Guest guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Convention says wealth is so & so I see different. Convention says marraige and having children is so & So I see different. Convention says health is so & so I see different. Convention says death is so & so I see different. Convention says power, prestige, poverty, sickness is so & so I see different. Convention says I am a child, a man, a woman, an angel I see different. Now, do I have the courage to live, behave as I see? Do I have the courage to discard convention? Do I have the courage to abandon the security of the herd? If I do not, shall I experience The silence of the lambs? I wonder? v h Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred wrote: >> If I do not, shall I experience > > The silence of the lambs? > > I wonder? > > v h > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. All those attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very well--how could it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give yourself a break and relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you are left in peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is better than thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they are just as uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding locomotives. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > >> If I do not, shall I experience > > > > The silence of the lambs? > > > > I wonder? > > > > v h > > > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. All those > attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very well--how could > it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give yourself a break and > relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you are left in > peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is better than > thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they are just as > uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding locomotives. Z > You are the convention. The Self is different. v h Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > >> If I do not, shall I experience > > > > > > The silence of the lambs? > > > > > > I wonder? > > > > > > v h > > > > > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. All those > > attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very well--how > could > > it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give yourself a > break and > > relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you are left > in > > peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is better > than > > thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they are just > as > > uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding locomotives. Z > > > > > You are the convention. > > The Self is different. > > v h > Virgil, To say that doe imply that you must know what the Self is. So please tell me what the Self is. I also want to know why it is differet from me who is convention. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > >> If I do not, shall I experience > > > > > > > > The silence of the lambs? > > > > > > > > I wonder? > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. All those > > > attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very well--how > > could > > > it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give yourself a > > break and > > > relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you are left > > in > > > peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is better > > than > > > thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they are just > > as > > > uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding locomotives. Z > > > > > > > > > You are the convention. > > > > The Self is different. > > > > v h > > > > > Virgil, > > To say that doe imply that you must know what the Self is. > > So please tell me what the Self is. I also want to know why it is > differet from me who is convention. > > Werner you're not convention. you're werner. a dumb invention. Self is the Inventor. 'you' are the preventer... the non event.... the not-knowing.... so now you know.... that you don't know. buck up bunky! there's not a hell of a lot you can do about your ignorance. it just is. like everything and nothing. there you go. you're welcome. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred wrote: > > Convention says wealth is so & so > > I see different. > > Convention says marraige and having children is so & So > > I see different. > > Convention says health is so & so > > I see different. > > Convention says death is so & so > > I see different. > > Convention says power, prestige, poverty, sickness is so & so > > I see different. > > Convention says I am a child, a man, a woman, an angel > > I see different. > > Now, do I have the courage to live, behave as I see? > > Do I have the courage to discard convention? > > Do I have the courage to abandon the security of the herd? > > If I do not, shall I experience > > The silence of the lambs? > > I wonder? > > v h > the question really is do you have the courage to be nothing? but the truth is it is not a matter of courage, it is (as Nis says) only to be earnest. to be nothing in the world of somethings. Joe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > >> If I do not, shall I experience > > > > The silence of the lambs? > > > > I wonder? > > > > v h > > > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. All those > attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very well--how could > it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give yourself a break and > relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you are left in > peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is better than > thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they are just as > uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding locomotives. Z > this is such bullshit you write. who is this attitude you speak of? the good neutralizes the bad?? bullshit. you might want to read " I am that " again, assuming that you have read it at all. Joe. I reckon you ought to go back and read " I am that " again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > >> If I do not, shall I experience > > > > > > > > The silence of the lambs? > > > > > > > > I wonder? > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. All those > > > attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very well-- how > > could > > > it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give yourself a > > break and > > > relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you are left > > in > > > peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is better > > than > > > thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they are just > > as > > > uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding locomotives. Z > > > > > > > > > You are the convention. > > > > The Self is different. > > > > v h > > > > > Virgil, > > To say that doe imply that you must know what the Self is. > > So please tell me what the Self is. I also want to know why it is > differet from me who is convention. > > Werner > Werner, In the language of the theatre convention -who is me- is the playactor The Self is the director. If we use mathematics -I am no mathematician- but, The Present experience, NOW, minus convention = the Self. As to " know why it is differet from me who is convention " . The answer to this question is not a matter of mentally convincing somebody, No; it is a matter of experiencing the present, Now experience, without the convention. Then it could be discussed. v h Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " joe.irrelevant " <joe.irrelevant wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > Convention says wealth is so & so > > > > I see different. > > > > Convention says marraige and having children is so & So > > > > I see different. > > > > Convention says health is so & so > > > > I see different. > > > > Convention says death is so & so > > > > I see different. > > > > Convention says power, prestige, poverty, sickness is so & so > > > > I see different. > > > > Convention says I am a child, a man, a woman, an angel > > > > I see different. > > > > Now, do I have the courage to live, behave as I see? > > > > Do I have the courage to discard convention? > > > > Do I have the courage to abandon the security of the herd? > > > > If I do not, shall I experience > > > > The silence of the lambs? > > > > I wonder? > > > > v h > > > the question really is do you have the courage to be nothing? > but the truth is it is not a matter of courage, it is (as Nis says) > only to be earnest. to be nothing in the world of somethings. > Joe. > Well said; except for a single reservation. " to be nothing in the world of somethings " To be nothing in the world of No comments No need for comments, No need for descriptions. this post is from no one to nobody. v h Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " joe.irrelevant " > <joe.irrelevant@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > > > Convention says wealth is so & so > > > > > > I see different. > > > > > > Convention says marraige and having children is so & So > > > > > > I see different. > > > > > > Convention says health is so & so > > > > > > I see different. > > > > > > Convention says death is so & so > > > > > > I see different. > > > > > > Convention says power, prestige, poverty, sickness is so & so > > > > > > I see different. > > > > > > Convention says I am a child, a man, a woman, an angel > > > > > > I see different. > > > > > > Now, do I have the courage to live, behave as I see? > > > > > > Do I have the courage to discard convention? > > > > > > Do I have the courage to abandon the security of the herd? > > > > > > If I do not, shall I experience > > > > > > The silence of the lambs? > > > > > > I wonder? > > > > > > v h > > > > > the question really is do you have the courage to be nothing? > > but the truth is it is not a matter of courage, it is (as Nis > says) > > only to be earnest. to be nothing in the world of somethings. > > Joe. > > > > > Well said; > > except for a single reservation. > > " to be nothing in the world of somethings " > > To be nothing in the world of No comments > > No need for comments, No need for descriptions. > > this post is from no one > > to nobody. > > v h > nobody agrees. Joe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 > > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. All those > > attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very well--how > could > > it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give yourself a break > and > > relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you are left > in > > peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is better > than > > thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they are just > as > > uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding locomotives. Z > > > this is such bullshit you write. > who is this attitude you speak of? > the good neutralizes the bad?? bullshit. > you might want to read " I am that " again, assuming that you have read > it at all. >> Joe: I have read some of " I Am That " but by no means all or even much of it. As for " who is this attitude you speak of? " when I said YOU ARE THOSE ATTITGUDES I meant attitudes are basically thought-feeling complexes that you as Being know, like a cd player plays a cd. But Being, which is what you are, knows things by being them.that is what was meant. I didn't mean that the ego is the attitudes.But Being is, just as it is everything else. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. All > those > > > attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very well-- how > > could > > > it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give yourself a > break > > and > > > relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you are left > > in > > > peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is better > > than > > > thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they are just > > as > > > uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding locomotives. Z > > > > > this is such bullshit you write. > > who is this attitude you speak of? > > the good neutralizes the bad?? bullshit. > > you might want to read " I am that " again, assuming that you have > read > > it at all. > >> > Joe: I have read some of " I Am That " but by no means all or even much > of it. As for " who is this attitude you speak of? " when I said YOU > ARE THOSE ATTITGUDES I meant attitudes are basically thought- feeling > complexes that you as Being know, like a cd player plays a cd. But > Being, which is what you are, knows things by being them.that is what > was meant. I didn't mean that the ego is the attitudes.But Being is, > just as it is everything else. Z thanks for clarifying. words so often fall short of what was intended and what was thought to be meant,yeah? Joe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> > wrote: > > > > >> If I do not, shall I experience > > > > > > > > > > The silence of the lambs? > > > > > > > > > > I wonder? > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. All > those > > > > attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very well-- > how > > > could > > > > it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give yourself a > > > break and > > > > relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you are > left > > > in > > > > peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is > better > > > than > > > > thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they are > just > > > as > > > > uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding locomotives. Z > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are the convention. > > > > > > The Self is different. > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > Virgil, > > > > To say that doe imply that you must know what the Self is. > > > > So please tell me what the Self is. I also want to know why it is > > differet from me who is convention. > > > > Werner > > > > > Werner, > > In the language of the theatre > > convention -who is me- is the playactor > > The Self is the director. You, mean something like God ? > > If we use mathematics -I am no mathematician- but, > > The Present experience, NOW, minus convention = the Self. I have some problem with the word " experience " because without an experiencer there is no experience, something which says " I am experiencing this and that " . And this experiencer is thought, which claims to be the knower. > > As to " know why it is > > differet from me who is convention " . > > The answer to this question is not a matter of mentally > > convincing somebody, No; > > it is a matter of experiencing the present, Now experience, > > without the convention. > > Then it could be discussed. As I told before there is no experience without an experiencer, an experiencer which thought clains to be and which creates self-consciouness. " I am conscious of " . " I am experiencing this and that " is a thought. Thought creates the " me " , the experiencer and it creates the experienced by naming, qualifying and categorizing it. Therefore I still don't have the slightet idea what the Self (with capital " S " ) could be. Werner > > v h > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> > > wrote: > > > > > >> If I do not, shall I experience > > > > > > > > > > > > The silence of the lambs? > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder? > > > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. All > > those > > > > > attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very well-- > > how > > > > could > > > > > it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give yourself a > > > > break and > > > > > relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you are > > left > > > > in > > > > > peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is > > better > > > > than > > > > > thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they are > > just > > > > as > > > > > uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding locomotives. Z > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are the convention. > > > > > > > > The Self is different. > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > > Virgil, > > > > > > To say that doe imply that you must know what the Self is. > > > > > > So please tell me what the Self is. I also want to know why it is > > > differet from me who is convention. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > Werner, > > > > In the language of the theatre > > > > convention -who is me- is the playactor > > > > The Self is the director. > > > You, mean something like God ? I am not going to discuss God. > > If we use mathematics -I am no mathematician- but, > > > > The Present experience, NOW, minus convention = the Self. > > > I have some problem with the word " experience " because without an > experiencer there is no experience, something which says " I am > experiencing this and that " . And this experiencer is thought, which > claims to be the knower. No, experience is the experiencer or experience, experiences itself. > > As to " know why it is > > > > differet from me who is convention " . > > > > The answer to this question is not a matter of mentally > > > > convincing somebody, No; > > > > it is a matter of experiencing the present, Now experience, > > > > without the convention. > > > > Then it could be discussed. > > > As I told before there is no experience without an experiencer, an > experiencer which thought clains to be and which creates > self-consciouness. " I am conscious of " . " I am experiencing this and > that " is a thought. Thought creates the " me " , the experiencer and it > creates the experienced by naming, qualifying and categorizing it. > > Therefore I still don't have the slightet idea what the Self (with > capital " S " ) could be. > > Werner Consciousness is conscious of Itself. The sage Atmananda expalined it " mentally " for his disciples to have a glimpse of it. As I recall his words " thinking without a thinker " or " thought without a thinker " . This was one of his profound statments. Sage Atmananda has a few books, the most important of which -I think so- are Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvrerti. These two small booklets are worthy of reading. v h > > v h > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> > > wrote: > > > > > >> If I do not, shall I experience > > > > > > > > > > > > The silence of the lambs? > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder? > > > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. All > > those > > > > > attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very well-- > > how > > > > could > > > > > it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give yourself a > > > > break and > > > > > relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you are > > left > > > > in > > > > > peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is > > better > > > > than > > > > > thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they are > > just > > > > as > > > > > uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding locomotives. Z > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are the convention. > > > > > > > > The Self is different. > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > > Virgil, > > > > > > To say that doe imply that you must know what the Self is. > > > > > > So please tell me what the Self is. I also want to know why it is > > > differet from me who is convention. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > Werner, > > > > In the language of the theatre > > > > convention -who is me- is the playactor > > > > The Self is the director. > > > You, mean something like God ? > > > > > > If we use mathematics -I am no mathematician- but, > > > > The Present experience, NOW, minus convention = the Self. > > > I have some problem with the word " experience " because without an > experiencer there is no experience, something which says " I am > experiencing this and that " . And this experiencer is thought, which > claims to be the knower. > > > > > > As to " know why it is > > > > differet from me who is convention " . > > > > The answer to this question is not a matter of mentally > > > > convincing somebody, No; > > > > it is a matter of experiencing the present, Now experience, > > > > without the convention. > > > > Then it could be discussed. > > > As I told before there is no experience without an experiencer, an > experiencer which thought clains to be and which creates > self-consciouness. " I am conscious of " . " I am experiencing this and > that " is a thought. Thought creates the " me " , the experiencer and it > creates the experienced by naming, qualifying and categorizing it. > > Therefore I still don't have the slightet idea what the Self (with > capital " S " ) could be. > > Werner > > > > > > v h > > > Wener Sorry, I forgot to give you the address of the site, in which Atmananda books could be found. http://www.advaita.org.uk/reading/free_sages.htm v h Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> > > wrote: > > > > > >> If I do not, shall I experience > > > > > > > > > > > > The silence of the lambs? > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder? > > > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. All > > those > > > > > attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very well-- > > how > > > > could > > > > > it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give yourself a > > > > break and > > > > > relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you are > > left > > > > in > > > > > peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is > > better > > > > than > > > > > thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they are > > just > > > > as > > > > > uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding locomotives. Z > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are the convention. > > > > > > > > The Self is different. > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > > Virgil, > > > > > > To say that doe imply that you must know what the Self is. > > > > > > So please tell me what the Self is. I also want to know why it is > > > differet from me who is convention. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > Werner, > > > > In the language of the theatre > > > > convention -who is me- is the playactor > > > > The Self is the director. > > > You, mean something like God ? > > > > > > If we use mathematics -I am no mathematician- but, > > > > The Present experience, NOW, minus convention = the Self. > > > I have some problem with the word " experience " because without an > experiencer there is no experience, something which says " I am > experiencing this and that " . And this experiencer is thought, which > claims to be the knower. > > > > > > As to " know why it is > > > > differet from me who is convention " . > > > > The answer to this question is not a matter of mentally > > > > convincing somebody, No; > > > > it is a matter of experiencing the present, Now experience, > > > > without the convention. > > > > Then it could be discussed. > > > As I told before there is no experience without an experiencer, an > experiencer which thought clains to be and which creates > self-consciouness. " I am conscious of " . " I am experiencing this and > that " is a thought. Thought creates the " me " , the experiencer and it > creates the experienced by naming, qualifying and categorizing it. > > Therefore I still don't have the slightet idea what the Self (with > capital " S " ) could be. > > Werner it's elementary my dear werner. of course that also is why you don't have any idea. anything beyond romper room preschool thought is beyond your capacity. you should stay out of adult conversation. but dang it all your cute little babbling is amusing. and remember kiddo.. 'you' are not the 'experience'. both 'you' and 'experience' are child's games. that's why they fascinate you. both 'you' and 'experience are adscititious to SELF. now there's a nice word to entertain pur little boy. look it up.. but you'll need a big boy's dictionary. " adscititious " won't be found in your picture books on science. speaking as your kind uncle: ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> If I do not, shall I experience > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The silence of the lambs? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. > All > > > those > > > > > > attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very > well-- > > > how > > > > > could > > > > > > it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give > yourself a > > > > > break and > > > > > > relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you > are > > > left > > > > > in > > > > > > peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is > > > better > > > > > than > > > > > > thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they > are > > > just > > > > > as > > > > > > uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding locomotives. > Z > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are the convention. > > > > > > > > > > The Self is different. > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Virgil, > > > > > > > > To say that doe imply that you must know what the Self is. > > > > > > > > So please tell me what the Self is. I also want to know why it > is > > > > differet from me who is convention. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner, > > > > > > In the language of the theatre > > > > > > convention -who is me- is the playactor > > > > > > The Self is the director. > > > > > > You, mean something like God ? > > I am not going to discuss God. > > > > If we use mathematics -I am no mathematician- but, > > > > > > The Present experience, NOW, minus convention = the Self. > > > > > > I have some problem with the word " experience " because without an > > experiencer there is no experience, something which says " I am > > experiencing this and that " . And this experiencer is thought, which > > claims to be the knower. > > No, experience is the experiencer or > > experience, experiences itself. > > > > As to " know why it is > > > > > > differet from me who is convention " . > > > > > > The answer to this question is not a matter of mentally > > > > > > convincing somebody, No; > > > > > > it is a matter of experiencing the present, Now experience, > > > > > > without the convention. > > > > > > Then it could be discussed. > > > > > > As I told before there is no experience without an experiencer, an > > experiencer which thought clains to be and which creates > > self-consciouness. " I am conscious of " . " I am experiencing this and > > that " is a thought. Thought creates the " me " , the experiencer and > it > > creates the experienced by naming, qualifying and categorizing it. > > > > Therefore I still don't have the slightet idea what the Self (with > > capital " S " ) could be. > > > > Werner > > Consciousness is conscious of Itself. No, no, Virgil, Consciouness is its content. No content, no consciousness. There is no separation between consciousness and its content, it is one and the same. This separation between consciousness and its content is one of the favorites of so called spiritual people because it allows all kinds of mental constructs and believes. On of those is that consciousness can be conscious of itself which is absolute nonsense. It is thought which says " I am conscious of being conscious " . But thought isn't conscious of anything, thought itself is a content of coscniousness. And a content of consciousness can not be conscious of anything. Werner > > The sage Atmananda expalined it " mentally " > > for his disciples to have a glimpse > > of it. > > As I recall his words " thinking without a thinker " > > or " thought without a thinker " . > > This was one of his profound statments. > > Sage Atmananda has a few books, the most > > important of which -I think so- are > > Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvrerti. > > These two small booklets are worthy of > > reading. > > v h > > > > v h > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 > No, no, Virgil, > > Consciouness is its content. No content, no consciousness. There is > no separation between consciousness and its content, it is one and > the same. > > This separation between consciousness and its content is one of the > favorites of so called spiritual people because it allows all kinds > of mental constructs and believes. > > On of those is that consciousness can be conscious of itself which is > absolute nonsense. It is thought which says " I am conscious of being > conscious " . But thought isn't conscious of anything, thought itself > is a content of coscniousness. And a content of consciousness can not > be conscious of anything. > > Werner no no werner.. you are completely wrong. what you say isn't spiritual.. and it sure as fuck ain't scientific. you've got to get beyond those reader's digest articles... on the nature of the scientific paradigm.. or on the spiritual quest. you talk absolute nonsense. i sure hope your not stupid enough to believe in your bullshit. it's so uneducated and naive. good luck on trying to seek further than your sandbox. you look silly in there at your age. have you at last no shame gumba? tsk tsk tsk. what a sad thing you are turning out to be. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " > <v.halbred@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> If I do not, shall I experience > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The silence of the lambs? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Virgil, no disrespect intended, but this is silly stuff. > > All > > > > those > > > > > > > attitudes you ascribe to convention, you know them very > > well-- > > > > how > > > > > > could > > > > > > > it be otherwise, YOU ARE THOSE AATTITUDES.So, give > > yourself a > > > > > > break and > > > > > > > relax.Everything good neutralizes everything bad and you > > are > > > > left > > > > > > in > > > > > > > peace.And if not--well, what happens happens. Anything is > > > > better > > > > > > than > > > > > > > thinking you can actually manipulate attitudes.Hey, they > > are > > > > just > > > > > > as > > > > > > > uncontrollable as tall buildings and speeding > locomotives. > > Z > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are the convention. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Self is different. > > > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Virgil, > > > > > > > > > > To say that doe imply that you must know what the Self is. > > > > > > > > > > So please tell me what the Self is. I also want to know why > it > > is > > > > > differet from me who is convention. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner, > > > > > > > > In the language of the theatre > > > > > > > > convention -who is me- is the playactor > > > > > > > > The Self is the director. > > > > > > > > > You, mean something like God ? > > > > I am not going to discuss God. > > > > > > If we use mathematics -I am no mathematician- but, > > > > > > > > The Present experience, NOW, minus convention = the Self. > > > > > > > > > I have some problem with the word " experience " because without an > > > experiencer there is no experience, something which says " I am > > > experiencing this and that " . And this experiencer is thought, > which > > > claims to be the knower. > > > > No, experience is the experiencer or > > > > experience, experiences itself. > > > > > > As to " know why it is > > > > > > > > differet from me who is convention " . > > > > > > > > The answer to this question is not a matter of mentally > > > > > > > > convincing somebody, No; > > > > > > > > it is a matter of experiencing the present, Now experience, > > > > > > > > without the convention. > > > > > > > > Then it could be discussed. > > > > > > > > > As I told before there is no experience without an experiencer, an > > > experiencer which thought clains to be and which creates > > > self-consciouness. " I am conscious of " . " I am experiencing this > and > > > that " is a thought. Thought creates the " me " , the experiencer and > > it > > > creates the experienced by naming, qualifying and categorizing it. > > > > > > Therefore I still don't have the slightet idea what the Self (with > > > capital " S " ) could be. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Consciousness is conscious of Itself. > > > No, no, Virgil, > > Consciouness is its content. No content, no consciousness. There is > no separation between consciousness and its content, it is one and > the same. > > This separation between consciousness and its content is one of the > favorites of so called spiritual people because it allows all kinds > of mental constructs and believes. > > On of those is that consciousness can be conscious of itself which is > absolute nonsense. It is thought which says " I am conscious of being > conscious " . But thought isn't conscious of anything, thought itself > is a content of coscniousness. And a content of consciousness can not > be conscious of anything. > > Werner > > > > > > The sage Atmananda expalined it " mentally " > > > > for his disciples to have a glimpse > > > > of it. > > > > As I recall his words " thinking without a thinker " > > > > or " thought without a thinker " . > > > > This was one of his profound statments. > > > > Sage Atmananda has a few books, the most > > > > important of which -I think so- are > > > > Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvrerti. > > > > These two small booklets are worthy of > > > > reading. > > > > v h > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content, TRUE. But is this consciousness you are speaking about conditioned or unconditioned limited or unlimited relative or absolute. This is a question for you Werner. As long as convention or me is there then I am speaking of the conditioned consciousness, the limited consciousness the relative consciousness and this is not the SELF. v h Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > > > Consciousness is conscious of Itself. > > > > > > No, no, Virgil, > > > > Consciouness is its content. No content, no consciousness. There > is > > no separation between consciousness and its content, it is one and > > the same. > > > > This separation between consciousness and its content is one of > the > > favorites of so called spiritual people because it allows all > kinds > > of mental constructs and believes. > > > > On of those is that consciousness can be conscious of itself which > is > > absolute nonsense. It is thought which says " I am conscious of > being > > conscious " . But thought isn't conscious of anything, thought > itself > > is a content of coscniousness. And a content of consciousness can > not > > be conscious of anything. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > The sage Atmananda expalined it " mentally " > > > > > > for his disciples to have a glimpse > > > > > > of it. > > > > > > As I recall his words " thinking without a thinker " > > > > > > or " thought without a thinker " . > > > > > > This was one of his profound statments. > > > > > > Sage Atmananda has a few books, the most > > > > > > important of which -I think so- are > > > > > > Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvrerti. > > > > > > These two small booklets are worthy of > > > > > > reading. > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content, TRUE. > > But is this consciousness you are > > speaking about conditioned or unconditioned > > limited or unlimited > > relative or absolute. > > This is a question for you Werner. > > As long as convention or me is there > > then I am speaking of the conditioned > > consciousness, the limited consciousness > > the relative consciousness > > and this is not the SELF. > > v h > Virgil, Consciousness is created by the brain, every input of the senses are processed in different correponding parts of the brain. This process is selective and depending of your personal past or history and of your genetic inheritence. The result therfore must be total subjective, personal. There is no such thing as pure, clear and objective consciousness. That is a myth, an old fairy tale taught by cunning gurus since many, many centuries. And therefore the question if consciousnes is limitited or relative never should arise because consciousness is what it is: A product of the brain which you cannot influence or change in any way. Who should influence or change it ? There is only thought which says " I want to have a different consciousness " , " I want to have pure consciousness " , etc. And to remind you, thought is verbal, created by the brain in order to eventually get communicated. And thought is just verbal bubbles, nothing else. Do you understand ? You are totally left alone with all your spiritual day-dreams which all are just verbal meaningless bubbles. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Consciousness is conscious of Itself. > > > > > > > > > No, no, Virgil, > > > > > > Consciouness is its content. No content, no consciousness. There > > is > > > no separation between consciousness and its content, it is one and > > > the same. > > > > > > This separation between consciousness and its content is one of > > the > > > favorites of so called spiritual people because it allows all > > kinds > > > of mental constructs and believes. > > > > > > On of those is that consciousness can be conscious of itself which > > is > > > absolute nonsense. It is thought which says " I am conscious of > > being > > > conscious " . But thought isn't conscious of anything, thought > > itself > > > is a content of coscniousness. And a content of consciousness can > > not > > > be conscious of anything. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sage Atmananda expalined it " mentally " > > > > > > > > for his disciples to have a glimpse > > > > > > > > of it. > > > > > > > > As I recall his words " thinking without a thinker " > > > > > > > > or " thought without a thinker " . > > > > > > > > This was one of his profound statments. > > > > > > > > Sage Atmananda has a few books, the most > > > > > > > > important of which -I think so- are > > > > > > > > Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvrerti. > > > > > > > > These two small booklets are worthy of > > > > > > > > reading. > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content, TRUE. > > > > But is this consciousness you are > > > > speaking about conditioned or unconditioned > > > > limited or unlimited > > > > relative or absolute. > > > > This is a question for you Werner. > > > > As long as convention or me is there > > > > then I am speaking of the conditioned > > > > consciousness, the limited consciousness > > > > the relative consciousness > > > > and this is not the SELF. > > > > v h > > > > > Virgil, > > Consciousness is created by the brain, every input of the senses are > processed in different correponding parts of the brain. This process > is selective and depending of your personal past or history and of > your genetic inheritence. The result therfore must be total > subjective, personal. There is no such thing as pure, clear and > objective consciousness. That is a myth, an old fairy tale taught by > cunning gurus since many, many centuries. > > And therefore the question if consciousnes is limitited or relative > never should arise because consciousness is what it is: A product of > the brain which you cannot influence or change in any way. > > Who should influence or change it ? There is only thought which says > " I want to have a different consciousness " , " I want to have pure > consciousness " , etc. And to remind you, thought is verbal, created by > the brain in order to eventually get communicated. And thought is just > verbal bubbles, nothing else. > > Do you understand ? You are totally left alone with all your spiritual > day-dreams which all are just verbal meaningless bubbles. > > Werner not to interesting and ass backwards too. the brain is a mere facet of Consciousness... and not a terribly significant facet either. meaningless peanut stuff fascinates you doesn't it herr vernerschlitz? what a fucking waste of that grey matter that you adore. ok bubbles...stay in the first grade.. you're too fucking stupid and uneducated to understand. what a dunce! LOL! ..b b.b. oh werner...stay afraid to answer me.. you know you wouldn't stand a chance with me. so beware werner... be very ware! coward. ROFLMAO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Consciousness is conscious of Itself. > > > > > > > > > No, no, Virgil, > > > > > > Consciouness is its content. No content, no consciousness. There > > is > > > no separation between consciousness and its content, it is one and > > > the same. > > > > > > This separation between consciousness and its content is one of > > the > > > favorites of so called spiritual people because it allows all > > kinds > > > of mental constructs and believes. > > > > > > On of those is that consciousness can be conscious of itself which > > is > > > absolute nonsense. It is thought which says " I am conscious of > > being > > > conscious " . But thought isn't conscious of anything, thought > > itself > > > is a content of coscniousness. And a content of consciousness can > > not > > > be conscious of anything. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sage Atmananda expalined it " mentally " > > > > > > > > for his disciples to have a glimpse > > > > > > > > of it. > > > > > > > > As I recall his words " thinking without a thinker " > > > > > > > > or " thought without a thinker " . > > > > > > > > This was one of his profound statments. > > > > > > > > Sage Atmananda has a few books, the most > > > > > > > > important of which -I think so- are > > > > > > > > Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvrerti. > > > > > > > > These two small booklets are worthy of > > > > > > > > reading. > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content, TRUE. > > > > But is this consciousness you are > > > > speaking about conditioned or unconditioned > > > > limited or unlimited > > > > relative or absolute. > > > > This is a question for you Werner. > > > > As long as convention or me is there > > > > then I am speaking of the conditioned > > > > consciousness, the limited consciousness > > > > the relative consciousness > > > > and this is not the SELF. > > > > v h > > > > > Virgil, > > Consciousness is created by the brain, every input of the senses are > processed in different correponding parts of the brain. This process > is selective and depending of your personal past or history and of > your genetic inheritence. The result therfore must be total > subjective, personal. There is no such thing as pure, clear and > objective consciousness. That is a myth, an old fairy tale taught by > cunning gurus since many, many centuries. > > And therefore the question if consciousnes is limitited or relative > never should arise because consciousness is what it is: A product of > the brain which you cannot influence or change in any way. > > Who should influence or change it ? There is only thought which says > " I want to have a different consciousness " , " I want to have pure > consciousness " , etc. And to remind you, thought is verbal, created by > the brain in order to eventually get communicated. And thought is just > verbal bubbles, nothing else. > > Do you understand ? You are totally left alone with all your spiritual > day-dreams which all are just verbal meaningless bubbles. > > Werner > Werner The aboslute cement believe in the truthfullness of the scientitific explanation stating that consciousness is a product of the brain and its neurones and nerve tracts and so forth, is as blinding as any other belief. Only intelectuals have such believe in scientific explanations but as far as I recall Nisargadata was not intellectual he was uneducated and named the bidis Master. v h Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is conscious of Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, no, Virgil, > > > > > > > > Consciouness is its content. No content, no consciousness. > There > > > is > > > > no separation between consciousness and its content, it is one > and > > > > the same. > > > > > > > > This separation between consciousness and its content is one > of > > > the > > > > favorites of so called spiritual people because it allows all > > > kinds > > > > of mental constructs and believes. > > > > > > > > On of those is that consciousness can be conscious of itself > which > > > is > > > > absolute nonsense. It is thought which says " I am conscious of > > > being > > > > conscious " . But thought isn't conscious of anything, thought > > > itself > > > > is a content of coscniousness. And a content of consciousness > can > > > not > > > > be conscious of anything. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sage Atmananda expalined it " mentally " > > > > > > > > > > for his disciples to have a glimpse > > > > > > > > > > of it. > > > > > > > > > > As I recall his words " thinking without a thinker " > > > > > > > > > > or " thought without a thinker " . > > > > > > > > > > This was one of his profound statments. > > > > > > > > > > Sage Atmananda has a few books, the most > > > > > > > > > > important of which -I think so- are > > > > > > > > > > Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvrerti. > > > > > > > > > > These two small booklets are worthy of > > > > > > > > > > reading. > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content, TRUE. > > > > > > But is this consciousness you are > > > > > > speaking about conditioned or unconditioned > > > > > > limited or unlimited > > > > > > relative or absolute. > > > > > > This is a question for you Werner. > > > > > > As long as convention or me is there > > > > > > then I am speaking of the conditioned > > > > > > consciousness, the limited consciousness > > > > > > the relative consciousness > > > > > > and this is not the SELF. > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > Virgil, > > > > Consciousness is created by the brain, every input of the senses > are > > processed in different correponding parts of the brain. This > process > > is selective and depending of your personal past or history and of > > your genetic inheritence. The result therfore must be total > > subjective, personal. There is no such thing as pure, clear and > > objective consciousness. That is a myth, an old fairy tale taught > by > > cunning gurus since many, many centuries. > > > > And therefore the question if consciousnes is limitited or relative > > never should arise because consciousness is what it is: A product > of > > the brain which you cannot influence or change in any way. > > > > Who should influence or change it ? There is only thought which > says > > " I want to have a different consciousness " , " I want to have pure > > consciousness " , etc. And to remind you, thought is verbal, created > by > > the brain in order to eventually get communicated. And thought is > just > > verbal bubbles, nothing else. > > > > Do you understand ? You are totally left alone with all your > spiritual > > day-dreams which all are just verbal meaningless bubbles. > > > > Werner > > > > Werner > > The aboslute cement believe in the truthfullness > > of the scientitific explanation > > stating that consciousness is a product of the brain > > and its neurones and nerve tracts and so forth, > > is as blinding as any other belief. > > Only intelectuals have such believe in scientific > > explanations but as far as I recall Nisargadata > > was not intellectual he was uneducated and named > > the bidis Master. > > v h hey v. actually intellectual scientists, mathematicians, biologists.. well intellectual anyones.. do not hold the religious belief in scientific theory.. nor in the primitive investigations that prove nothing. only dummies like werner attend that church. it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy... that they believe they know something. stupid dogmas and clueless faith stuff of stupid people. that's what his crap is all about. bless the little ignorant people like that. they know not what they do...or think...or believe. they just want to put their two cents in... and that's more than it's worth. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is conscious of Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, no, Virgil, > > > > > > > > Consciouness is its content. No content, no consciousness. > There > > > is > > > > no separation between consciousness and its content, it is one > and > > > > the same. > > > > > > > > This separation between consciousness and its content is one > of > > > the > > > > favorites of so called spiritual people because it allows all > > > kinds > > > > of mental constructs and believes. > > > > > > > > On of those is that consciousness can be conscious of itself > which > > > is > > > > absolute nonsense. It is thought which says " I am conscious of > > > being > > > > conscious " . But thought isn't conscious of anything, thought > > > itself > > > > is a content of coscniousness. And a content of consciousness > can > > > not > > > > be conscious of anything. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sage Atmananda expalined it " mentally " > > > > > > > > > > for his disciples to have a glimpse > > > > > > > > > > of it. > > > > > > > > > > As I recall his words " thinking without a thinker " > > > > > > > > > > or " thought without a thinker " . > > > > > > > > > > This was one of his profound statments. > > > > > > > > > > Sage Atmananda has a few books, the most > > > > > > > > > > important of which -I think so- are > > > > > > > > > > Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvrerti. > > > > > > > > > > These two small booklets are worthy of > > > > > > > > > > reading. > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content, TRUE. > > > > > > But is this consciousness you are > > > > > > speaking about conditioned or unconditioned > > > > > > limited or unlimited > > > > > > relative or absolute. > > > > > > This is a question for you Werner. > > > > > > As long as convention or me is there > > > > > > then I am speaking of the conditioned > > > > > > consciousness, the limited consciousness > > > > > > the relative consciousness > > > > > > and this is not the SELF. > > > > > > v h > > > > > > > > > Virgil, > > > > Consciousness is created by the brain, every input of the senses > are > > processed in different correponding parts of the brain. This > process > > is selective and depending of your personal past or history and of > > your genetic inheritence. The result therfore must be total > > subjective, personal. There is no such thing as pure, clear and > > objective consciousness. That is a myth, an old fairy tale taught > by > > cunning gurus since many, many centuries. > > > > And therefore the question if consciousnes is limitited or relative > > never should arise because consciousness is what it is: A product > of > > the brain which you cannot influence or change in any way. > > > > Who should influence or change it ? There is only thought which > says > > " I want to have a different consciousness " , " I want to have pure > > consciousness " , etc. And to remind you, thought is verbal, created > by > > the brain in order to eventually get communicated. And thought is > just > > verbal bubbles, nothing else. > > > > Do you understand ? You are totally left alone with all your > spiritual > > day-dreams which all are just verbal meaningless bubbles. > > > > Werner > > > > Werner > > The aboslute cement believe in the truthfullness > > of the scientitific explanation > > stating that consciousness is a product of the brain > > and its neurones and nerve tracts and so forth, > > is as blinding as any other belief. > > Only intelectuals have such believe in scientific > > explanations but as far as I recall Nisargadata > > was not intellectual he was uneducated and named > > the bidis Master. > > v h > Hey Virgil, Could it be that you believe in and even are proud of that you are not blinded by science and that you are not intellectual ? That I am blinded and that I am intellectual is just your asumption or even your projection based on your spiritual pride and on your need to be different and so have much better chances to get enlightened than poor blinded and intellectual Werner How can I have a serious conversation with someone regarding me as intellectual or prone to being blinded by science ? Virgil, I too have been many years ago in that spiritual boat, maybe similar like you, but in the course of time I more and more had to realize that I am what I am and that I cannot change in any way - no matter how much I wished and hoped I could, no matter how much I am full to the brim with hopes for attainment. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 > Hey Virgil, > > Could it be that you believe in and even are proud of that you are > not blinded by science and that you are not intellectual ? oh c'mon werner.. virgil was just trying to be kind. everyone knows you haven't the capacity... to be called anything but 'slow witted'. > That I am blinded and that I am intellectual is just your asumption > or even your projection based on your spiritual pride and on your > need to be different and so have much better chances to get > enlightened than poor blinded and intellectual Werner see there wernerschnitzel.. you get it all wrong all the time. talk about false assumtions. well i guess it's compensatory for your lack of skill or knowledge. LOL! > How can I have a serious conversation with someone regarding me as > intellectual or prone to being blinded by science ? in truth werner you can't have a serious conversation with anyone. you babble bubbles. i bet our little werner boy is fascinated with those hollow spheres. haaaaaaa ha ha haaaaa! > Virgil, I too have been many years ago in that spiritual boat, maybe > similar like you, but in the course of time I more and more had to > realize that I am what I am and that I cannot change in any way - no > matter how much I wished and hoped I could, no matter how much I am > full to the brim with hopes for attainment. > > Werner in other words you admit failure in your endeavors. that's a good first step on the 12 step program for losers like you. you should throw in an admission... to not understanding current science as well. it's the only path for you to sober up and get real dummy. :-) your pal, ..b b.b. 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.