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: > > > > > > > > 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 ? No. > 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 No. > How can I have a serious conversation with someone regarding me as > intellectual or prone to being blinded by science ? I never regard anyone as blind I am speaking about how humans blind themselves. If I were told the same statement -that believe in the truthfullness of so and so is blinding-,then I will search again and again in myself to see if what is said to me is True or not True because I have no fixed static understanding that I depend on, all understanding is liable for change and undergoing change. > 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. Hopes and attainment are not " here and now " they make one runs and spins, I am tired of running -for my age - Man can change his perspective and then everything changes especially " convention or me " . v h > Werner > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 --- > > > > > > 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. > > > >Werner: It is wonderful how a fellow without too many brains can take a few courses in psychology and puff up so big from it that not even buddha, Jesus, Shankara, Nagarjuna, etc., etc., etc., can do anything but kneel down before him and wonder.I confess I am amazed and astonished at the sheer grandeur of your britches--and yet you yourself are grander far than they! Try to get this: Brain is an idea. It is a translation of certain sensory data--colors, and degrees of tactile resistance etc.--and far from being a source of anything, it is just like any other thought, perceived, not perceiving.It is a wonderfully complex thought signifying nothing. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > Hello b b b That is very clear the church and church followers are at a mess Believing in the shangrila to come in the future good for them, this is not my cup of tea or my aperitif 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 , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Hello b b b > > That is very clear > > the church and church followers > > are at a mess > > Believing in the shangrila to come > > in the future > > good for them, > > this is not my cup of tea > > or my aperitif > > v h who's talking about the 'future'? it's Here and Now or it ain't at all. :-) ..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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Virgil " <v.halbred@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > Hello b b b > > > > That is very clear > > > > the church and church followers > > > > are at a mess > > > > Believing in the shangrila to come > > > > in the future > > > > good for them, > > > > this is not my cup of tea > > > > or my aperitif > > > > v h > > > who's talking about the 'future'? > > it's Here and Now or it ain't at all. > > :-) > > .b b.b. > Exactly It is NOW or never :-) v h 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.