Guest guest Posted April 6, 2008 Report Share Posted April 6, 2008 Dear members, I am just joined you and I have a question. It seems to me that Nisargaddat talked about two states: the first is the discovering of the "I am", of the consciousness which is formless, without limit, divine. But he asked us to go further, beyond the "I am", beyong the consciousness. Among the spiritual teachers today, it seems to me that they often make confusions between this two states maybe even Balsekar. And it's difficult to find in the past teachers who are able to make this difference. Do someone agree with me or am I reading Nisargadatta in the wrong way? thanks josé (from Paris, france) Envoyé avec Mail.Une boite mail plus intelligente. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 In a message dated 4/6/2008 8:19:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, joseleroyfr writes: Dear members, I am just joined you and I have a question. It seems to me that Nisargaddat talked about two states: the first is the discovering of the "I am", of the consciousness which is formless, without limit, divine. But he asked us to go further, beyond the "I am", beyong the consciousness. Among the spiritual teachers today, it seems to me that they often make confusions between this two states maybe even Balsekar. And it's difficult to find in the past teachers who are able to make this difference. Do someone agree with me or am I reading Nisargadatta in the wrong way? thanks josé (from Paris, france) Hi Jose I'm not as familiar with Niz as I should be considering where we are, but his comments about 'I am' have caused some confusion for me. Everybody has their own way of talking about it and we don't have to take any of it too seriously. I'm thinking it's Ramesh who says 'All there is, is Consciousness. Consciousness is all there is.' and he seems to be referring to the physical expression as in, 'all things', which is true. Others may say what 'we' are is Awareness and there is only Awareness. There isn't really a conflict between the two. To me, the label we give our Beingness is Awareness, and Consciousness is the label we give to that which arises within Awareness as the thingness that Awareness is 'aware of'. (Awareness remains in the absence of consciousness) You know you are conscious. Consciousness is clearly happening, and you are clearly aware that it is happening, so you must be that Awareness. Phil Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Dear Jose, When you try to find 'I am', it is actually a mental process. It involves your mind. The same is the case when you chant 'AUM'. With the help of 'I am' or 'who am I' or chanting of 'AUM', all other thought are kept away. That is why Sri Nisargadattaji Maharaj has advised us to think on 'I am'. Now after all the thoughts have disappeared except one. i.e. 'I am'. Still duality exists in the sense that there is somebody inquiring about 'I am' and the observer. To put an end to this duality, we should try to drop 'I am' by trying to find the 'source' from where this enquiry is originated. Then you will go beyond mind and beyond duality. Then this enquiry will be dissolved in the source and only the source or you will exist. Nothing else is present. Ramana Maharshi has explained that just like the fire (which is compared to the enquiry 'I am', burns the corpe and then it also dies out, so does the enquiry about your self will dissolve in is origin or source. This is a non-dual state, the highest state mentioned in the Indian Traditional Scriptures and is called 'Nirvikalp Samadhi " Vikalp = changes. NirVikalp= Not changing Samadhi= Sate in which you are established in you 'SELF' Ramesh Balsaker belongs to Yoga and in Yoga great importance is given to body both Gross and subtle. As the very process involes the rise of Kundalini and mastery of senses is achieved by prana or breadth control. So you need to tune with thing that is other then you own 'SELF' i.e. kundalini. This type of constant practice can bring you to a certain level but cannot take you to NirVikalp Samadhi'. Even in Yog you need to Drop all the tuning with Kundalini and your bodies and take the support of Atma and be one with the SELF. But then, you cannot drop this tuning because since years you have given too much importance to kundalini and when time comes to drop the tuning you simply cannot drop it. Whereas in Non- Dual approach, you directly take the support of Atma Tatva or your True 'SELF' and not anything else from the begining of meditation. So this is the straight path. I hope this solves the query. Sincerely Sujal Upadhyay --- jose le roy <joseleroyfr wrote: > Dear members, > I am just joined you and I have a question. > It seems to me that Nisargaddat talked about two > states: the first is the discovering of the " I am " , > of the consciousness which is formless, without > limit, divine. > But he asked us to go further, beyond the " I am " , > beyong the consciousness. > Among the spiritual teachers today, it seems to me > that they often make confusions between this two > states maybe even Balsekar. > And it's difficult to find in the past teachers who > are able to make this difference. > Do someone agree with me or am I reading > Nisargadatta in the wrong way? > thanks > josé (from Paris, france) > > > > ___________________________ > > Envoyez avec Mail. Une boite mail plus > intelligente http://mail..fr ______________________________\ ____ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals./tc/blockbuster/text5.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Nisargadatta , jose le roy <joseleroyfr wrote: > > Dear members, > I am just joined you and I have a question. > It seems to me that Nisargaddat talked about two states: the first is the discovering of the " I am " , of the consciousness which is formless, without limit, divine. No ! The " I am " IS consciousness. And therfore consciousness not at all is divine - in no way. And, btw, the " divine " is just a conscept, an idea sitting in romatic minds. Throw that crap out. Niz said that consciousness is just like a fever. And so is the " I am " , a kind of disease. > But he asked us to go further, beyond the " I am " , beyong the consciousness. Yes, but the problem is who will go further beyond consciousness, beyond the " I am " ? Can consciousness go beyond consciousness or can the " I am " go beyond the " I am " ? The main thing to start with is no longer to sepsarate consciousness from its content. Consciousness IS its content, it IS the " I am " . Calling consciousness as divine is separating it from ist content which is not divine. Consciousness IS its content - no content, no consciousness. Werner > Among the spiritual teachers today, it seems to me that they often make confusions between this two states maybe even Balsekar. > And it's difficult to find in the past teachers who are able to make this difference. > Do someone agree with me or am I reading Nisargadatta in the wrong way? > thanks > josé (from Paris, france) > > > ____________________ _______ > Envoyez avec Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http://mail..fr > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Dear Jose, The method tought by Sri Nisargadattaji involves the use of mind. The enquiry about 'I am' or to find out 'who Am I' by Sri Ramana Maharshi or chanting of 'AUM' is all the same. All these require you to sit and meditate. This process involves mental efforts. The reason for suggesting this kind of enquiry (about 'I am' or 'who am i') is that with the help of this al other thoughts are dissloved. The only thought that remains is the 'I am' or 'who am i' or the chanting of 'AUM'. But still, it is not the final state because, in this state, duality exists i.e. 1. the one who is chanting or making the enquiry and 2. and the one who observes the chanting. Now Sri Nisargadattaji askes us to go beyond the 'i am'. Who to go beyond 'i am'?. By trying to know from where the chanting or the enquiry has originated. i.e. the source. In ramana maharshi's words, the fire burns the corpse (which implies the desires) and then it also dies out. After you find the source from where this enquiry has originated, then everything dissolves and only the source, i.e. you or 'SELF' remains this is known as 'Nirvikapl Samadhi' Vikalp=changes NirVikalp= the one which does not changes Samadhi = state of awareness about our true nature Hence first we should try to enquire or find 'i am ' or 'who am i' and then go beyond it. A person who regularly meditating can understand this. Ramesh Balsaker is from Yoga. In Yoga, the philosophy, we have to tune with the body both gross and subtle. So it has its limitations and you need to go beyond kundalini. finally every thought has to be discarded. which people fail to do so as they have tuned with the body. So these people cannot go beyond or find diffucult or go beyond 'i amj' Hope this clears out Sincerely Sujal Upadhyay Nisargadatta , jose le roy <joseleroyfr wrote: > > Dear members, > I am just joined you and I have a question. > It seems to me that Nisargaddat talked about two states: the first is the discovering of the " I am " , of the consciousness which is formless, without limit, divine. > But he asked us to go further, beyond the " I am " , beyong the consciousness. > Among the spiritual teachers today, it seems to me that they often make confusions between this two states maybe even Balsekar. > And it's difficult to find in the past teachers who are able to make this difference. > Do someone agree with me or am I reading Nisargadatta in the wrong way? > thanks > josé (from Paris, france) > > > ___________________________ > Envoyez avec Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http:// mail..fr > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Hi jose and welcome, In fact, there are three states in the vedantic teachings: deep sleep,dream and wakefulness. And the fourth one, which is differently called Turya, or Cosmic Consciousness, or Pure Consciousness, or the Self, is not exactly a state (or as Siddharameshwar put it: the Stateless State), but the substratum on which or before which the other states unwind. Remember Ramana's analogy of the movie screen! Now, what Nisargadatta calls " I am " is not that " stateless state " but rather what Ramana Maharshi calls the " I-thought " , or the ego. This " I-thought " is the first thought that arises in the wakeful state, and from it stems the mind, and therefore the universe, since the universe is but a mental creation of the ego. So, Nisargadatta's teaching, IMO, invites us to grab this first thought, this " I am " , and next, to consider it as the subject who is witnessing all the show, and finally to realise that this " I am " , this ego-subject is itself an object for the Self, our real nature which is beyond any concept, i.e. " before " the arising of the " I- thought " ! I don't know if my explanation is enough clear, but I can put it in French if you do prefer. Sincerely. Hakim Nisargadatta , jose le roy <joseleroyfr wrote: > > Dear members, > I am just joined you and I have a question. > It seems to me that Nisargaddat talked about two states: the first is the discovering of the " I am " , of the consciousness which is formless, without limit, divine. > But he asked us to go further, beyond the " I am " , beyong the consciousness. > Among the spiritual teachers today, it seems to me that they often make confusions between this two states maybe even Balsekar. > And it's difficult to find in the past teachers who are able to make this difference. > Do someone agree with me or am I reading Nisargadatta in the wrong way? > thanks > josé (from Paris, france) > > > ___________________ ________ > Envoyez avec Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http://mail..fr > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 In a message dated 4/7/2008 9:02:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, chabakat writes: Hi jose and welcome,In fact, there are three states in the vedantic teachings: deep sleep,dream and wakefulness. And the fourth one, which is differently called Turya, or Cosmic Consciousness, or Pure Consciousness, or the Self, is not exactly a state (or as Siddharameshwar put it: the Stateless State), but the substratum on which or before which the other states unwind. Remember Ramana's analogy of the movie screen!Now, what Nisargadatta calls "I am" is not that "stateless state" but rather what Ramana Maharshi calls the "I-thought", or the ego. This "I-thought" is the first thought that arises in the wakeful state, and from it stems the mind, and therefore the universe, since the universe is but a mental creation of the ego.So, Nisargadatta's teaching, IMO, invites us to grab this first thought, this "I am", and next, to consider it as the subject who is witnessing all the show, and finally to realise that this "I am", this ego-subject is itself an object for the Self, our real nature which is beyond any concept, i.e. "before" the arising of the "I-thought"!I don't know if my explanation is enough clear, but I can put it in French if you do prefer.Sincerely.Hakim To say that the world is a creation of ego implies that in the absence of ego, there would be no perception. A child is not born with an ego, and yet perception of the world happens. The 'me' identification of the 'master' has been removed, and yet the world remains. Phil Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 In a message dated 4/7/2008 11:10:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: Phil,Are you also aware of being aware of consciousnness ? Or to be more precise, are you also aware of being aware of being aware of being aware of being aware of being aware of being aware, and so on .... ?Consciousness is all there is. And there is no owner of consciousness, there is no one being aware of consciousness.The illusion of an additional awareness is caused by thought separating itself from consciousness which now says "I am aware of being aware".It is this trap of thought you fell in, Phil.Consciousness is all there is.Thought is just a content of consciousness. And thought is not aware, no matter how vehemently it tries to convince itself of the opposite.Werner No, I am not aware of being aware of being aware...... I already agreed with the statement that consciousness is all there is. I never implied that there was an owner of consciousness. I never suggested that thought was more than the content of consciousness, nor did I ever suggest it was aware. Although thinking does need to cease for a moment, it can easily be noticed that a thought cannot observe a thought. 'Something' is aware that thoughts are happening; that they come and go. It may even be noticed that there are moments when there is no thought. You no doubt call this a thought noticing the absence of thoughts, but a thought cannot notice it's presence or absence from within the thought any more than you, as awareness, can notice that you are awareness from within the awareness. The idea of being aware of being aware is a mind game, but if you turn your attention to what can be objectified, you notice that thoughts can be objectified, but awareness cannot. What is it that's aware of thoughts? You cannot assign any qualities to it because it is not an object of your perception, but rather the subject that is perceiving. Phil Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/6/2008 8:19:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > joseleroyfr writes: > > > Dear members, > > I am just joined you and I have a question. > > It seems to me that Nisargaddat talked about two states: the first is the > discovering of the " I am " , of the consciousness which is formless, without > limit, divine. > But he asked us to go further, beyond the " I am " , beyong the consciousness. > Among the spiritual teachers today, it seems to me that they often make > confusions between this two states maybe even Balsekar. > And it's difficult to find in the past teachers who are able to make this > difference. > > Do someone agree with me or am I reading Nisargadatta in the wrong way? > > thanks > > josé (from Paris, france) > > > > > Hi Jose > I'm not as familiar with Niz as I should be considering where we are, but > his comments about 'I am' have caused some confusion for me. Everybody has their > own way of talking about it and we don't have to take any of it too > seriously. I'm thinking it's Ramesh who says 'All there is, is Consciousness. > Consciousness is all there is.' and he seems to be referring to the physical > expression as in, 'all things', which is true. Others may say what 'we' are is > Awareness and there is only Awareness. There isn't really a conflict between the > two. > > To me, the label we give our Beingness is Awareness, and Consciousness is > the label we give to that which arises within Awareness as the thingness that > Awareness is 'aware of'. (Awareness remains in the absence of consciousness) > You know you are conscious. Consciousness is clearly happening, and you are > clearly aware that it is happening, so you must be that Awareness. > > Phil > > Phil, Are you also aware of being aware of consciousnness ? Or to be more precise, are you also aware of being aware of being aware of being aware of being aware of being aware of being aware, and so on .... ? Consciousness is all there is. And there is no owner of consciousness, there is no one being aware of consciousness. The illusion of an additional awareness is caused by thought separating itself from consciousness which now says " I am aware of being aware " . It is this trap of thought you fell in, Phil. Consciousness is all there is. Thought is just a content of consciousness. And thought is not aware, no matter how vehemently it tries to convince itself of the opposite. Werner > > **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. > (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states? ncid=aoltrv00030000000016) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/7/2008 11:10:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > Phil, > > Are you also aware of being aware of consciousnness ? Or to be more > precise, are you also aware of being aware of being aware of being > aware of being aware of being aware of being aware, and so on .... ? > > Consciousness is all there is. And there is no owner of > consciousness, there is no one being aware of consciousness. > > The illusion of an additional awareness is caused by thought > separating itself from consciousness which now says " I am aware of > being aware " . > > It is this trap of thought you fell in, Phil. > > Consciousness is all there is. > > Thought is just a content of consciousness. And thought is not aware, > no matter how vehemently it tries to convince itself of the opposite. > > Werner > > > > No, I am not aware of being aware of being aware...... > > I already agreed with the statement that consciousness is all there is. > > I never implied that there was an owner of consciousness. > > I never suggested that thought was more than the content of consciousness, > nor did I ever suggest it was aware. > > Although thinking does need to cease for a moment, it can easily be noticed > that a thought cannot observe a thought. 'Something' is aware that thoughts > are happening; that they come and go. It may even be noticed that there are > moments when there is no thought. You no doubt call this a thought noticing the > absence of thoughts, but a thought cannot notice it's presence or absence > from within the thought any more than you, as awareness, can notice that you are > awareness from within the awareness. > > The idea of being aware of being aware is a mind game, but if you turn your > attention to what can be objectified, you notice that thoughts can be > objectified, but awareness cannot. What is it that's aware of thoughts ? Hi Phil, Very simple: Nothing is aware " OF " thought. Thought is a content of consciousness just as is sound, vision, smell, emotions, pain etc. Consciousness IS its content. Consciousness has no separate existence, it is not a mirror in which objectrs are reflected. That is just a false view passed down since millennia. > You cannot > assign any qualities to it because it is not an object of your perception, but > rather the subject that is perceiving. > No, no, Phil, Thought is verbal and it is only created to eventually get communicated - thats all. We are social beings. I am German and my thoughts appear in my native language, German. Loud thoughts are called " speaking " and silent thoughts are called " thinking " . Thats the whole mystery about it So, verbal thought is a content of consciousness. But who is the perceiver of it ? There is none. It is again thought which claims to be the preceiver and which again is tricking you to believe in a " perceiver " . Werner > Phil **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. > (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states? ncid=aoltrv00030000000016) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Hakim " <chabakat wrote: > > Hi jose and welcome, > > In fact, there are three states in the vedantic teachings: deep > sleep,dream and wakefulness. And the fourth one, which is > differently called Turya, or Cosmic Consciousness, or Pure > Consciousness, or the Self, is not exactly a state (or as > Siddharameshwar put it: the Stateless State), but the substratum on > which or before which the other states unwind. Remember Ramana's > analogy of the movie screen! > Now, what Nisargadatta calls " I am " is not that " stateless state " > but rather what Ramana Maharshi calls the " I-thought " , or the ego. > This " I-thought " is the first thought that arises in the wakeful > state, and from it stems the mind, and therefore the universe, since > the universe is but a mental creation of the ego. > So, Nisargadatta's teaching, IMO, invites us to grab this first > thought, this " I am " , and next, to consider it as the subject who is > witnessing all the show, and finally to realise that this " I am " , > this ego-subject is itself an object for the Self, our real nature > which is beyond any concept, i.e. " before " the arising of the " I- > thought " ! > I don't know if my explanation is enough clear, but I can put it in > French if you do prefer. > > Sincerely. > Hakim > > nice explanations.....thank you... it shows that there is " something " ....other than the ego.... the Self know about..... where there is such knowledge, there is Self Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 In a message dated 4/8/2008 12:28:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: > No, I am not aware of being aware of being aware......> > I already agreed with the statement that consciousness is all there is.> > I never implied that there was an owner of consciousness.> > I never suggested that thought was more than the content of consciousness, > nor did I ever suggest it was aware.> > Although thinking does need to cease for a moment, it can easily be noticed > that a thought cannot observe a thought. 'Something' is aware that thoughts > are happening; that they come and go. It may even be noticed that there are > moments when there is no thought. You no doubt call this a thought noticing the > absence of thoughts, but a thought cannot notice it's presence or absence > from within the thought any more than you, as awareness, can notice that you are > awareness from within the awareness. > > The idea of being aware of being aware is a mind game, but if you turn your > attention to what can be objectified, you notice that thoughts can be > objectified, but awareness cannot. What is it that's aware of thoughts ?Hi Phil,Very simple: Nothing is aware " OF " thought. ****Hi Werner If there is no awareness of thought, how can you talk about what is or isn't aware of it? Clearly, 'you' are aware of thought. Thought is a content of consciousness just as is sound, vision, smell, emotions, pain etc.Consciousness IS its content. Consciousness has no separate existence, ****Do you see how you keep saying that and how I keep agreeing? I'm talking about Awareness as the existence to which you refer, not consciousness. it is not a mirror in which objectrs are reflected. That is just a false view passed down since millennia. ****Mirror is an okay analogy, but really it is the spontaneous expression of Awareness. Thought is an expression of Awareness in the same sense that the words on this screen are an 'expression' of the computer, meaning the computer is not the data it creates.> You cannot > assign any qualities to it because it is not an object of your perception, but > rather the subject that is perceiving. >No, no, Phil,Thought is verbal and it is only created to eventually get communicated - thats all. We are social beings.I am German and my thoughts appear in my native language, German.Loud thoughts are called "speaking" and silent thoughts are called "thinking". Thats the whole mystery about it :)So, verbal thought is a content of consciousness.But who is the perceiver of it ? There is none.It is again thought which claims to be the preceiver and which again is tricking you to believe in a "perceiver".Werner *****The symbols that thought takes in it's expression, and the form that expression takes, is irrelevant to the process of thought formation which is prior to all of that. The perceiver is the same awareness that formed the objects of perception. It is not a person. Phil Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 In a message dated 4/8/2008 12:50:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dennis_travis33 writes: Nisargadatta , "Hakim" <chabakat wrote:>> Hi jose and welcome,> > In fact, there are three states in the vedantic teachings: deep > sleep,dream and wakefulness. And the fourth one, which is > differently called Turya, or Cosmic Consciousness, or Pure > Consciousness, or the Self, is not exactly a state (or as > Siddharameshwar put it: the Stateless State), but the substratum on > which or before which the other states unwind. Remember Ramana's > analogy of the movie screen!> Now, what Nisargadatta calls "I am" is not that "stateless state" > but rather what Ramana Maharshi calls the "I-thought", or the ego. > This "I-thought" is the first thought that arises in the wakeful > state, and from it stems the mind, and therefore the universe, since > the universe is but a mental creation of the ego.> So, Nisargadatta's teaching, IMO, invites us to grab this first > thought, this "I am", and next, to consider it as the subject who is > witnessing all the show, and finally to realise that this "I am", > this ego-subject is itself an object for the Self, our real nature > which is beyond any concept, i.e. "before" the arising of the "I-> thought"!> I don't know if my explanation is enough clear, but I can put it in > French if you do prefer.> > Sincerely.> Hakim> > nice explanations.....thank you...it shows that there is "something"....other than the ego....the Self know about.....where there is such knowledge, there is SelfMarc Funny thingy is, Self doesn't know anything. All the knowledge is happening right here in the little itsy bitsy self. Phil Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/8/2008 12:50:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dennis_travis33 writes: > > Nisargadatta , " Hakim " <chabakat@> wrote: > > > > Hi jose and welcome, > > > > In fact, there are three states in the vedantic teachings: deep > > sleep,dream and wakefulness. And the fourth one, which is > > differently called Turya, or Cosmic Consciousness, or Pure > > Consciousness, or the Self, is not exactly a state (or as > > Siddharameshwar put it: the Stateless State), but the substratum on > > which or before which the other states unwind. Remember Ramana's > > analogy of the movie screen! > > Now, what Nisargadatta calls " I am " is not that " stateless state " > > but rather what Ramana Maharshi calls the " I-thought " , or the ego. > > This " I-thought " is the first thought that arises in the wakeful > > state, and from it stems the mind, and therefore the universe, > since > > the universe is but a mental creation of the ego. > > So, Nisargadatta's teaching, IMO, invites us to grab this first > > thought, this " I am " , and next, to consider it as the subject who > is > > witnessing all the show, and finally to realise that this " I am " , > > this ego-subject is itself an object for the Self, our real nature > > which is beyond any concept, i.e. " before " the arising of the " I- > > thought " ! > > I don't know if my explanation is enough clear, but I can put it in > > French if you do prefer. > > > > Sincerely. > > Hakim > > > > > > nice explanations.....thank you... > > it shows that there is " something " ....other than the ego.... > > the Self know about..... > > where there is such knowledge, there is Self > > > > Marc > > > > Funny thingy is, Self doesn't know anything. All the knowledge is happening > right here in the little itsy bitsy self. > Phil it seem that you are talking about changless, formless and infinite Brahman..... indeed, Brahman don't " know " anything what could be known in a little ego-mind.... is Phil Brahman? No! awareness of/about Brahman.....is about Self aren't you aware of anything?....except of this your mentionned " little itsy bitsy self " ....? Marc > > > > > **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. > (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states? ncid=aoltrv00030000000016) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/8/2008 12:50:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dennis_travis33 writes: > > Nisargadatta , " Hakim " <chabakat@> wrote: > > > > Hi jose and welcome, > > > > In fact, there are three states in the vedantic teachings: deep > > sleep,dream and wakefulness. And the fourth one, which is > > differently called Turya, or Cosmic Consciousness, or Pure > > Consciousness, or the Self, is not exactly a state (or as > > Siddharameshwar put it: the Stateless State), but the substratum on > > which or before which the other states unwind. Remember Ramana's > > analogy of the movie screen! > > Now, what Nisargadatta calls " I am " is not that " stateless state " > > but rather what Ramana Maharshi calls the " I-thought " , or the ego. > > This " I-thought " is the first thought that arises in the wakeful > > state, and from it stems the mind, and therefore the universe, > since > > the universe is but a mental creation of the ego. > > So, Nisargadatta's teaching, IMO, invites us to grab this first > > thought, this " I am " , and next, to consider it as the subject who > is > > witnessing all the show, and finally to realise that this " I am " , > > this ego-subject is itself an object for the Self, our real nature > > which is beyond any concept, i.e. " before " the arising of the " I- > > thought " ! > > I don't know if my explanation is enough clear, but I can put it in > > French if you do prefer. > > > > Sincerely. > > Hakim > > > > > > nice explanations.....thank you... > > it shows that there is " something " ....other than the ego.... > > the Self know about..... > > where there is such knowledge, there is Self > > > > Marc > > > > Funny thingy is, Self doesn't know anything. All the knowledge is happening > right here in the little itsy bitsy self. > Phil ROFLMAO! that this is your belief is no surprise! that you would admit it is funnier than all get out. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/8/2008 12:28:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > > No, I am not aware of being aware of being aware...... > > > > I already agreed with the statement that consciousness is all > there is. > > > > I never implied that there was an owner of consciousness. > > > > I never suggested that thought was more than the content of > consciousness, > > nor did I ever suggest it was aware. > > > > Although thinking does need to cease for a moment, it can easily be > noticed > > that a thought cannot observe a thought. 'Something' is aware that > thoughts > > are happening; that they come and go. It may even be noticed that > there are > > moments when there is no thought. You no doubt call this a thought > noticing the > > absence of thoughts, but a thought cannot notice it's presence or > absence > > from within the thought any more than you, as awareness, can > notice that you are > > awareness from within the awareness. > > > > The idea of being aware of being aware is a mind game, but if you > turn your > > attention to what can be objectified, you notice that thoughts can > be > > objectified, but awareness cannot. What is it that's aware of > thoughts ? > > > Hi Phil, > > Very simple: Nothing is aware " OF " thought. > > > ****Hi Werner > If there is no awareness of thought, how can you talk about what is or isn't > aware of it? Clearly, 'you' are aware of thought. > > > > > > Thought is a content of > consciousness just as is sound, vision, smell, emotions, pain etc. > > Consciousness IS its content. Consciousness has no separate > existence, > > > ****Do you see how you keep saying that and how I keep agreeing? I'm talking > about Awareness as the existence to which you refer, not consciousness. > > > it is not a mirror in which objectrs are reflected. That > is just a false view passed down since millennia. > > > ****Mirror is an okay analogy, but really it is the spontaneous expression > of Awareness. Thought is an expression of Awareness in the same sense that the > words on this screen are an 'expression' of the computer, meaning the > computer is not the data it creates. > > > > You cannot > > assign any qualities to it because it is not an object of your > perception, but > > rather the subject that is perceiving. > > > > > No, no, Phil, > > Thought is verbal and it is only created to eventually get > communicated - thats all. We are social beings. > > I am German and my thoughts appear in my native language, German. > > Loud thoughts are called " speaking " and silent thoughts are > called " thinking " . Thats the whole mystery about it > > So, verbal thought is a content of consciousness. > > But who is the perceiver of it ? There is none. > > It is again thought which claims to be the preceiver and which again > is tricking you to believe in a " perceiver " . > > Werner > > > > > *****The symbols that thought takes in it's expression, and the form that > expression takes, is irrelevant to the process of thought formation which is > prior to all of that. > > The perceiver is the same awareness that formed the objects of perception. > It is not a person. > > Phil objects of perception were never formed. projected illusion is ongoing and ever-changing non-form. form, and all laws of form, are your misguided beliefs and hopes. neither your belief nor your hope will avail anything. your spouting off about your misunderstanding however.. avails you more misplaced self satisfaction though. rather bad form one could say. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 In a message dated 4/9/2008 3:49:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dennis_travis33 writes: > nice explanations.....thank you...> > it shows that there is "something"....other than the ego....> > the Self know about.....> > where there is such knowledge, there is Self> > > > Marc> > > > Funny thingy is, Self doesn't know anything. All the knowledge is happening > right here in the little itsy bitsy self. > Philit seem that you are talking about changless, formless and infinite Brahman.....indeed, Brahman don't "know" anything what could be known in a little ego-mind....is Phil Brahman?No!awareness of/about Brahman.....is about Selfaren't you aware of anything?....except of this your mentionned "little itsy bitsy self"....?Marc I'm not aware of understanding anything you're trying to say. Again, all I'm saying is that knowledge is a human thang, and it's all made up out of nothingness. I get the vauge impression you don't agree, but it's hard to tell. Phil Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 In a message dated 4/9/2008 7:53:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Roberibus111 writes: Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:>> > In a message dated 4/8/2008 12:50:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dennis_travis33 writes:> > Nisargadatta , "Hakim" <chabakat@> wrote:> >> > Hi jose and welcome,> > > > In fact, there are three states in the vedantic teachings: deep > > sleep,dream and wakefulness. And the fourth one, which is > > differently called Turya, or Cosmic Consciousness, or Pure > > Consciousness, or the Self, is not exactly a state (or as > > Siddharameshwar put it: the Stateless State), but the substratum on > > which or before which the other states unwind. Remember Ramana's > > analogy of the movie screen!> > Now, what Nisargadatta calls "I am" is not that "stateless state" > > but rather what Ramana Maharshi calls the "I-thought", or the ego. > > This "I-thought" is the first thought that arises in the wakeful > > state, and from it stems the mind, and therefore the universe, > since > > the universe is but a mental creation of the ego.> > So, Nisargadatta's teaching, IMO, invites us to grab this first > > thought, this "I am", and next, to consider it as the subject who > is > > witnessing all the show, and finally to realise that this "I am", > > this ego-subject is itself an object for the Self, our real nature > > which is beyond any concept, i.e. "before" the arising of the "I-> > thought"!> > I don't know if my explanation is enough clear, but I can put it in > > French if you do prefer.> > > > Sincerely.> > Hakim> > > > > > nice explanations.....thank you...> > it shows that there is "something"....other than the ego....> > the Self know about.....> > where there is such knowledge, there is Self> > > > Marc> > > > Funny thingy is, Self doesn't know anything. All the knowledge ishappening > right here in the little itsy bitsy self. > PhilROFLMAO!that this is your belief is no surprise!that you would admit it is funnier than all get out.LOL!.b b.b. What you are is prior to any knowledge about this or that. It is the source of knowledge and therefore does not consist of knowledge. This is why there is nothing to find, and why Truth cannot be spoken or conceptualized. Phil Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/9/2008 3:49:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > dennis_travis33 writes: > > > nice explanations.....thank you... > > > > it shows that there is " something " ....other than the ego.... > > > > the Self know about..... > > > > where there is such knowledge, there is Self > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > Funny thingy is, Self doesn't know anything. All the knowledge is > happening > > right here in the little itsy bitsy self. > > Phil > > it seem that you are talking about changless, formless and infinite > Brahman..... > > indeed, Brahman don't " know " anything what could be known in a little > ego-mind.... > > is Phil Brahman? > > No! > > awareness of/about Brahman.....is about Self > > aren't you aware of anything?....except of this your > mentionned " little itsy bitsy self " ....? > > > Marc > > > > > I'm not aware of understanding anything you're trying to say. Again, all I'm > saying is that knowledge is a human thang, and it's all made up out of > nothingness. I get the vauge impression you don't agree, but it's hard to tell. > > Phil > yes.....you aren't aware of understanding anything i'm trying to say..... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/8/2008 12:50:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > dennis_travis33@ writes: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hakim " <chabakat@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi jose and welcome, > > > > > > In fact, there are three states in the vedantic teachings: deep > > > sleep,dream and wakefulness. And the fourth one, which is > > > differently called Turya, or Cosmic Consciousness, or Pure > > > Consciousness, or the Self, is not exactly a state (or as > > > Siddharameshwar put it: the Stateless State), but the substratum on > > > which or before which the other states unwind. Remember Ramana's > > > analogy of the movie screen! > > > Now, what Nisargadatta calls " I am " is not that " stateless state " > > > but rather what Ramana Maharshi calls the " I-thought " , or the ego. > > > This " I-thought " is the first thought that arises in the wakeful > > > state, and from it stems the mind, and therefore the universe, > > since > > > the universe is but a mental creation of the ego. > > > So, Nisargadatta's teaching, IMO, invites us to grab this first > > > thought, this " I am " , and next, to consider it as the subject who > > is > > > witnessing all the show, and finally to realise that this " I am " , > > > this ego-subject is itself an object for the Self, our real nature > > > which is beyond any concept, i.e. " before " the arising of the " I- > > > thought " ! > > > I don't know if my explanation is enough clear, but I can put it in > > > French if you do prefer. > > > > > > Sincerely. > > > Hakim > > > > > > > > > > nice explanations.....thank you... > > > > it shows that there is " something " ....other than the ego.... > > > > the Self know about..... > > > > where there is such knowledge, there is Self > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > Funny thingy is, Self doesn't know anything. All the knowledge is > happening > > right here in the little itsy bitsy self. > > Phil > > > > > ROFLMAO! > > that this is your belief is no surprise! > > that you would admit it is funnier than all get out. > > LOL! > > .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.