Guest guest Posted October 21, 2007 Report Share Posted October 21, 2007 Nature only let you be conscious of what you need to see. So consciousness is not everything, it's just what your brain let you see. A frog sees only movement. It doesn't see things that are still. A bug perched on a branch is invisible to a frog, but the moment that the bug takes flight, it seems to materialize out of nowhere for the frog. There is a woman in Germany who can't see movement, only things that are still. To her a moving car is invisible, so she can't cross a busy street. Suppose this woman would dance in front of a wall to wall mirror. She would become invisible to herself, and only see her image here and there as materializing out of nowhere as she briefly pauses in her dance. That constant appearing and vanishing would be confusing enough, but imagine that she also has lost the ability to recognize her own face. To her then, dancing in front of a mirror would seem to conjure a room full of strangers constantly appearing and disappearing. We can use the above as an analogy of how the whole sees itself as multiple instead of as one. enlightenedfiction Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2007 Report Share Posted October 21, 2007 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nature only let you be conscious of what > you need to see. So consciousness is not > everything, it's just what your brain let you see. > > A frog sees only movement. It doesn't see > things that are still. A bug perched on a > branch is invisible to a frog, but the moment > that the bug takes flight, it seems to materialize > out of nowhere for the frog. > > There is a woman in Germany who can't see > movement, only things that are still. To her > a moving car is invisible, so she can't cross > a busy street. > > Suppose this woman would dance in front > of a wall to wall mirror. She would become > invisible to herself, and only see her image > here and there as materializing out of nowhere > as she briefly pauses in her dance. > > That constant appearing and vanishing would > be confusing enough, but imagine that she > also has lost the ability to recognize her own > face. To her then, dancing in front of a mirror > would seem to conjure a room full of strangers > constantly appearing and disappearing. > > We can use the above as an analogy of how > the whole sees itself as multiple instead of > as one. > > enlightenedfiction > > Pete > Thanks Pete, Consciousness is subjective. Each being in its own way, the frog, the German woman, you, and me. And so for each being consciousness is all there is. The object is the subject. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2007 Report Share Posted October 21, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nature only let you be conscious of what > > you need to see. So consciousness is not > > everything, it's just what your brain let you see. > > > > A frog sees only movement. It doesn't see > > things that are still. A bug perched on a > > branch is invisible to a frog, but the moment > > that the bug takes flight, it seems to materialize > > out of nowhere for the frog. > > > > There is a woman in Germany who can't see > > movement, only things that are still. To her > > a moving car is invisible, so she can't cross > > a busy street. > > > > Suppose this woman would dance in front > > of a wall to wall mirror. She would become > > invisible to herself, and only see her image > > here and there as materializing out of nowhere > > as she briefly pauses in her dance. > > > > That constant appearing and vanishing would > > be confusing enough, but imagine that she > > also has lost the ability to recognize her own > > face. To her then, dancing in front of a mirror > > would seem to conjure a room full of strangers > > constantly appearing and disappearing. > > > > We can use the above as an analogy of how > > the whole sees itself as multiple instead of > > as one. > > > > enlightenedfiction > > > > Pete > > > > > Thanks Pete, > > Consciousness is subjective. Each being in its own way, the frog, the > German woman, you, and me. And so for each being consciousness is all > there is. > > The object is the subject. > > Werner P: " Consciousness is al there is. " " The object is the subject. " Those are nice soothing spiritual slogans. They give the appearance of containing a great truth, but in reality, they say very little. By saying consciousness is all thre is, consciousness is not explained in any way. So, what the statement really says is: All there is, is all there is. It's the same with the " The object is the subject. " It doesn't explain what object or subject are. It only speaks of their identity. Both slogans are jst different ways of saying what every nondualist already knows, but doesn't really get: Not two. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2007 Report Share Posted October 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > Nature only let you be conscious of what > > > you need to see. So consciousness is not > > > everything, it's just what your brain let you see. > > > > > > A frog sees only movement. It doesn't see > > > things that are still. A bug perched on a > > > branch is invisible to a frog, but the moment > > > that the bug takes flight, it seems to materialize > > > out of nowhere for the frog. > > > > > > There is a woman in Germany who can't see > > > movement, only things that are still. To her > > > a moving car is invisible, so she can't cross > > > a busy street. > > > > > > Suppose this woman would dance in front > > > of a wall to wall mirror. She would become > > > invisible to herself, and only see her image > > > here and there as materializing out of nowhere > > > as she briefly pauses in her dance. > > > > > > That constant appearing and vanishing would > > > be confusing enough, but imagine that she > > > also has lost the ability to recognize her own > > > face. To her then, dancing in front of a mirror > > > would seem to conjure a room full of strangers > > > constantly appearing and disappearing. > > > > > > We can use the above as an analogy of how > > > the whole sees itself as multiple instead of > > > as one. > > > > > > enlightenedfiction > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > Thanks Pete, > > > > Consciousness is subjective. Each being in its own way, the frog, the > > German woman, you, and me. And so for each being consciousness is all > > there is. > > > > The object is the subject. > > > > Werner > > P: " Consciousness is al there is. " " The object is the subject. " Those > are nice soothing spiritual slogans. Yes, Pete, These are slogans, it is so obvious. But to reply your post with two slogans in no way was meant to offend you. I love these two slogans, they tell in a very simple and compressed way non-duality. But why calling them spiritual ? I not at all can see that. > They give the appearance of > containing a great truth, but in reality, they say very little. By > saying consciousness is all thre is, consciousness is not explained > in any way. So, what the statement really says is: All there is, is allot > there is. It's the same with the " The object is the subject. " It doesn't > explain what object or subject are. It only speaks of their identity. > Both slogans are jst different ways of saying what every nondualist > already knows, but doesn't really get: Not two. Yes, not two. And now everything is said and we can go to bed. Werner > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2007 Report Share Posted October 22, 2007 > > > Yes, Pete, > > These are slogans, it is so obvious. > > But to reply your post with two slogans in no way was meant to offend > you. I love these two slogans, they tell in a very simple and > compressed way non-duality. But why calling them spiritual ? I not at > all can see that. P: Did I seem offended to you? I called them spiritual because the category for this group is spirituality. You wouldn't find those slogans mentioned in politics, or science, or even entertainment. > > > > They give the appearance of > > containing a great truth, but in reality, they say very little. By > > saying consciousness is all thre is, consciousness is not explained > > in any way. So, what the statement really says is: All there is, is > allot > > there is. It's the same with the " The object is the subject. " It > doesn't > > explain what object or subject are. It only speaks of their > identity. > > Both slogans are jst different ways of saying what every nondualist > > already knows, but doesn't really get: Not two. > > > Yes, not two. And now everything is said and we can go to bed. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: >We can use the above as an analogy of how >the whole sees itself as multiple instead of >as one. Hi Pete, Nice image, yes. All we see is ourselves! Shattered into pieces. But to accept this Means to accept not only That I am all alone But also: That I am not. Because when I am everything Then there is no ground On which " I " could exist. Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > There is a woman in Germany who can't see > movement, only things that are still. To her > a moving car is invisible, so she can't cross > a busy street. > > Suppose this woman would dance in front > of a wall to wall mirror. She would become > invisible to herself, and only see her image > here and there as materializing out of nowhere > as she briefly pauses in her dance. > > That constant appearing and vanishing would > be confusing enough, but imagine that she > also has lost the ability to recognize her own > face. To her then, dancing in front of a mirror > would seem to conjure a room full of strangers > constantly appearing and disappearing. > > We can use the above as an analogy of how > the whole sees itself as multiple instead of > as one. > > enlightenedfiction > > Pete > Imagine that the woman regained both the abiltiy to see moving images and to recognize faces--the situation would not be materially changed at all: it would still be a case of things being known somehow by nothing--which must be what it means to say: the knower, the knowing and the known are one. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > >We can use the above as an analogy of how > >the whole sees itself as multiple instead of > >as one. > > Hi Pete, > > Nice image, yes. > All we see is ourselves! > Shattered into pieces. > > But to accept this > Means to accept not only > That I am all alone > But also: > That I am not. > > Because when I am everything > Then there is no ground > On which " I " could exist. > > Stefan ....there is neither an " everything " .....nor somebody (Stevie)......to whom such ideas belong to.... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: >there is neither an " everything " nor somebody (Stevie) to >whom such ideas belong to.... >Marc Yes, there is only " Marc " , the underwriter And author of those highly intelligent ideas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: >Imagine that the woman regained both the abiltiy to see moving >images and to recognize faces--the situation would not be materially >changed at all: it would still be a case of things being known >somehow by nothing--which must be what it means to say: the knower, >the knowing and the known are one. Z Yes, true. And this also means it is futile To collect those shattered pieces Gradually broaden the horizon of consciousness And finally reach enlightenment. Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > >there is neither an " everything " nor somebody (Stevie) to > >whom such ideas belong to.... > >Marc > > Yes, there is only " Marc " , the underwriter > And author of those highly intelligent ideas lol ....coming out of concepts? Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > >We can use the above as an analogy of how > >the whole sees itself as multiple instead of > >as one. > > Hi Pete, > > Nice image, yes. > All we see is ourselves! > Shattered into pieces. > > But to accept this > Means to accept not only > That I am all alone > But also: > That I am not. > > Because when I am everything > Then there is no ground > On which " I " could exist. > > Stefan P: Exactly. Then the " I " is only used in social dealings, not as the subjective owner of experiences. > 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.