Guest guest Posted May 4, 2008 Report Share Posted May 4, 2008 In a message dated 5/4/2008 12:42:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:>> > In a message dated 03/05/2008 2:30:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes:> > > Better ponder why there is no self-inquiry possible.> > Who is the inquirer ? Who is that ?> > Werner> > > > To ask your question "Who is the inquirer" IS self inquiry, but I don't > think you're actually inquiring because you've already concluded it's impossible.> > Phil> > Phil,You can't get away so easily.I am not interested if asking that question already is self-inquiry.As long as you are believing in "honestly self-inquiring" then I must ask you: Who is the inquirer ? Who is that ?I am still waiting for a "honest" answer.Werner Welp, see, it's like this, Werner. I'm here having what could very well eventuate into the actualized potential of a conversation, and so I'm not running, hiding, trying to get away, deceive, lie, transmigrate, pyromorphilate or nuthin. I'm just here talkin, okay? It's dificult when you begin with the answer and ask the question, not so that you can hear something, but so that you can proove something, but hey, I play this game all the time. It's okay. When you attend a Satsang with your favorite guru, do you think he is talking to Werner? NOOooOOOooOo, in fact, he would have been pleased if Werner had checked himself with the coat lady, but he has no choice to pretend to address Werner because Werner thinks he's sitting there running his mind with concepts about how he doesn't exist. The guru is not addressing you for one simple reason; you're the only one who thinks you're sitting in a chair listening to him. He knows there's nobody home, just an idea that there is, surrounded by all sorts of other ideas about what this imaginary person can and can't do and should and shouldn't hear. He's obviously talking to the only non-thing that actually exists.....himself in the form of the Awareness that sits in that chair and formulates the thoughts in your head. Yes, Martha, something does actually exist and it's the thingy that's aware of reading these words on the screen right now. Are you interested in exploring what this thingy is that's aware of these words, because that would be self inquiry and I wouldn't want to push any conceptual boundaries for you unless you're game? Phil Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2008 Report Share Posted May 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 03/05/2008 2:30:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > > Better ponder why there is no self-inquiry possible. > > Who is the inquirer ? Who is that ? > > Werner > > > > To ask your question " Who is the inquirer " IS self inquiry, but I don't > think you're actually inquiring because you've already concluded it's impossible. > > Phil > > Phil, You can't get away so easily. I am not interested if asking that question already is self-inquiry. As long as you are believing in " honestly self-inquiring " then I must ask you: Who is the inquirer ? Who is that ? I am still waiting for a " honest " answer. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2008 Report Share Posted May 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/4/2008 12:42:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 03/05/2008 2:30:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > wwoehr@ writes: > > > > > > Better ponder why there is no self-inquiry possible. > > > > Who is the inquirer ? Who is that ? > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > To ask your question " Who is the inquirer " IS self inquiry, but I > don't > > think you're actually inquiring because you've already concluded > it's impossible. > > > > Phil > > > > > > > Phil, > > You can't get away so easily. > > I am not interested if asking that question already is self- inquiry. > > As long as you are believing in " honestly self-inquiring " then I must > ask you: Who is the inquirer ? Who is that ? > > I am still waiting for a " honest " answer. > > Werner > > > > Welp, see, it's like this, Werner. I'm here having what could very well > eventuate into the actualized potential of a conversation, and so I'm not > running, hiding, trying to get away, deceive, lie, transmigrate, pyromorphilate or > nuthin. I'm just here talkin, okay? It's dificult when you begin with the > answer and ask the question, not so that you can hear something, but so that you > can proove something, but hey, I play this game all the time. It's okay. > > When you attend a Satsang with your favorite guru, do you think he is > talking to Werner? NOOooOOOooOo, in fact, he would have been pleased if Werner had > checked himself with the coat lady, but he has no choice to pretend to > address Werner because Werner thinks he's sitting there running his mind with > concepts about how he doesn't exist. > > The guru is not addressing you for one simple reason; you're the only one > who thinks you're sitting in a chair listening to him. He knows there's nobody > home, just an idea that there is, surrounded by all sorts of other ideas about > what this imaginary person can and can't do and should and shouldn't hear. > > He's obviously talking to the only non-thing that actually > exists.....himself in the form of the Awareness that sits in that chair and formulates the > thoughts in your head. Yes, Martha, something does actually exist and it's the > thingy that's aware of reading these words on the screen right now. Are you > interested in exploring what this thingy is that's aware of these words, > because that would be self inquiry and I wouldn't want to push any conceptual > boundaries for you unless you're game? > > Phil Thanks a lot, Phil, Finally we are communicating. " Communicare, Latin) = Caring or sharing together. This self-inquiry thingy was the way Ramana tried to reveal that no one is home. But we are here on a Maharaj list and he had a different approach: Constantly and seriously staying with the " I am " . The latter approach will result in a more and more fading away of the illusionary " owner " of consciouness. Therefore Maharaj suggetsed self-knowledge but not Ramana's self- inquiry, " Who am I " . Self-knowledge one cannot avoid, it comes automatically, if one likes it or not Can you teach self-knowledge ? If one studies Freud one learns more about Freud than about oneself. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2008 Report Share Posted May 4, 2008 In a message dated 5/4/2008 2:17:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: > Welp, see, it's like this, Werner. I'm here having what could very well > eventuate into the actualized potential of a conversation, and so I'm not > running, hiding, trying to get away, deceive, lie, transmigrate, pyromorphilate or > nuthin. I'm just here talkin, okay? It's dificult when you begin with the > answer and ask the question, not so that you can hear something, but so that you > can proove something, but hey, I play this game all the time. It's okay.> > When you attend a Satsang with your favorite guru, do you think he is > talking to Werner? NOOooOOOooOo, in fact, he would have been pleased if Werner had > checked himself with the coat lady, but he has no choice to pretend to > address Werner because Werner thinks he's sitting there running his mind with > concepts about how he doesn't exist. > > The guru is not addressing you for one simple reason; you're the only one > who thinks you're sitting in a chair listening to him. He knows there's nobody > home, just an idea that there is, surrounded by all sorts of other ideas about > what this imaginary person can and can't do and should and shouldn't hear.> > He's obviously talking to the only non-thing that actually > exists.....himself in the form of the Awareness that sits in that chair and formulates the > thoughts in your head. Yes, Martha, something does actually exist and it's the > thingy that's aware of reading these words on the screen right now. Are you > interested in exploring what this thingy is that's aware of these words, > because that would be self inquiry and I wouldn't want to push any conceptual > boundaries for you unless you're game?> > Phil> Thanks a lot, Phil,Finally we are communicating. "Communicare, Latin) = Sharing together.This self-inquiry thingy was the way Ramana tried to reveal that no one is home. But we are here on a Maharaj list and he had a different approach: Constantly and seriously staying with the "I am".The latter approach will result in a more and more fading away of the illusionary "owner" of consciouness.Therefore Maharaj suggetsed self-knowledge but not Ramana's self-inquiry, "Who am I".Self-knowledge one cannot avoid, it comes automatically, if one likes it or not :)Can you teach self-knowledge ?If you study Freud you learn more about Freud than about yourself.Werner Well, as I've mentioned, I never got the whole "I am" deally, though I admit I never seriously studied Niz. (Downloading the book is on my list of things to dodo) From what I have read and heard, sometimes it sounds like he's talking about self and sometimes Self. I don't think there's a need to resolve my dilemma here unless you want to talk about it, cause surely I'll see once I read it. Howsoever, self inquiry and self knowledge seem like the same thing to me. Self inquiry asks, who is this apparent person that has been assumed to exist on the basis of a sense of 'me'? Who is this self? When you look for it, you find out what it is not, and you find yourself staring into some non-thing with no name. It is indeed impossible to locate and is nonsense in the sense that it doesn't make sense to the mind, but that's the whole point of the inquiry. Now that apparently obvious belief that there is a 'me' is gone, and there's no-thing to step in to replace it. Personhood is a myth. I disagree that self knowledge comes automatically and can't be avoided. Don't even know where to start to address that. True, it cannot be taught. Phil Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > Well, as I've mentioned, I never got the whole " I am " deally, though I admit > I never seriously studied Niz. (Downloading the book is on my list of things > to dodo) From what I have read and heard, sometimes it sounds like he's > talking about self and sometimes Self. I don't think there's a need to resolve my > dilemma here unless you want to talk about it, cause surely I'll see once I > read it. > > Howsoever, self inquiry and self knowledge seem like the same thing to me. > Self inquiry asks, who is this apparent person that has been assumed to exist > on the basis of a sense of 'me'? Who is this self? When you look for it, you > find out what it is not, and you find yourself staring into some non-thing > with no name. It is indeed impossible to locate and is nonsense in the sense > that it doesn't make sense to the mind, but that's the whole point of the > inquiry. Now that apparently obvious belief that there is a 'me' is gone, and > there's no-thing to step in to replace it. Personhood is a myth. > > I disagree that self knowledge comes automatically and can't be avoided. > Don't even know where to start to address that. True, it cannot be taught. > > Phil > Imho, self-knowledge is a given and constantly *gives* of itself; however one must be *AWARE* of that... And THAT is the issue. How deep, wide, full, flowing, far-reaching is that awareness that is *found* in Self? ~a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, as I've mentioned, I never got the whole " I am " deally, though > I admit > > I never seriously studied Niz. (Downloading the book is on my list > of things > > to dodo) From what I have read and heard, sometimes it sounds like > he's > > talking about self and sometimes Self. I don't think there's a need > to resolve my > > dilemma here unless you want to talk about it, cause surely I'll see > once I > > read it. > > > > Howsoever, self inquiry and self knowledge seem like the same thing > to me. > > Self inquiry asks, who is this apparent person that has been assumed > to exist > > on the basis of a sense of 'me'? Who is this self? When you look > for it, you > > find out what it is not, and you find yourself staring into some > non-thing > > with no name. It is indeed impossible to locate and is nonsense in > the sense > > that it doesn't make sense to the mind, but that's the whole point > of the > > inquiry. Now that apparently obvious belief that there is a 'me' is > gone, and > > there's no-thing to step in to replace it. Personhood is a myth. > > > > I disagree that self knowledge comes automatically and can't be > avoided. > > Don't even know where to start to address that. True, it cannot be > taught. > > > > Phil > > > > > Imho, self-knowledge is a given and constantly *gives* of itself; > however one must be *AWARE* of that... > > And THAT is the issue. How deep, wide, full, flowing, far-reaching is > that awareness that is *found* in Self? > > ~a > Ana, You are already aware. There is this constant stream of data input from the senses processed by the brain and then delivered as consciousness. Consciousness IS its content - without content no consciousness. There is no more additional awareness. But, as it so often happens, one confuses to be aware with thinking, with mentally categorizing, interpreting and analyzing the data presented by consciousness. All that makes the illusionary " owner " of consciousness, the " owner " which is thought which says " I am aware OF " . But thought never is aware or conscious. Thought itself is just another content of consciousness as is sound or taste or emotions, etc ... The illiusion of an additional awareness comes into existence because all the categorizing and interpretations of thought too is just a content of consciousness. It seems, Ana, you too are prone of that confusion, you too see yourself as the owner of consciousness and out of that confusion arises " responsibility " - to be reponsible for more or less awareness. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 In a message dated 05/05/2008 2:46:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kailashana writes: Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:>> > > Well, as I've mentioned, I never got the whole "I am" deally, thoughI admit > I never seriously studied Niz. (Downloading the book is on my listof things > to dodo) From what I have read and heard, sometimes it sounds likehe's > talking about self and sometimes Self. I don't think there's a needto resolve my > dilemma here unless you want to talk about it, cause surely I'll seeonce I > read it.> > Howsoever, self inquiry and self knowledge seem like the same thingto me. > Self inquiry asks, who is this apparent person that has been assumedto exist > on the basis of a sense of 'me'? Who is this self? When you lookfor it, you > find out what it is not, and you find yourself staring into somenon-thing > with no name. It is indeed impossible to locate and is nonsense inthe sense > that it doesn't make sense to the mind, but that's the whole pointof the > inquiry. Now that apparently obvious belief that there is a 'me' isgone, and > there's no-thing to step in to replace it. Personhood is a myth.> > I disagree that self knowledge comes automatically and can't beavoided. > Don't even know where to start to address that. True, it cannot betaught.> > Phil> Imho, self-knowledge is a given and constantly *gives* of itself;however one must be *AWARE* of that...And THAT is the issue. How deep, wide, full, flowing, far-reaching isthat awareness that is *found* in Self?~a ****Yuppers, and what is seen takes infinite forms and depths and can't really be talked about, though it can be interesting and fun and can be a good focus for going deeper. ~pWondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 In a message dated 05/05/2008 3:46:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: > > Imho, self-knowledge is a given and constantly *gives* of itself;> however one must be *AWARE* of that...> > And THAT is the issue. How deep, wide, full, flowing, far-reaching is> that awareness that is *found* in Self?> > ~a>Ana,You are already aware.There is this constant stream of data input from the senses processed by the brain and then delivered as consciousness. Consciousness IS its content - without content no consciousness.There is no more additional awarenness.But, as it so often happens, one confuses to be aware with thinking, with mentally categorizing, interpreting and analayzing the data presented by conscousness.All that makes the illusionary "owner" of consciousness who says " I am aware OF ".It seems you too are prone to that confusion.Werner ***There is awareness present, which is clear to everyone. There is awareness in another context with which not everyone is familiar, though everyone has experienced it whether they are 'aware' of it or not. This awareness is not a mental process dealing with streams of data. It does not occur as an event in time. It is NOT subject to mind's doubt which is inherent in mind's process of conceptual bifurcation. It happens in timeless 'moments' when mind relaxes a bit and allows it. It's not entirely a matter of mind slowing or stopping it's mentation, because if one doesn't want to see something, it's ignored even in the silence. Phil Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 In a message dated 05/05/2008 1:31:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: > > ***There is awareness present, which is clear to everyone. There is > awareness in another context with which not everyone is familiar, though everyone has > experienced it whether they are 'aware' of it or not. This awareness is not > a mental process dealing with streams of data. It does not occur as an event > in time. It is NOT subject to mind's doubt which is inherent in mind's > process of conceptual bifurcation. It happens in timeless 'moments' when mind > relaxes a bit and allows it. It's not entirely a matter of mind slowing or > stopping it's mentation, because if one doesn't want to see something, it's ignored > even in the silence.> > Phil> Yes, yes, Phil,I already have read of that wonderous "awareness" several times. And as I could see that this wondersus "awareness" is the magic wand of many gurus. When they reached their own and their listeners' mental capacity the will draw this joker card and wave with it. They call it Jesus-Consciousness, or the Absolute, or the Self, and so on .... Thank you Phil,I prefer to visit Disneyland and to watch Mickey and his friends.Werner ***Well, yeah, Mickey's pretty cool too. :)Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 05/05/2008 3:46:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > > > > Imho, self-knowledge is a given and constantly *gives* of itself; > > however one must be *AWARE* of that... > > > > And THAT is the issue. How deep, wide, full, flowing, far- reaching > is > > that awareness that is *found* in Self? > > > > ~a > > > > > Ana, > > You are already aware. > > There is this constant stream of data input from the senses processed > by the brain and then delivered as consciousness. Consciousness IS > its content - without content no consciousness. > > There is no more additional awarenness. > > But, as it so often happens, one confuses to be aware with thinking, > with mentally categorizing, interpreting and analayzing the data > presented by conscousness. > > All that makes the illusionary " owner " of consciousness who says " I > am aware OF " . > > It seems you too are prone to that confusion. > > Werner > > > > ***There is awareness present, which is clear to everyone. There is > awareness in another context with which not everyone is familiar, though everyone has > experienced it whether they are 'aware' of it or not. This awareness is not > a mental process dealing with streams of data. It does not occur as an event > in time. It is NOT subject to mind's doubt which is inherent in mind's > process of conceptual bifurcation. It happens in timeless 'moments' when mind > relaxes a bit and allows it. It's not entirely a matter of mind slowing or > stopping it's mentation, because if one doesn't want to see something, it's ignored > even in the silence. > > Phil > Yes, yes, Phil, I already have read of that wonderous " awareness " several times. And as I could see that this wondersus " awareness " is the magic wand of many gurus. When they reached their own and their listeners' mental capacity the will draw this joker card and wave with it. They call it Jesus-Consciousness, or the Absolute, or the Self, and so on .... Thank you Phil, I prefer to visit Disneyland and to watch Mickey and his friends. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2008 Report Share Posted May 6, 2008 > > It seems, Ana, you too are prone of that confusion, you too see > yourself as the owner of consciousness and out of that confusion > arises " responsibility " - to be reponsible for more or less awareness. > > > > Werner P: Very astute observation. Memory reminds the consciousness center that it was supposed to pay attention to this, and not to that. Or memory compares the conscious state of feeling sleeppy with the one of feeling fully awake. The brain through indocrination sets standards of how it ought to behave. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2008 Report Share Posted May 6, 2008 > >W: Thank you Phil, > > I prefer to visit Disneyland and to watch Mickey and his friends. > > Werner P: Which one is your favorite character? I like Goofy. You think he's only Awareness like Phil? > 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.