousness Always with a content.... > > > > > > > Marc, > > First of all there is no stand-alone consciousness. And second, > consciousness is in no way related to a content, consciousness IS the > content, no content no consciousness ! > > In short, such a thing as consciousness does not exist. There are > only contents which appear, getting conscious, ad disappear again. > Similar like a sparkles glow up and disappear again. > > I am well conscious of this belief in a pure consciousness which > eternally existed and never will leave. It is told to be the creator, > God, the source out of which everything springs and in which > everything will disappear again. > > Because today we live in a world where neuroscience and quantum > mechanics have delivered tremendous findings and discoveries that we > slowly by slowly should say good bye to magiccians, elfs, fairy tales > and to all those thousands of different gods and saviours of the past. > > Consciousness itself does not exist, it never did, and it never will. > There are only parts of the brain where memory neurons are firering > and sparkling: An effect which ancient times have called > consciousness. > > Werner fantastic thoughts Werner.... maybe in the future....when " you " are out of memory so........ " you " will wake up..... let's hope so that at least science bring " you " there..... Marc > > > > take the example of a car..... > > would be somewhat strange to " see " a car...Only in move > > > > but yes, true.....you need the car in order to reach the destination > > > > awareness give the opportunity to " see " , that one Is > > already ....wherever one could get...... > > > > consciousness in move....create a content..... > > a content which ....come and go.....so, not stable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....the idea of " observer " Itself*....is an object......like > all > > > > other appearing objects > > > > > > > > > No, no, Marc. > > > > > > The observer is not an object. An observer simply does not exist. > > The > > > illusion of an obsever is created by thought saying " I obseve > this, > > I > > > observe that " . It is thought which claims to be the observer. But > > > thought doesn't observe anything. Thought only is naming and > > > categorizing the contents of consciousness. > > > > > > Werner > > > > -yes, the observer simply does't exist....just like the object.... > > > > both only exist through a working mind (moving consciousness) > > > > observer and object don't make any difference to each....for real > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > * few great examples in here.....of nice > dreaming " observers " .... > > > > living in a box.....and Thinking...... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Werner, this applies to any generic term, doesn't it. And there will be always enough magicians When they only chant that term often enough They believe it manifests as a magic object Stefan Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: >Consciousness itself does not exist, it never did, and it never will. >There are only parts of the brain where memory neurons are firering >and sparkling: An effect which ancient times have called >consciousness. > >Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Werner, > > this applies to any generic term, doesn't it. > And there will be always enough magicians > When they only chant that term often enough > They believe it manifests as a magic object > > Stefan > Ok, ok, MagicSteve, There are exceptions. Herewith I declare to everyone reading these lines: Please do not say good-bye to MagicSteve and nis magic music and beware - do not say good-bye to the magic moments of life, to the magic of the scent of a flower, to the smile of a child or to the magic of clouds and mountains and rivers. Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > >Consciousness itself does not exist, it never did, and it never will. > >There are only parts of the brain where memory neurons are firering > >and sparkling: An effect which ancient times have called > >consciousness. > > > >Werner > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Ahh, a whole new world is opening up! And I had almost forgotten about the special magic of talking to Werner... ;-) Stefan Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: >Ok, ok, MagicSteve, > >There are exceptions. Herewith I declare to everyone reading these >lines: > >Please do not say good-bye to MagicSteve and nis magic music and >beware - do not say good-bye to the magic moments of life, to the >magic of the scent of a flower, to the smile of a child or to the >magic of clouds and mountains and rivers. > >Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Hi Stefan: Maybe my question was not so clear ,let try again 1. Realism (or philosophical materialism): is the view that external objects exist by itself separated and independent of any observation, and will continue to exist even if they are not observed. 2.Subjetive Idealism: is the view that matter does not exist in its own right, that in fact it is a product of perception. So all objects are only mental creations. All models or views of reality are variations of these two basic views. There is no conclusive way to decide between them. There is no experiment that can be performed to decide whether reality is formed by realism or by Idealism. The subjetive idealist preach, " When I see a tree,for example what I really observe is the idea of that tree in my mind. " The point at issue is whether that tree exists independently of the idea of it that is in the observer mind. Subjetive Idealism has a long " tradition " . It was first propounded in Buddhism [Yogacara " mind only " sect] Vijnanavada sect,and in later vedanta Advaita, through several Shankara successors.Shankara himself do not belive in subjetive idealism [the doctrine that experienced objects can be reduced to the perceptive subject ( " To be is to be perceived " or " esse is percipi " – that is, existence occurs through perceptiono or like George Berkeley said " the perception of an object is that object " .But Nisargadatta Maharaj teach something very similar to the Subjetive Idealism ,here a quote: " You know only what is in your consciousness. What you claim exists outside conscious experience is inferred ... You may postulate a world beyond the mind, but it will remain a concept, unproved andunprovable ... The world appears to you so overwhelmingly real because you think of it all the time ... All happens in consciousness.The world is but a succession of experiences ... Your conviction that you are conscious of a world is the world ... Once you realize that the world is your own projection, you are free of it ... The world can be said to appear, but not to be ... Even space and time are imagined. All existence is imaginary ... In reality all is here and now and all is one. Multiplicity and diversity are in the mind only " ... I AM THAT (Chapter 2) My point again is If objects are only projections of an observer or let said it ,Conciousness ,and Conciousness depend on a body/mind as Maharaj teaching assure,then how is that assumed objects that were left unobserved can change,grow,decay,grow old ect....[see my first post about this issue]if has this vedanta o buddhism teachers said " existence = being perceived or being known " ? Atagrasin > Nisargadatta , " atagrasin " <k1c2@> wrote: > >That is not my experience after > >returning to my backyard 2 week latter and see the growing plant. > >Someone can answer, God o Conciousness observe the plant and keep it > >existing and growing,but how we reconcile this with the statement > >made by Nisargadatta Maharaj that without a body/mind instrument > >Conciousness can't know any object.The conclusion might be that > >objects exist by itself without the need for an observer, if we > >follow Shankara statement, or we we can conclude that the object not > >exists without an observer, but in the last conclussion how we > >explain change in the object between the time lapsus that there is > >not an observer present? How we explain diggestion or other internal > >process that we are not aware of? > >Atagrasin > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > once more with feeling.. > > Aphorisms by Franklin Merrell Wolff: *** WITHOUT FEELING... SIMPLY CONCEPTS... F.M.Wolff's aphorisms on consciousness without an object. A bit convoluted but quite titillating if one must identify with concepts. *** > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT AN OBJECT > > I. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > 4. When objects vanish, > yet remaining through all unaffected, > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > 6. Within the bosom of > Consciousness-without-an-object is > the power of awareness that projects objects. > > 7. When objects are projected, > the power of awareness as subject is presupposed, > yet Consciousness-without-an-object > remains unchanged. > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object > lie both the Universe and Nirvana, > yet to Consciousness-without-an-object > these two are the same. > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is born. > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of > the Universe, and to be aware of the Universe > is to be aware of Time. > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > between Time and Timelessness. > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > world-containing Space. > > 18. When awareness cognizes the > world-containing Space then knowledge of > the Spatial Void is born. > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the > Universe of Objects. > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic Consciousness. > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object > there is no difference between the world-containing > Space and the Spatial Void. > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born > the Law is invoked as a Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > 24. All objects exist as tensions within > Consciousness-without-an-object that tend ever > to flow into their own complements or others. > > 25. The ultimate effect of the flow of all objects > into their complements is mutual cancellation > in complete Equilibrium. > > 26. Consciousness of the field of tensions is the Universe. > > 27. Consciousness of Equilibrium is Nirvana. > > 28. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither tension > nor Equilibrium. > > 29. The state of tensions is the state of ever-becoming. > > 30. Ever-becoming is endless-dying. > > 31. So the state of consciousness of objects > is a state of ever-renewing promises that pass into death at the > moment of fulfillment. > > 32. Thus when consciousness is attached to objects the agony of birth > and death never ceases. > > 33. In the state of Equilibrium > where birth cancels death the deathless Bliss of Nirvana is realized. > > 34. But Consciousness-without-an object is neither agony nor bliss. > > 35. Out of the Great Void, > which is Consciousness-without-an-object, > the Universe is creatively projected. > > 36. The Universe as experienced is the created negation that ever resists. > > 37. The creative act is bliss, the resistance, unending pain. > > 38. Endless resistance is the Universe of experience; the agony of > crucifixion. > > 39. Ceaseless creativeness is Nirvana, the Bliss beyond human conceiving. > > 40. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither > creativeness nor resistance. > > 41. Ever-becoming and ever-ceasing-to-be are endless action. > > 42. When ever-becoming cancels the ever-ceasing-to-be then Rest is > realized. > > 43. Ceaseless action is the Universe. > > 44. Unending Rest is Nirvana. > > 45. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither Action nor Rest. > > 46. When consciousness is attached to objects > it is restricted through the forms imposed by the world-containing > Space, by Time, and by Law. > > 47. When consciousness is disengaged from > objects, Liberation from the forms of the > world-containing Space, of Time, and of Law > is attained. > > 48. Attachment to objects is consciousness bound within the Universe. > > 49. Liberation from such attachment is the State of unlimited Nirvanic > Freedom. > > 50. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither bondage nor freedom. > > 51. Consciousness-without-an-object > may be symbolized by a SPACE that is > unaffected by the presence or absence of objects, > for which there is neither Time nor Timelessness; > neither a world-containing Space nor a Spatial Void, > neither Tension nor Equilibrium; > neither Resistance nor Creativeness; > neither Agony nor Bliss; neither Action nor Rest; > and neither Restriction nor Freedom. > > 52. As the GREAT SPACE is not to be > identified with the Universe, so neither is It to be identified > with any Self. > > 53. The GREAT SPACE is not God, > but the comprehender of all Gods, > as well as of all lesser creatures. > > 54. The GREAT SPACE, or Consciousness-without-an-object, is the > Sole Reality upon which all objects and all selves depend and > derive their existence. > > 55. The GREAT SPACE comprehends both the Path of the Universe and the > Path of Nirvana. > > 56. Beside the GREAT SPACE there is none other. > > OM TAT SAT > > a fan, > > .b b.b. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Hi Aragrasin, let me try to elaborate in another way. Event 1. You look at a plant: " plant perceived " Event two. You look at a plant one week later: " plant perceived, it is the same plant, but one inch taller. " Event three. Conclusion that between point one and point two the plant must have been there to grow. All three events are valid inside of the conceptual mind. They all are having the same " reality " : the reality of a consciousness which makes sense through the concept of time/space. This concept puts everything automatically into a time/space raster of duration, change, movement, birth and dead, causality etc... But Nisargadatta points out, that this raster is not presenting the true reality. The true reality is timeless and changeless. The mistake is that we take the conceptual for the real to an extend, that we are completely identified with it. This way we forget our true nature. Insofar I would say Nisargadattas teachings belong to subjective realism. But his approach is very practical, he repeatedly says: once the false is seen as the false the true reality is revealed He suggests to continuously investigate to which extend we take something which is only conceptual for the absolute reality. Did this answer your question? If time/space is not relevant, then the question what happened to the plant in order to grow is also not relevant. Stefan Nisargadatta , " atagrasin " <k1c2 wrote: > > Hi Stefan: > > Maybe my question was not so clear ,let try again > > 1. Realism (or philosophical materialism): > > is the view that external objects exist by itself separated and > independent of any observation, and will continue to exist even if > they are not observed. > > 2.Subjetive Idealism: > > is the view that matter does not exist in its own right, that in > fact it is a product of perception. So all objects are only mental > creations. > > All models or views of reality are variations of these two basic > views. There is no conclusive way to decide between them. There is > no experiment that can be performed to decide whether reality is > formed by realism or by > Idealism. > > The subjetive idealist preach, " When I see a tree,for example what I > really observe is the idea of that tree in my mind. " The point at > issue is whether that tree exists independently of the idea of it > that is in the observer mind. > Subjetive Idealism has a long " tradition " . It was first propounded > in Buddhism [Yogacara " mind only " sect] Vijnanavada sect,and in > later vedanta Advaita, through several Shankara successors.Shankara > himself do not belive in subjetive idealism [the doctrine that > experienced objects can be reduced to the perceptive subject ( " To be > is to be perceived " or " esse is percipi " – that is, existence occurs > through perceptiono or like George Berkeley said " the perception of > an object is that object " .But Nisargadatta Maharaj teach something > very similar to the Subjetive Idealism ,here a quote: > > " You know only what is in your consciousness. What you claim exists > outside conscious experience is inferred ... You may postulate a > world beyond the mind, but it will remain a concept, unproved > andunprovable ... The world appears to you so overwhelmingly real > because you think of it all the time ... All happens in > consciousness.The world is but a succession of experiences ... Your > conviction that you are conscious of a world is the world ... Once > you realize that the world is your own projection, you are free of > it ... The world can be said to appear, but not to be ... Even space > and time are imagined. All existence is imaginary ... In reality all > is here and now and all is one. Multiplicity and diversity are in > the mind only " ... > > I AM THAT (Chapter 2) > > My point again is > > If objects are only projections of an observer or let said > it ,Conciousness ,and Conciousness depend on a body/mind as Maharaj > teaching assure,then how is that assumed objects that were left > unobserved can change,grow,decay,grow old ect....[see my first post > about this issue]if has this vedanta o buddhism teachers > said " existence = being perceived or being known " ? > > Atagrasin > > > > Nisargadatta , " atagrasin " <k1c2@> wrote: > > >That is not my experience after > > >returning to my backyard 2 week latter and see the growing plant. > > >Someone can answer, God o Conciousness observe the plant and keep > it > > >existing and growing,but how we reconcile this with the statement > > >made by Nisargadatta Maharaj that without a body/mind instrument > > >Conciousness can't know any object.The conclusion might be that > > >objects exist by itself without the need for an observer, if we > > >follow Shankara statement, or we we can conclude that the object > not > > >exists without an observer, but in the last conclussion how we > > >explain change in the object between the time lapsus that there is > > >not an observer present? How we explain diggestion or other > internal > > >process that we are not aware of? > > >Atagrasin > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Bob " <rgcbob wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > once more with feeling.. > > > > Aphorisms by Franklin Merrell Wolff: > > *** > WITHOUT FEELING... SIMPLY CONCEPTS... F.M.Wolff's aphorisms on > consciousness without an object. A bit convoluted but quite > titillating if one must identify with concepts. > *** it's evident you identify with that simple feeling. a bit stirring if you identify with somatic sensations. if you grow beyond this childish need.. 'feelings' won't be necessary. concepts too are otiose fluff. didn't you read the below? if you did..you sure as hell didn't understand it. that's ok... you never will. when 'you' get out of the way..ALL is Clear. 'you' have miles to go before you awaken. and 'you' won't be there to enjoy it when 'you' do. joyful feelings will have been left behind in the land of ghosts. ..b bobji baba > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT AN OBJECT > > > > I. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > 4. When objects vanish, > > yet remaining through all unaffected, > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > 6. Within the bosom of > > Consciousness-without-an-object is > > the power of awareness that projects objects. > > > > 7. When objects are projected, > > the power of awareness as subject is presupposed, > > yet Consciousness-without-an-object > > remains unchanged. > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object > > lie both the Universe and Nirvana, > > yet to Consciousness-without-an-object > > these two are the same. > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is born. > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of > > the Universe, and to be aware of the Universe > > is to be aware of Time. > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > between Time and Timelessness. > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > world-containing Space. > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the > > world-containing Space then knowledge of > > the Spatial Void is born. > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the > > Universe of Objects. > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic Consciousness. > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object > > there is no difference between the world-containing > > Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born > > the Law is invoked as a Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > 24. All objects exist as tensions within > > Consciousness-without-an-object that tend ever > > to flow into their own complements or others. > > > > 25. The ultimate effect of the flow of all objects > > into their complements is mutual cancellation > > in complete Equilibrium. > > > > 26. Consciousness of the field of tensions is the Universe. > > > > 27. Consciousness of Equilibrium is Nirvana. > > > > 28. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither tension > > nor Equilibrium. > > > > 29. The state of tensions is the state of ever-becoming. > > > > 30. Ever-becoming is endless-dying. > > > > 31. So the state of consciousness of objects > > is a state of ever-renewing promises that pass into death at the > > moment of fulfillment. > > > > 32. Thus when consciousness is attached to objects the agony of birth > > and death never ceases. > > > > 33. In the state of Equilibrium > > where birth cancels death the deathless Bliss of Nirvana is > realized. > > > > 34. But Consciousness-without-an object is neither agony nor bliss. > > > > 35. Out of the Great Void, > > which is Consciousness-without-an-object, > > the Universe is creatively projected. > > > > 36. The Universe as experienced is the created negation that ever > resists. > > > > 37. The creative act is bliss, the resistance, unending pain. > > > > 38. Endless resistance is the Universe of experience; the agony of > > crucifixion. > > > > 39. Ceaseless creativeness is Nirvana, the Bliss beyond human > conceiving. > > > > 40. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither > > creativeness nor resistance. > > > > 41. Ever-becoming and ever-ceasing-to-be are endless action. > > > > 42. When ever-becoming cancels the ever-ceasing-to-be then Rest is > > realized. > > > > 43. Ceaseless action is the Universe. > > > > 44. Unending Rest is Nirvana. > > > > 45. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither Action nor Rest. > > > > 46. When consciousness is attached to objects > > it is restricted through the forms imposed by the world-containing > > Space, by Time, and by Law. > > > > 47. When consciousness is disengaged from > > objects, Liberation from the forms of the > > world-containing Space, of Time, and of Law > > is attained. > > > > 48. Attachment to objects is consciousness bound within the Universe. > > > > 49. Liberation from such attachment is the State of unlimited Nirvanic > > Freedom. > > > > 50. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither bondage nor freedom. > > > > 51. Consciousness-without-an-object > > may be symbolized by a SPACE that is > > unaffected by the presence or absence of objects, > > for which there is neither Time nor Timelessness; > > neither a world-containing Space nor a Spatial Void, > > neither Tension nor Equilibrium; > > neither Resistance nor Creativeness; > > neither Agony nor Bliss; neither Action nor Rest; > > and neither Restriction nor Freedom. > > > > 52. As the GREAT SPACE is not to be > > identified with the Universe, so neither is It to be identified > > with any Self. > > > > 53. The GREAT SPACE is not God, > > but the comprehender of all Gods, > > as well as of all lesser creatures. > > > > 54. The GREAT SPACE, or Consciousness-without-an-object, is the > > Sole Reality upon which all objects and all selves depend and > > derive their existence. > > > > 55. The GREAT SPACE comprehends both the Path of the Universe and the > > Path of Nirvana. > > > > 56. Beside the GREAT SPACE there is none other. > > > > OM TAT SAT > > > > a fan, > > > > .b b.b. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: >Insofar I would say Nisargadattas teachings belong to subjective >realism. uups... I meant to write subjective " Idealism " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hi Aragrasin, > > let me try to elaborate in another way. > > Event 1. You look at a plant: > " plant perceived " > Event two. You look at a plant one week later: > " plant perceived, it is the same plant, but one inch taller. " > Event three. > Conclusion that between point one and point two the plant must have > been there to grow. > > All three events are valid inside of the conceptual mind. They all are > having the same " reality " : the reality of a consciousness which makes > sense through the concept of time/space. This concept puts everything > automatically into a time/space raster of duration, change, movement, > birth and dead, causality etc... > > But Nisargadatta points out, that this raster is not presenting the > true reality. The true reality is timeless and changeless. The mistake > is that we take the conceptual for the real to an extend, that we are > completely identified with it. This way we forget our true nature. > > Insofar I would say Nisargadattas teachings belong to subjective > realism. But his approach is very practical, he repeatedly says: once > the false is seen as the false the true reality is revealed He > suggests to continuously investigate to which extend we take something > which is only conceptual for the absolute reality. > > Did this answer your question? > > If time/space is not relevant, then the question what happened to the > plant in order to grow is also not relevant. > > Stefan Thanks for your eloquent response,but there is something missing,the context of my question. Let see your example: 1. You look at a plant: " plant perceived " 2. You look at a plant one week later: " plant perceived, it is the same plant, but one inch taller. " your conclusion: 3.between point one and point two the plant must have been there to grow. Ok,this is Shankara Vedanta Advaita founder view but not the Nisargadatta,Berkeley/Quantum mechanic,subjetive idealism view.For them, the plant was not existing [in the lapsus that the plant was not being observed]and for the subjetive idealism proponents like Maharaj is now my question: If the plant not exist between point one and point two [using Stefan example here]because as subjetive idealism teach " esse is percipi " [exist is to being perceived]then how we can explain the one inch later grow? any suggestion? Atagrasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 Nisargadatta , " atagrasin " <k1c2 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > wrote: > > > > Hi Aragrasin, > > > > let me try to elaborate in another way. > > > > Event 1. You look at a plant: > > " plant perceived " > > Event two. You look at a plant one week later: > > " plant perceived, it is the same plant, but one inch taller. " > > Event three. > > Conclusion that between point one and point two the plant must have > > been there to grow. > > > > All three events are valid inside of the conceptual mind. They all > are > > having the same " reality " : the reality of a consciousness which > makes > > sense through the concept of time/space. This concept puts > everything > > automatically into a time/space raster of duration, change, > movement, > > birth and dead, causality etc... > > > > But Nisargadatta points out, that this raster is not presenting the > > true reality. The true reality is timeless and changeless. The > mistake > > is that we take the conceptual for the real to an extend, that we > are > > completely identified with it. This way we forget our true nature. > > > > Insofar I would say Nisargadattas teachings belong to subjective > > realism. But his approach is very practical, he repeatedly says: > once > > the false is seen as the false the true reality is revealed He > > suggests to continuously investigate to which extend we take > something > > which is only conceptual for the absolute reality. > > > > Did this answer your question? > > > > If time/space is not relevant, then the question what happened to > the > > plant in order to grow is also not relevant. > > > > Stefan > > Thanks for your eloquent response,but there is something missing,the > context of my question. > > Let see your example: > > 1. You look at a plant: > " plant perceived " > 2. You look at a plant one week later: > " plant perceived, it is the same plant, but one inch taller. " > > your conclusion: > 3.between point one and point two the plant must have > been there to grow. > > Ok,this is Shankara Vedanta Advaita founder view but not the > Nisargadatta,Berkeley/Quantum mechanic,subjetive idealism view.For > them, the plant was not existing [in the lapsus that the plant was > not being observed]and for the subjetive idealism proponents like > Maharaj is now my question: > > If the plant not exist between point one and point two [using Stefan > example here]because as subjetive idealism teach " esse is percipi " > [exist is to being perceived]then how we can explain the one inch > later grow? any suggestion? > > Atagrasin .....good question for the ones ...into " subjective idealism view " ......... let's see the answers... let's hope that the answers don't come from theories & conceptual- mind....again Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 Nisargadatta , " atagrasin " <k1c2 wrote: > >If the plant not exist between point one and point two [using Stefan >example here]because as subjetive idealism teach " esse is percipi " >[exist is to being perceived]then how we can explain the one inch >later grow? any suggestion? Hi Atagrasin, we have to agree first, that growth can only be possible in time. No time, no growth. So, your question presupposes time. Coming from the concept of time and all its consequences (like duration, change, memory and causality) we are bound to assume that a growing plant has an independent existence. It would be simply irrational not to do so. But generally, what I have said above depends still on the concept of time. If we assume a timeless reality, then there is no growing, there are not even events. And there exists literally no ground for considerations. Not only because such a reality cannot be put into words, it cannot even be imagined. Therefor I water my plants every morning and do not ponder about their ultimate reality. Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " atagrasin " <k1c2@> wrote: > > > >If the plant not exist between point one and point two [using Stefan > >example here]because as subjetive idealism teach " esse is percipi " > >[exist is to being perceived]then how we can explain the one inch > >later grow? any suggestion? > > Hi Atagrasin, > > we have to agree first, that growth can only be possible in time. No > time, no growth. So, your question presupposes time. Coming from the > concept of time and all its consequences (like duration, change, > memory and causality) we are bound to assume that a growing plant > has an independent existence. It would be simply irrational not to do so. > > But generally, what I have said above depends still on the concept of > time. If we assume a timeless reality, then there is no growing, there > are not even events. And there exists literally no ground for > considerations. Not only because such a reality cannot be put into > words, it cannot even be imagined. > > Therefor I water my plants every morning and do not ponder about their > ultimate reality. > > Greetings > Stefan Timeless! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 ......................................................> > Therefor I water my plants every morning and do not ponder about their > ultimate reality. > > Greetings > Stefan ......finally you got (for some duration of time) to a reality....in which you don't ponder about ultimate realities of whatever appearing things......great! Marc 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.