Guest guest Posted October 22, 2007 Report Share Posted October 22, 2007 Suppose you see a beautiful picture, painted on white paper. On closely examining the picture, you will be able to discover some parts of it where the original colour of the paper appears, unaffected by the shades of the picture. This proves to you the existence of the paper behind the picture, as its background. On further examination, you will see that the picture is nothing but the paper. So also, if you succeed in discovering yourself between two mentations, you easily come to the conclusion that you are in the mentations as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2007 Report Share Posted October 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Suppose you see a beautiful picture, painted on white paper. On closely > examining > the picture, you will be able to discover some parts of it where the > original colour of > the paper appears, unaffected by the shades of the picture. This proves > to you the > existence of the paper behind the picture, as its background. On > further examination, > you will see that the picture is nothing but the paper. > So also, if you succeed in discovering yourself between two mentations, > you easily > come to the conclusion that you are in the mentations as well. > Tom, The metaphor of paper and drawing shows you still believe that consciousnes exists separate from its content. Now, Because consciousness is its content, in contrast to your belief, your metaphor therefore means that the paper is the drawing. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 > > > > > Tom, > > The metaphor of paper and drawing shows you still believe that > consciousnes exists separate from its content. > > Now, > Because consciousness is its content, in contrast to your belief, > your metaphor therefore means that the paper is the drawing. > > > > Werner > Werner: First: Who can know what the knower is?It is just a nothing that has the power to now everything. Two:All metaphors break down if you jump on them and try to ride them into town. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 > Werner: First: Who can know what the knower is?It is just a nothing > that has the power to now everything. Two:All metaphors break down if > you jump on them and try to ride them into town. Z > What is there to know? Does anything exist to know something about? How high is a mountain......Where does a river begin or end? What is the difference between red and vermilion? What is anger? What is light? Who am I? toombaru 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: > > > > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > The metaphor of paper and drawing shows you still believe that > > consciousnes exists separate from its content. > > > > Now, > > Because consciousness is its content, in contrast to your belief, > > your metaphor therefore means that the paper is the drawing. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > Werner: First: Who can know what the knower is?It is just a nothing > that has the power to now everything. Two:All metaphors break down if > you jump on them and try to ride them into town. Z > Tom, Sorry for causing your impression I was riding down your metaphor. But my idea was just to contribute to your post and eventually having an exchange with you. Now: Consciousness is its content, there is no one being conscious. And therefore: The observer is the observed, the see-er is the seen, the thinker is the thought, the seeker is the sought, the experiencer is the experienced, the feeler is the felt, the senser is the sensed, the the knower is the known, subject is the object, in short: There is no separation. And because there is no separation you don't exist, neither as the one being conscious, as the observer, as the see-er, as the thinker, as the experiencer, as the feeler, as the senser, as the knower, nor as the subject. 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 , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > Werner: First: Who can know what the knower is?It is just a nothing > > that has the power to now everything. Two:All metaphors break down if > > you jump on them and try to ride them into town. Z > > > > > What is there to know? what's not to know.. there or here. who's to know what's to know or... to not know or... to question who that who which knows would be. so in fact the question solves itself. > Does anything exist to know something about? only if there exists a somewhat, that as a 'who', needs to know... something about anything. only if there are things: some(things), any(things)...and no(things). you have also presupposed 'exist' as substantial in: " Does anything exist to know something about " .. neither the 'knowing' nor the 'existence' of and by any...is actual. as there is no many..there is no any. ' > How high is a mountain......Where does a river begin or end? 1: higher than a hill comparatively speaking.... 2: begins at it's source and ends at it's outlet. > What is the difference between red and vermilion? vermilion is more chinesey. a little more orange red than fire engine. nice color in the crayon box...often used..shorter than most. > What is anger? i don't know but i have heard about this mystery myself. > What is light? whatever is not heavy falls into that catagory. > Who am I? > > > > > > toombaru boy that's just like you. you ask a question: " who am I " .. and immediately answer it below: toombaru. is this a trick? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > The metaphor of paper and drawing shows you still believe that > > > consciousnes exists separate from its content. > > > > > > Now, > > > Because consciousness is its content, in contrast to your belief, > > > your metaphor therefore means that the paper is the drawing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > Werner: First: Who can know what the knower is?It is just a nothing > > that has the power to now everything. Two:All metaphors break down > if > > you jump on them and try to ride them into town. Z > > > > > Tom, > > Sorry for causing your impression I was riding down your metaphor. > But my idea was just to contribute to your post and eventually having > an exchange with you. > > Now: > > Consciousness is its content, there is no one being conscious. And > therefore: > > The observer is the observed, the see-er is the seen, the thinker is > the thought, the seeker is the sought, the experiencer is the > experienced, the feeler is the felt, the senser is the sensed, the > the knower is the known, subject is the object, in short: > > There is no separation. > > And because there is no separation you don't exist, neither as the > one being conscious, as the observer, as the see-er, as the thinker, > as the experiencer, as the feeler, as the senser, as the knower, nor > as the subject. > > Werner Ps:...no one who is ignorant no one who could be responsible for anything .....not even for him/herself... etc.... bla bla bla..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: >There is no separation. > >And because there is no separation you don't exist, neither as the >one being conscious, as the observer, as the see-er, as the thinker, >as the experiencer, as the feeler, as the senser, as the knower, nor >as the subject. Werner, I am glad you had the courage to add this last sentence. I am also a little surprised. It contains the essence of Nisargadattas message. " M:There is nothing I feel separate from, hence I am all. No thing is me, so I am nothing. " But it seems most are overlooking this very essence. They do not hesitate for a moment To translate " nothing " into some mysterious " something " . It seems everybody hopes he can cross the border to immortality By secretly carrying his ego-baggage with him. But any simple guy who says " I dont care about nothing " Is far more " spiritual " than the fantasts who try to catch eternity in the " hear and now " or in grandios feelings of love and peace. The Sufis say: " To know God I must die " . Well, to know God is one nice thing. But who is ready to die? It all will become clear in the end. Stefan PS. please, nobody feel offended I was trying to play catch and hold all my life And sometimes still do 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 , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > >There is no separation. > > > >And because there is no separation you don't exist, neither as the > >one being conscious, as the observer, as the see-er, as the thinker, > >as the experiencer, as the feeler, as the senser, as the knower, nor > >as the subject. > > Werner, > > I am glad you had the courage to add this last sentence. > I am also a little surprised. > > It contains the essence of Nisargadattas message. > > " M:There is nothing I feel separate from, hence I am all. > No thing is me, so I am nothing. " > > But it seems most are overlooking this very essence. > They do not hesitate for a moment > To translate " nothing " into some mysterious " something " . > > It seems everybody hopes he can cross the border to immortality > By secretly carrying his ego-baggage with him. > > But any simple guy who says " I dont care about nothing " > Is far more " spiritual " than the fantasts > who try to catch eternity in the " hear and now " > or in grandios feelings of love and peace. > > The Sufis say: " To know God I must die " . > Well, to know God is one nice thing. > But who is ready to die? > It all will become clear in the end. > > Stefan > > PS. please, nobody feel offended > I was trying to play catch and hold all my life > And sometimes still do .....lol.....for No reason....Stevie would die for.... for sure.... 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 , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > >There is no separation. > > > >And because there is no separation you don't exist, neither as the > >one being conscious, as the observer, as the see-er, as the thinker, > >as the experiencer, as the feeler, as the senser, as the knower, nor > >as the subject. > > Werner, > > I am glad you had the courage to add this last sentence. Hmm, why courage, Stefan ? > I am also a little surprised. I am also a little surptised that you are surprised. > > It contains the essence of Nisargadattas message. > > " M:There is nothing I feel separate from, hence I am all. > No thing is me, so I am nothing. " > > But it seems most are overlooking this very essence. > They do not hesitate for a moment > To translate " nothing " into some mysterious " something " . Like for example the " Self " ? > > It seems everybody hopes he can cross the border to immortality > By secretly carrying his ego-baggage with him. True and funny, isn't it ? > > But any simple guy who says " I dont care about nothing " > Is far more " spiritual " than the fantasts > who try to catch eternity in the " hear and now " > or in grandios feelings of love and peace. Without babling about all that siritual grandeur what would be left of that poor babbler ? > > The Sufis say: " To know God I must die " . > Well, to know God is one nice thing. > But who is ready to die? > It all will become clear in the end. Or not clear Werner > > Stefan > > PS. please, nobody feel offended > I was trying to play catch and hold all my life > And sometimes still do > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 > > > Tom, > > Sorry for causing your impression I was riding down your metaphor. > But my idea was just to contribute to your post and eventually having > an exchange with you. > > Now: > > Consciousness is its content, there is no one being conscious. And > therefore: > > The observer is the observed, the see-er is the seen, the thinker is > the thought, the seeker is the sought, the experiencer is the > experienced, the feeler is the felt, the senser is the sensed, the > the knower is the known, subject is the object, in short: > > There is no separation. > > And because there is no separation you don't exist, neither as the > one being conscious, as the observer, as the see-er, as the thinker, > as the experiencer, as the feeler, as the senser, as the knower, nor > as the subject. > > Werner > Werner: Yes, consciousness is its content which, by the way, is the same as saying all things are known by nothing at all. 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 , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > Sorry for causing your impression I was riding down your metaphor. > > But my idea was just to contribute to your post and eventually > having > > an exchange with you. > > > > Now: > > > > Consciousness is its content, there is no one being conscious. And > > therefore: > > > > The observer is the observed, the see-er is the seen, the thinker > is > > the thought, the seeker is the sought, the experiencer is the > > experienced, the feeler is the felt, the senser is the sensed, > the > > the knower is the known, subject is the object, in short: > > > > There is no separation. > > > > And because there is no separation you don't exist, neither as the > > one being conscious, as the observer, as the see-er, as the > thinker, > > as the experiencer, as the feeler, as the senser, as the knower, > nor > > as the subject. > > > > Werner > > > Werner: Yes, consciousness is its content which, by the way, is the > same as saying all things are known by nothing at all. Z .....give it up.... Werner is sticking in plenty of concepts....he has read somewhere..... he don't know himself what exactly he is talking about.... and what he want to express by this fabulous concepts.... he cause seperations without end...... and it's true..... because he even don't want/wish to " experience, be the senser and the knower " of such/this his ignorant attitude......he try to/ will never give up....... same with Stevie.....who, when it come to simple....real being.... is hiding behind " everything & nothing " ....great!.... ...... they have no peace never realy had... and trying to escape themSelf.... until the end of their imaginary form of being.... ..... Marc Ps: without knowing the Self.....people turn around in concepts.... means ignorance the Self don't care..... like the light don't care about the form of shadows it could cause the one who take him/herself for the Self...as being a little thinking ego-mind.....care constantly about this his/her little time & space limited happiness... and also care about every single words in here....as for example.... ..... " nobody realy care about " is of deeper meaning..... first one need to see/feel/understand realy such " grandeur " of a Self....... then one see/understand/feel/experience realy ...that this little happenings...here & there.... this little fantasies....mind constructions..... of more less grandeur of ignorance...... of few lost " souls " ..... is of no meaning..... and certainly not....for the Self nobody who care about forms, evolution, change, time, space....except little thinking ego minds 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: > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > Sorry for causing your impression I was riding down your metaphor. > > But my idea was just to contribute to your post and eventually > having > > an exchange with you. > > > > Now: > > > > Consciousness is its content, there is no one being conscious. And > > therefore: > > > > The observer is the observed, the see-er is the seen, the thinker > is > > the thought, the seeker is the sought, the experiencer is the > > experienced, the feeler is the felt, the senser is the sensed, > the > > the knower is the known, subject is the object, in short: > > > > There is no separation. > > > > And because there is no separation you don't exist, neither as the > > one being conscious, as the observer, as the see-er, as the > thinker, > > as the experiencer, as the feeler, as the senser, as the knower, > nor > > as the subject. > > > > Werner > > > Werner: Yes, consciousness is its content which, by the way, is the > same as saying all things are known by nothing at all. Z > Hi Tom, Thanks for your reply, but I don't understand it. Can you explain how you meant it ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 >W: >There is no separation. >And because there is no separation you don't exist, neither as the >one being conscious, as the observer, as the see-er, as the >thinker, as the experiencer, as the feeler, as the senser, as the >knower, nor as the subject. >S: >am glad you had the courage to add this last sentence. >W: >Hmm, why courage, Stefan ? Because this sentence denies ones own existence. This way you show that you give a damn about logic. I thought this would never happen. I thought you are too much into academic science. >S: >...translate " nothing " into some mysterious " something " . >W: >Like for example the " Self " ? Yes, or like " the supreme state " Like in " I have won the lottery " . >S: >It all will become clear in the end. >W: >Or not clear Hmmm, it depends on " clear to whom " I rather meant clear like " blank " . 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: > > >W: > >There is no separation. > >And because there is no separation you don't exist, neither as the > >one being conscious, as the observer, as the see-er, as the > >thinker, as the experiencer, as the feeler, as the senser, as the > >knower, nor as the subject. > >S: > >am glad you had the courage to add this last sentence. > >W: > >Hmm, why courage, Stefan ? > > Because this sentence denies ones own existence. > This way you show that you give a damn about logic. Ah, I got it, Stefan. > I thought this would never happen Sorry, about that. > I thought you are too much into academic science. And sorry about that too > > >S: > >...translate " nothing " into some mysterious " something " . > >W: > >Like for example the " Self " ? > > Yes, or like " the supreme state " > Like in " I have won the lottery " . > > >S: > >It all will become clear in the end. > >W: > >Or not clear > > Hmmm, it depends on " clear to whom " > I rather meant clear like " blank " . > Yes, now it gets a different meaning. Werner > Stefan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 > > > > > Werner: Yes, consciousness is its content which, by the way, is the > > same as saying all things are known by nothing at all. Z > > > > > Hi Tom, > > Thanks for your reply, but I don't understand it. Can you explain how > you meant it ? > > Werner > Werner: What is meant by all things are known by nothing at all is:Everything that is is because it is known.But there is not a trace of the knower.The knower is assumed to be because of the known.If thee were no known, there would be no knower. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > > > > > Werner: Yes, consciousness is its content which, by the way, is the > > > same as saying all things are known by nothing at all. Z > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > Thanks for your reply, but I don't understand it. Can you explain how > > you meant it ? > > > > Werner > > > Werner: What is meant by all things are known by nothing at all > is:Everything that is is because it is known.But there is not a trace > of the knower.The knower is assumed to be because of the known.If thee > were no known, there would be no knower. Z >What I mean is:if the knower is known then it is no longer the knower--it is the known. Z 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.