Awareness & Consciousness

[Guest guest]

from Swami Premananda

 

 

CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS

 

I have noticed in some posts a confusion, one which I also had when I

first began reading Nisargadatta. It concerns the difference between

the way he uses the two terms " consciousness " and " awareness. "

 

Like most people I had always thought of these two words as meaning

basically the same thing, but N. uses them to point to two very

different meanings. When he uses the term " consciousness " he seems to

equate that term with the " I Am " and when he talks about " awareness "

he is pointing to something altogether beyond the consciousness ( " I

Am " ), that is, to the absolute.

 

As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the consciousness, that

it is all that we know, it is the fundamental sense of presence that

we feel, and that it is a universal feeling of the sense of being.

Consciousness = " sense of presence " = " the beingness " = the " I Am. "

 

Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And while he

directs us, as we start out, to simply be aware of the " I Am " so that

we come to the realization that we are the consciousness itself, and

not the body or the mind or the mind's thoughts and identification, he

does an amazing twist at the end of all that. When the realization has

established itself that I am the consciousness itself (and he always

points out that this means the universal consciousness only, the same

in a human or a cow or a dog or an ant), when I realize that I am the

" I am " he take us to the next realization which is when I subsequently

realize that I am NOT the " I am, " I am beyond that, I am pure

awareness only!

 

These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the word " consciousness "

there is always the touch of the duality. If I am conscious it is in

relation to being unconscious. If " I am " it is always in relation to

the " not-me. " If I am conscious it is always conscious OF something.

Consciousness always has an object of which I am conscious. So while

the realization of my identity as the " I am " is very much closer to

reality than the idea that " I am so-and-so, a person " it is still a

step away from the final realization of the absolute, that I am the

non- dual awareness which is allowing the consciousness to be

conscious. Awareness is that which is shining through the

consciousness, but it is beyond the consciousness itself. So "

awareness " is different from " consciousness " in Nisargadatta's talks.

The pure awareness is the absolute, without which there can be no

consciousness.

 

Another way he puts it is that the awareness " is that by which I know

that I am. " Thus the awareness is there before the " I am " (or

consciousness) appears, and is there after the consciousness

disappears (unconsciousness or death). So the awareness is beyond even

the universal consciousness. Another way that he put this astonishing

distinction is by saying that the absolute is " awareness unaware of

itself. " That statement of his is almost like a Zen koan, but I think

the idea is of an awareness without a trace of distinction or duality.

He speaks of it as " shining, " and of it being an uncaused mystery.

This is even beyond our idea of God, so he does not call it " God " but

simply says " the absolute, " or the ultimate reality, beyond time,

which ever was and ever will be.

 

So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual),

awareness is not OF something, it is not even aware OF itself, and

thus is absolutely singular, nondual.

 

This difference between his use of the words " consciousness " and

" awareness " took me a long time to grasp, because we don't really make

this distinction in ordinary common English. Being conscious or being

aware are thought of as the same. But Nisargadatta uses the terms

differently and difference is a great key, I think, to understanding

what he is trying to convey to us.

 

I was amazed when I first realized that he had played a kind of

" trick " in leading us from one realization to another. This is the

trick: first he is telling us to realize that we are really the " sense

of presence " or the " sense of beingness, " and when we finally realize

that he turns us around to the next higher realization and says what

seems to be the opposite: " NO, you are not that " I Am " either! You are

beyond the beingness, beyond the consciousness, beyond the sense of

presence, you are the pure awareness only by which the conscious has

been able to come into being: you are the absolutely pure original

awareness only. " This latter realization can only proceed out of the

former realization. First I must realize that I am the " I am, " the

universal consciousness, then out of that I can realize that I am NOT

the " I am! " I am actually the absolute only, and nothing else REALLY

exists at all! Everything else is no more real than a dream.

[Guest guest]

Hi,This latter realization can only proceed out of theformer realization. First I must realize that I am the "I am," theuniversal consciousness, then out of that I can realize that I am NOTthe "I am!" I am actually the absolute only, and nothing else REALLYexists at all! Everything else is no more real than a dream.1. The state of mind you have termed as 'consciousnes' is the experience of the presence of the SELF in every atom of world. Yog students have these experience first2. And the state you have described as 'awareness' is the non-dual state of nirvikalp samadhi. (advaita vedantins have these experience first)For one to be free from rebirths i.e. life and death. one should be able to

experience both these states.For advaita vedantins, they first experience 2nd state first and then when after opening the eyes he sees the world as nothing but the SELF. (for him the world is no more an ellusion)Even when, i had a conversation with Rob, i said the same thing. it was on the quote "Love all or Love none"Alternatively, conciousness and awareness can be used interchangably.Yet another explanation (from the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna)."Brahman and It's Maya are inseperable. Can you Seperate fire and it's warmth?. Can you imagine Sun without it's light?. When God is creating, sustaining, destroying creation, i call it as Kali (maya). When it is inert i call it as brahman."If you feel maya, you cannot ignore it. Once you know maya, it can no more influence you.God is both with and without form. Different people experience and express him in different waysYet Another

explanation:Where there is knowledge (information obtained from books and discources) the is ignorance. So go beyond knowledge and ignorance. i.e. be in your self. Sujal--- On Sat, 31/5/08, Era <mi_nok wrote:Era <mi_nok Awareness & ConsciousnessNisargadatta Date: Saturday, 31 May, 2008, 3:04 AMfrom Swami Pemananda CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS I have noticed in some posts a confusion,

one which I also had when I first began reading Nisargadatta. It concerns the difference between the way he uses the two terms "consciousness" and "awareness." Like most people I had always thought of these two words as meaning basically the same thing, but N. uses them to point to two very different meanings. When he uses the term "consciousness" he seems to equate that term with the "I Am " and when he talks about "awareness" he is pointing to something altogether beyond the consciousness ("I Am"), that is, to the absolute. As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the consciousness, that it is all that we know, it is the fundamental sense of presence that we feel, and that it is a universal feeling of the sense of being. Consciousness = "sense of presence" = "the beingness" = the "I Am." Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And while he directs us, as we start out,

to simply be aware of the "I Am" so that we come to the realization that we are the consciousness itself, and not the body or the mind or the mind's thoughts and identification, he does an amazing twist at the end of all that. When the realization has established itself that I am the consciousness itself (and he always points out that this means the universal consciousness only, the same in a human or a cow or a dog or an ant), when I realize that I am the "I am" he take us to the next realization which is when I subsequently realize that I am NOT the "I am," I am beyond that, I am pure awareness only! These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the word "consciousness" there is always the touch of the duality. If I am conscious it is in relation to being unconscious. If "I am" it is always in relation to the "not-me." If I am conscious it is always conscious OF something. Consciousness always

has an object of which I am conscious. So while the realization of my identity as the "I am" is very much closer to reality than the idea that "I am so-and-so, a person" it is still a step away from the final realization of the absolute, that I am the non- dual awareness which is allowing the consciousness to be conscious. Awareness is that which is shining through the consciousness, but it is beyond the consciousness itself. So " awareness" is different from "consciousness" in Nisargadatta' s talks. The pure awareness is the absolute, without which there can be no consciousness. Another way he puts it is that the awareness "is that by which I know that I am." Thus the awareness is there before the "I am" (or consciousness) appears, and is there after the consciousness disappears (unconsciousness or death). So the awareness is beyond even the universal consciousness. Another way that he put

this astonishing distinction is by saying that the absolute is "awareness unaware of itself." That statement of his is almost like a Zen koan, but I think the idea is of an awareness without a trace of distinction or duality. He speaks of it as "shining," and of it being an uncaused mystery. This is even beyond our idea of God, so he does not call it "God" but simply says "the absolute," or the ultimate reality, beyond time, which ever was and ever will be. So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual), awareness is not OF something, it is not even aware OF itself, and thus is absolutely singular, nondual. This difference between his use of the words "consciousness" and "awareness" took me a long time to grasp, because we don't really make this distinction in ordinary common English. Being conscious or being aware are thought of as the same. But Nisargadatta uses the

terms differently and difference is a great key, I think, to understanding what he is trying to convey to us. I was amazed when I first realized that he had played a kind of "trick" in leading us from one realization to another. This is the trick: first he is telling us to realize that we are really the "sense of presence" or the "sense of beingness," and when we finally realize that he turns us around to the next higher realization and says what seems to be the opposite: "NO, you are not that "I Am" either! You are beyond the beingness, beyond the consciousness, beyond the sense of presence, you are the pure awareness only by which the conscious has been able to come into being: you are the absolutely pure original awareness only." This latter realization can only proceed out of the former realization. First I must realize that I am the "I am," the universal consciousness, then out of that I

can realize that I am NOT the "I am!" I am actually the absolute only, and nothing else REALLY exists at all! Everything else is no more real than a dream.

Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite Group.

[Guest guest]

I am new to the party here on this site, but when I haphazardly came across the exposition concerning the author's (whomever he or she may be) explanation behind Nisargadatta's differentiation between consciousness & awareness, I was so struck by the exquisite eloquence of that explanation that I felt I had to respond. I suppose the reasons that I felt so strong a connection to the elucidations given in that post were simply that the discoveries I made along my path ran along lines that were, if not exactly identical, then certainly on lines that were directly parallel.

So this response is primarily directed at the one who wrote that explanatory post.

There is not a whole lot I could add to what you have said, except to say that by how I am interpreting some of the things you said in the latter part of your piece, I am left with a sense of curiosity in regards to whether or not you are still feeling a little apprehensive to make that final leap. I am trying not to read too much into your words, so I would be interested in hearing directly from you how and where you see your self in this journey. It seems to me that you have seen into the source, the Absolute, and have recognized your self as that, and although I totally agree with you that the final letting go of the I AM is an absolutely terrifying prospect for the I AM, when one sees beyond, one is only letting go into his or her ultimate nature.

It seems that as a result of your own self-discoveries, you have come to recognize that as we investigate the deeper and deeper levels of our self, we will ultimately arrive at that state which can be perceived as the core `I'. But as you said, and I am paraphrasing here a bit, this state can never be quite touched and stands just beyond our reach, for the simple reason that its nature is that which underlies, and is therefore, prior to any and all experience. Contemplating this state is very much like contemplating the koan, "what is the sound of one hand clapping? It is beyond the resources of the mind to grasp hold of. So stepping into this Absolute state, which is often referred to as the `thing which is no-thing' or to a term which I sometimes prefer, as `the source of all there is', is very much like stepping into an unfathomable `Silence' (Maharshi's term).

I would like to interject at this point that I am really not one who puts all that much stock in quoting what some other sage may have said regarding any of this (which clearly was also Nisargadatta's way), because I think all would agree that anything we can really know with any certainty, and anything we can then speak about with any real authority, must ultimately derive from our own direct experience. Although quoting what some sage said can sometimes provide valuable second hand resource information, and can sometimes be helpful and useful in our efforts to clarify some particular point, I feel we should always come back to our own experience, otherwise we are essentially just shooting b.s. (although I want to be clear that I am not directing that statement to anyone on this site).

So, even when I say that I often have reservations in putting forth some quote, even from some highly respected sage, there is one thing that comes to my mind at this time that Nisargadatta said that I feel highlights what we are talking about when we try to describe what it means to step from the state of consciousness into the more primary state which universal consciousness or beingness arises from. And so, I feel this is probably one of those times when it is appropriate to quote from another in the hopes that it may help convey a deeper understanding into this matter. This is not a verbatim quote, but is construed from my memory from a passage that I had read some time ago:

n Love says I am everything; wisdom says I am nothing…

 

Blessings

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok wrote:

>

> from Swami Premananda

>

>

> CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS

>

> I have noticed in some posts a confusion, one which I also had when

I

> first began reading Nisargadatta. It concerns the difference between

> the way he uses the two terms " consciousness " and " awareness. "

>

> Like most people I had always thought of these two words as meaning

> basically the same thing, but N. uses them to point to two very

> different meanings. When he uses the term " consciousness " he seems

to

> equate that term with the " I Am " and when he talks

about " awareness "

> he is pointing to something altogether beyond the consciousness ( " I

> Am " ), that is, to the absolute.

>

> As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the consciousness,

that

> it is all that we know, it is the fundamental sense of presence that

> we feel, and that it is a universal feeling of the sense of being.

> Consciousness = " sense of presence " = " the beingness " = the " I Am. "

>

> Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And while he

> directs us, as we start out, to simply be aware of the " I Am " so

that

> we come to the realization that we are the consciousness itself, and

> not the body or the mind or the mind's thoughts and identification,

he

> does an amazing twist at the end of all that. When the realization

has

> established itself that I am the consciousness itself (and he always

> points out that this means the universal consciousness only, the

same

> in a human or a cow or a dog or an ant), when I realize that I am

the

> " I am " he take us to the next realization which is when I

subsequently

> realize that I am NOT the " I am, " I am beyond that, I am pure

> awareness only!

>

> These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the word " consciousness "

> there is always the touch of the duality. If I am conscious it is in

> relation to being unconscious. If " I am " it is always in relation to

> the " not-me. " If I am conscious it is always conscious OF something.

> Consciousness always has an object of which I am conscious. So while

> the realization of my identity as the " I am " is very much closer to

> reality than the idea that " I am so-and-so, a person " it is still a

> step away from the final realization of the absolute, that I am the

> non- dual awareness which is allowing the consciousness to be

> conscious. Awareness is that which is shining through the

> consciousness, but it is beyond the consciousness itself. So "

> awareness " is different from " consciousness " in Nisargadatta's

talks.

> The pure awareness is the absolute, without which there can be no

> consciousness.

>

> Another way he puts it is that the awareness " is that by which I

know

> that I am. " Thus the awareness is there before the " I am " (or

> consciousness) appears, and is there after the consciousness

> disappears (unconsciousness or death). So the awareness is beyond

even

> the universal consciousness. Another way that he put this

astonishing

> distinction is by saying that the absolute is " awareness unaware of

> itself. " That statement of his is almost like a Zen koan, but I

think

> the idea is of an awareness without a trace of distinction or

duality.

> He speaks of it as " shining, " and of it being an uncaused mystery.

> This is even beyond our idea of God, so he does not call it " God "

but

> simply says " the absolute, " or the ultimate reality, beyond time,

> which ever was and ever will be.

>

> So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual),

> awareness is not OF something, it is not even aware OF itself, and

> thus is absolutely singular, nondual.

>

> This difference between his use of the words " consciousness " and

> " awareness " took me a long time to grasp, because we don't really

make

> this distinction in ordinary common English. Being conscious or

being

> aware are thought of as the same. But Nisargadatta uses the terms

> differently and difference is a great key, I think, to understanding

> what he is trying to convey to us.

>

> I was amazed when I first realized that he had played a kind of

> " trick " in leading us from one realization to another. This is the

> trick: first he is telling us to realize that we are really

the " sense

> of presence " or the " sense of beingness, " and when we finally

realize

> that he turns us around to the next higher realization and says what

> seems to be the opposite: " NO, you are not that " I Am " either! You

are

> beyond the beingness, beyond the consciousness, beyond the sense of

> presence, you are the pure awareness only by which the conscious has

> been able to come into being: you are the absolutely pure original

> awareness only. " This latter realization can only proceed out of the

> former realization. First I must realize that I am the " I am, " the

> universal consciousness, then out of that I can realize that I am

NOT

> the " I am! " I am actually the absolute only, and nothing else REALLY

> exists at all! Everything else is no more real than a dream.

>

Namaste,

 

However very simply the stage of ajativada does not consider I Am and

pure awareness as the ultimate for beyond all description is the

Truth...NirGuna Brahman or neti neti. Beyond all consciousness and

awareness, for consciousness is conscious of something and awareness

is aware of something, therefore are of the mind, albeit the higher

mind, mind all the same and ultimately unreal and never

happened...Tony

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery

wrote:

 

Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok@> wrote:

>

> from Swami Premananda

>

>

> CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS

>

> I have noticed in some posts a confusion, one which I also had when

I

> first began reading Nisargadatta. It concerns the difference between

> the way he uses the two terms " consciousness " and " awareness. "

>

> Like most people I had always thought of these two words as meaning

> basically the same thing, but N. uses them to point to two very

> different meanings. When he uses the term " consciousness " he seems

to

> equate that term with the " I Am " and when he talks

about " awareness "

> he is pointing to something altogether beyond the consciousness ( " I

> Am " ), that is, to the absolute.

>

> As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the consciousness,

that

> it is all that we know, it is the fundamental sense of presence that

> we feel, and that it is a universal feeling of the sense of being.

> Consciousness = " sense of presence " = " the beingness " = the " I Am. "

>

> Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And while he

> directs us, as we start out, to simply be aware of the " I Am " so

that

> we come to the realization that we are the consciousness itself, and

> not the body or the mind or the mind's thoughts and identification,

he

> does an amazing twist at the end of all that. When the realization

has

> established itself that I am the consciousness itself (and he always

> points out that this means the universal consciousness only, the

same

> in a human or a cow or a dog or an ant), when I realize that I am

the

> " I am " he take us to the next realization which is when I

subsequently

> realize that I am NOT the " I am, " I am beyond that, I am pure

> awareness only!

>

> These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the word " consciousness "

> there is always the touch of the duality. If I am conscious it is in

> relation to being unconscious. If " I am " it is always in relation to

> the " not-me. " If I am conscious it is always conscious OF something.

> Consciousness always has an object of which I am conscious. So while

> the realization of my identity as the " I am " is very much closer to

> reality than the idea that " I am so-and-so, a person " it is still a

> step away from the final realization of the absolute, that I am the

> non- dual awareness which is allowing the consciousness to be

> conscious. Awareness is that which is shining through the

> consciousness, but it is beyond the consciousness itself. So "

> awareness " is different from " consciousness " in Nisargadatta's

talks.

> The pure awareness is the absolute, without which there can be no

> consciousness.

>

> Another way he puts it is that the awareness " is that by which I

know

> that I am. " Thus the awareness is there before the " I am " (or

> consciousness) appears, and is there after the consciousness

> disappears (unconsciousness or death). So the awareness is beyond

even

> the universal consciousness. Another way that he put this

astonishing

> distinction is by saying that the absolute is " awareness unaware of

> itself. " That statement of his is almost like a Zen koan, but I

think

> the idea is of an awareness without a trace of distinction or

duality.

> He speaks of it as " shining, " and of it being an uncaused mystery.

> This is even beyond our idea of God, so he does not call it " God "

but

> simply says " the absolute, " or the ultimate reality, beyond time,

> which ever was and ever will be.

>

> So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual),

> awareness is not OF something, it is not even aware OF itself, and

> thus is absolutely singular, nondual.

>

> This difference between his use of the words " consciousness " and

> " awareness " took me a long time to grasp, because we don't really

make

> this distinction in ordinary common English. Being conscious or

being

> aware are thought of as the same. But Nisargadatta uses the terms

> differently and difference is a great key, I think, to understanding

> what he is trying to convey to us.

>

> I was amazed when I first realized that he had played a kind of

> " trick " in leading us from one realization to another. This is the

> trick: first he is telling us to realize that we are really

the " sense

> of presence " or the " sense of beingness, " and when we finally

realize

> that he turns us around to the next higher realization and says what

> seems to be the opposite: " NO, you are not that " I Am " either! You

are

> beyond the beingness, beyond the consciousness, beyond the sense of

> presence, you are the pure awareness only by which the conscious has

> been able to come into being: you are the absolutely pure original

> awareness only. " This latter realization can only proceed out of the

> former realization. First I must realize that I am the " I am, " the

> universal consciousness, then out of that I can realize that I am

NOT

> the " I am! " I am actually the absolute only, and nothing else REALLY

> exists at all! Everything else is no more real than a dream.

>

Namaste,

 

However very simply the stage of ajativada does not consider I Am and

pure awareness as the ultimate for beyond all description is the

Truth...NirGuna Brahman or neti neti. Beyond all consciousness and

awareness, for consciousness is conscious of something and awareness

is aware of something, therefore are of the mind, albeit the higher

mind, mind all the same and ultimately unreal and never

happened...

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

> >

> Namaste,

>

> However very simply the stage of ajativada does not consider I Am and

> pure awareness as the ultimate for beyond all description is the

> Truth...NirGuna Brahman or neti neti. Beyond all consciousness and

> awareness, for consciousness is conscious of something and awareness

> is aware of something, therefore are of the mind, albeit the higher

> mind, mind all the same and ultimately unreal and never

> happened...

P: And you really think you needed to write that?

What did you add to the man's fine post? You just

went in circles dropping your favorite Sanskrit

words to make an impression.

 

Never happened! I wish we could say that of

your post. )

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932

wrote:

>

>

> I am new to the party here on this site, but when I haphazardly came

> across the exposition concerning the author's (whomever he or she

> may be) explanation behind Nisargadatta's differentiation between

> consciousness & awareness, I was so struck by the exquisite

eloquence of

> that explanation that I felt I had to respond. I suppose the

reasons

> that I felt so strong a connection to the elucidations given in that

> post were simply that the discoveries I made along my path ran along

> lines that were, if not exactly identical, then certainly on lines

that

> were directly parallel.

>

> So this response is primarily directed at the one who wrote that

> explanatory post.

>

> There is not a whole lot I could add to what you have said, except

to

> say that by how I am interpreting some of the things you said in the

> latter part of your piece, I am left with a sense of curiosity in

> regards to whether or not you are still feeling a little

apprehensive to

> make that final leap. I am trying not to read too much into your

words,

> so I would be interested in hearing directly from you how and where

you

> see your self in this journey. It seems to me that you have seen

into

> the source, the Absolute, and have recognized your self as that, and

> although I totally agree with you that the final letting go of the

I AM

> is an absolutely terrifying prospect for the I AM, when one sees

beyond,

> one is only letting go into his or her ultimate nature.

>

> It seems that as a result of your own self-discoveries, you have

come to

> recognize that as we investigate the deeper and deeper levels of our

> self, we will ultimately arrive at that state which can be

perceived as

> the core `I'. But as you said, and I am paraphrasing here a

> bit, this state can never be quite touched and stands just beyond

our

> reach, for the simple reason that its nature is that which

underlies,

> and is therefore, prior to any and all experience. Contemplating

this

> state is very much like contemplating the koan, " what is the sound

> of one hand clapping? It is beyond the resources of the mind to

grasp

> hold of. So stepping into this Absolute state, which is often

referred

> to as the `thing which is no-thing' or to a term which I

> sometimes prefer, as `the source of all there is', is very much

> like stepping into an unfathomable `Silence' (Maharshi's

> term).

>

> I would like to interject at this point that I am really not one who

> puts all that much stock in quoting what some other sage may have

said

> regarding any of this (which clearly was also Nisargadatta's way),

> because I think all would agree that anything we can really know

with

> any certainty, and anything we can then speak about with any real

> authority, must ultimately derive from our own direct experience.

> Although quoting what some sage said can sometimes provide valuable

> second hand resource information, and can sometimes be helpful and

> useful in our efforts to clarify some particular point, I feel we

should

> always come back to our own experience, otherwise we are essentially

> just shooting b.s. (although I want to be clear that I am not

directing

> that statement to anyone on this site).

>

> So, even when I say that I often have reservations in putting forth

some

> quote, even from some highly respected sage, there is one thing that

> comes to my mind at this time that Nisargadatta said that I feel

> highlights what we are talking about when we try to describe what it

> means to step from the state of consciousness into the more primary

> state which universal consciousness or beingness arises from. And

so, I

> feel this is probably one of those times when it is appropriate to

quote

> from another in the hopes that it may help convey a deeper

understanding

> into this matter. This is not a verbatim quote, but is construed

from

> my memory from a passage that I had read some time ago:

>

> n Love says I am everything; wisdom says I am nothing…

>

>

>

> Blessings

 

 

....as long there an appearent " everything " , there is also love

 

when the appearent " everything " is seen as appearent only, there is

emptyness, nothingness and peace.

 

.....

 

love in relation to everything lead to / Is of more or less quite

consciousness.....means, a consciousness which is Not changing all

the time....due to restless mind & intellect.

 

depending the consciousness it's possible to get so more and more

awareness

 

awareness of who & what?

 

....in relation to a restless mind & world....awareness = nothingness,

emptyness.

 

awareness is there where there is consciousness " at rest " .

Where there is constantly moving consciousness, there is no awareness.

 

 

.....

 

 

Marc

 

 

Ps: to see awareness as kind of " source " of consciousness is non-

sense.

 

consciousness is limited by an imaginary entity who is percieving the

world....means him/herself.

 

when such imaginary entity wake up.....there is no more world.

 

means...no more " real " world.

 

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok@> wrote:

> >

> > from Swami Premananda

> >

> >

> > CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS

> >

> > I have noticed in some posts a confusion, one which I also had when

> I

> > first began reading Nisargadatta. It concerns the difference between

> > the way he uses the two terms " consciousness " and " awareness. "

> >

> > Like most people I had always thought of these two words as meaning

> > basically the same thing, but N. uses them to point to two very

> > different meanings. When he uses the term " consciousness " he seems

> to

> > equate that term with the " I Am " and when he talks

> about " awareness "

> > he is pointing to something altogether beyond the consciousness ( " I

> > Am " ), that is, to the absolute.

> >

> > As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the consciousness,

> that

> > it is all that we know, it is the fundamental sense of presence that

> > we feel, and that it is a universal feeling of the sense of being.

> > Consciousness = " sense of presence " = " the beingness " = the " I Am. "

> >

> > Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And while he

> > directs us, as we start out, to simply be aware of the " I Am " so

> that

> > we come to the realization that we are the consciousness itself, and

> > not the body or the mind or the mind's thoughts and identification,

> he

> > does an amazing twist at the end of all that. When the realization

> has

> > established itself that I am the consciousness itself (and he always

> > points out that this means the universal consciousness only, the

> same

> > in a human or a cow or a dog or an ant), when I realize that I am

> the

> > " I am " he take us to the next realization which is when I

> subsequently

> > realize that I am NOT the " I am, " I am beyond that, I am pure

> > awareness only!

> >

> > These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the word " consciousness "

> > there is always the touch of the duality. If I am conscious it is in

> > relation to being unconscious. If " I am " it is always in relation to

> > the " not-me. " If I am conscious it is always conscious OF something.

> > Consciousness always has an object of which I am conscious. So while

> > the realization of my identity as the " I am " is very much closer to

> > reality than the idea that " I am so-and-so, a person " it is still a

> > step away from the final realization of the absolute, that I am the

> > non- dual awareness which is allowing the consciousness to be

> > conscious. Awareness is that which is shining through the

> > consciousness, but it is beyond the consciousness itself. So "

> > awareness " is different from " consciousness " in Nisargadatta's

> talks.

> > The pure awareness is the absolute, without which there can be no

> > consciousness.

> >

> > Another way he puts it is that the awareness " is that by which I

> know

> > that I am. " Thus the awareness is there before the " I am " (or

> > consciousness) appears, and is there after the consciousness

> > disappears (unconsciousness or death). So the awareness is beyond

> even

> > the universal consciousness. Another way that he put this

> astonishing

> > distinction is by saying that the absolute is " awareness unaware of

> > itself. " That statement of his is almost like a Zen koan, but I

> think

> > the idea is of an awareness without a trace of distinction or

> duality.

> > He speaks of it as " shining, " and of it being an uncaused mystery.

> > This is even beyond our idea of God, so he does not call it " God "

> but

> > simply says " the absolute, " or the ultimate reality, beyond time,

> > which ever was and ever will be.

> >

> > So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual),

> > awareness is not OF something, it is not even aware OF itself, and

> > thus is absolutely singular, nondual.

> >

> > This difference between his use of the words " consciousness " and

> > " awareness " took me a long time to grasp, because we don't really

> make

> > this distinction in ordinary common English. Being conscious or

> being

> > aware are thought of as the same. But Nisargadatta uses the terms

> > differently and difference is a great key, I think, to understanding

> > what he is trying to convey to us.

> >

> > I was amazed when I first realized that he had played a kind of

> > " trick " in leading us from one realization to another. This is the

> > trick: first he is telling us to realize that we are really

> the " sense

> > of presence " or the " sense of beingness, " and when we finally

> realize

> > that he turns us around to the next higher realization and says what

> > seems to be the opposite: " NO, you are not that " I Am " either! You

> are

> > beyond the beingness, beyond the consciousness, beyond the sense of

> > presence, you are the pure awareness only by which the conscious has

> > been able to come into being: you are the absolutely pure original

> > awareness only. " This latter realization can only proceed out of the

> > former realization. First I must realize that I am the " I am, " the

> > universal consciousness, then out of that I can realize that I am

> NOT

> > the " I am! " I am actually the absolute only, and nothing else REALLY

> > exists at all! Everything else is no more real than a dream.

> >

> Namaste,

>

> However very simply the stage of ajativada does not consider I Am and

> pure awareness as the ultimate for beyond all description is the

> Truth...NirGuna Brahman or neti neti. Beyond all consciousness and

> awareness, for consciousness is conscious of something and awareness

> is aware of something, therefore are of the mind, albeit the higher

> mind, mind all the same and ultimately unreal and never

> happened...>

 

 

" are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

 

just how much higher is this mind?

 

an imaginary 10 feet higher?

 

that impresses for sure.

 

details, details, details...

 

pin the tail on the donkey for us.

 

:-)

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok@> wrote:

> > >

> > > from Swami Premananda

> > >

> > >

> > > CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS

> > >

> > > I have noticed in some posts a confusion, one which I also had

when

> > I

> > > first began reading Nisargadatta. It concerns the difference

between

> > > the way he uses the two terms " consciousness " and " awareness. "

> > >

> > > Like most people I had always thought of these two words as

meaning

> > > basically the same thing, but N. uses them to point to two very

> > > different meanings. When he uses the term " consciousness " he

seems

> > to

> > > equate that term with the " I Am " and when he talks

> > about " awareness "

> > > he is pointing to something altogether beyond the consciousness

( " I

> > > Am " ), that is, to the absolute.

> > >

> > > As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the

consciousness,

> > that

> > > it is all that we know, it is the fundamental sense of presence

that

> > > we feel, and that it is a universal feeling of the sense of

being.

> > > Consciousness = " sense of presence " = " the beingness " = the " I

Am. "

> > >

> > > Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And while he

> > > directs us, as we start out, to simply be aware of the " I Am "

so

> > that

> > > we come to the realization that we are the consciousness

itself, and

> > > not the body or the mind or the mind's thoughts and

identification,

> > he

> > > does an amazing twist at the end of all that. When the

realization

> > has

> > > established itself that I am the consciousness itself (and he

always

> > > points out that this means the universal consciousness only,

the

> > same

> > > in a human or a cow or a dog or an ant), when I realize that I

am

> > the

> > > " I am " he take us to the next realization which is when I

> > subsequently

> > > realize that I am NOT the " I am, " I am beyond that, I am pure

> > > awareness only!

> > >

> > > These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the

word " consciousness "

> > > there is always the touch of the duality. If I am conscious it

is in

> > > relation to being unconscious. If " I am " it is always in

relation to

> > > the " not-me. " If I am conscious it is always conscious OF

something.

> > > Consciousness always has an object of which I am conscious. So

while

> > > the realization of my identity as the " I am " is very much

closer to

> > > reality than the idea that " I am so-and-so, a person " it is

still a

> > > step away from the final realization of the absolute, that I am

the

> > > non- dual awareness which is allowing the consciousness to be

> > > conscious. Awareness is that which is shining through the

> > > consciousness, but it is beyond the consciousness itself. So "

> > > awareness " is different from " consciousness " in Nisargadatta's

> > talks.

> > > The pure awareness is the absolute, without which there can be

no

> > > consciousness.

> > >

> > > Another way he puts it is that the awareness " is that by which

I

> > know

> > > that I am. " Thus the awareness is there before the " I am " (or

> > > consciousness) appears, and is there after the consciousness

> > > disappears (unconsciousness or death). So the awareness is

beyond

> > even

> > > the universal consciousness. Another way that he put this

> > astonishing

> > > distinction is by saying that the absolute is " awareness

unaware of

> > > itself. " That statement of his is almost like a Zen koan, but I

> > think

> > > the idea is of an awareness without a trace of distinction or

> > duality.

> > > He speaks of it as " shining, " and of it being an uncaused

mystery.

> > > This is even beyond our idea of God, so he does not call

it " God "

> > but

> > > simply says " the absolute, " or the ultimate reality, beyond

time,

> > > which ever was and ever will be.

> > >

> > > So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual),

> > > awareness is not OF something, it is not even aware OF itself,

and

> > > thus is absolutely singular, nondual.

> > >

> > > This difference between his use of the words " consciousness " and

> > > " awareness " took me a long time to grasp, because we don't

really

> > make

> > > this distinction in ordinary common English. Being conscious or

> > being

> > > aware are thought of as the same. But Nisargadatta uses the

terms

> > > differently and difference is a great key, I think, to

understanding

> > > what he is trying to convey to us.

> > >

> > > I was amazed when I first realized that he had played a kind of

> > > " trick " in leading us from one realization to another. This is

the

> > > trick: first he is telling us to realize that we are really

> > the " sense

> > > of presence " or the " sense of beingness, " and when we finally

> > realize

> > > that he turns us around to the next higher realization and says

what

> > > seems to be the opposite: " NO, you are not that " I Am " either!

You

> > are

> > > beyond the beingness, beyond the consciousness, beyond the

sense of

> > > presence, you are the pure awareness only by which the

conscious has

> > > been able to come into being: you are the absolutely pure

original

> > > awareness only. " This latter realization can only proceed out

of the

> > > former realization. First I must realize that I am the " I am, "

the

> > > universal consciousness, then out of that I can realize that I

am

> > NOT

> > > the " I am! " I am actually the absolute only, and nothing else

REALLY

> > > exists at all! Everything else is no more real than a dream.

> > >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > However very simply the stage of ajativada does not consider I Am

and

> > pure awareness as the ultimate for beyond all description is the

> > Truth...NirGuna Brahman or neti neti. Beyond all consciousness

and

> > awareness, for consciousness is conscious of something and

awareness

> > is aware of something, therefore are of the mind, albeit the

higher

> > mind, mind all the same and ultimately unreal and never

> > happened...> >

>

>

> " are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

>

> just how much higher is this mind?

>

> an imaginary 10 feet higher?

>

> that impresses for sure.

>

> details, details, details...

>

> pin the tail on the donkey for us.

>

> :-)

>

> .b b.b.

>

 

 

yes....funny this " higher mind " .....

 

but maybe it's true....

 

such " higher mind " never happened....anywhere....anyhow....

 

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

<dennis_travis33 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > from Swami Premananda

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS

> > > >

> > > > I have noticed in some posts a confusion, one which I also had

> when

> > > I

> > > > first began reading Nisargadatta. It concerns the difference

> between

> > > > the way he uses the two terms " consciousness " and " awareness. "

> > > >

> > > > Like most people I had always thought of these two words as

> meaning

> > > > basically the same thing, but N. uses them to point to two very

> > > > different meanings. When he uses the term " consciousness " he

> seems

> > > to

> > > > equate that term with the " I Am " and when he talks

> > > about " awareness "

> > > > he is pointing to something altogether beyond the consciousness

> ( " I

> > > > Am " ), that is, to the absolute.

> > > >

> > > > As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the

> consciousness,

> > > that

> > > > it is all that we know, it is the fundamental sense of presence

> that

> > > > we feel, and that it is a universal feeling of the sense of

> being.

> > > > Consciousness = " sense of presence " = " the beingness " = the " I

> Am. "

> > > >

> > > > Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And while he

> > > > directs us, as we start out, to simply be aware of the " I Am "

> so

> > > that

> > > > we come to the realization that we are the consciousness

> itself, and

> > > > not the body or the mind or the mind's thoughts and

> identification,

> > > he

> > > > does an amazing twist at the end of all that. When the

> realization

> > > has

> > > > established itself that I am the consciousness itself (and he

> always

> > > > points out that this means the universal consciousness only,

> the

> > > same

> > > > in a human or a cow or a dog or an ant), when I realize that I

> am

> > > the

> > > > " I am " he take us to the next realization which is when I

> > > subsequently

> > > > realize that I am NOT the " I am, " I am beyond that, I am pure

> > > > awareness only!

> > > >

> > > > These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the

> word " consciousness "

> > > > there is always the touch of the duality. If I am conscious it

> is in

> > > > relation to being unconscious. If " I am " it is always in

> relation to

> > > > the " not-me. " If I am conscious it is always conscious OF

> something.

> > > > Consciousness always has an object of which I am conscious. So

> while

> > > > the realization of my identity as the " I am " is very much

> closer to

> > > > reality than the idea that " I am so-and-so, a person " it is

> still a

> > > > step away from the final realization of the absolute, that I am

> the

> > > > non- dual awareness which is allowing the consciousness to be

> > > > conscious. Awareness is that which is shining through the

> > > > consciousness, but it is beyond the consciousness itself. So "

> > > > awareness " is different from " consciousness " in Nisargadatta's

> > > talks.

> > > > The pure awareness is the absolute, without which there can be

> no

> > > > consciousness.

> > > >

> > > > Another way he puts it is that the awareness " is that by which

> I

> > > know

> > > > that I am. " Thus the awareness is there before the " I am " (or

> > > > consciousness) appears, and is there after the consciousness

> > > > disappears (unconsciousness or death). So the awareness is

> beyond

> > > even

> > > > the universal consciousness. Another way that he put this

> > > astonishing

> > > > distinction is by saying that the absolute is " awareness

> unaware of

> > > > itself. " That statement of his is almost like a Zen koan, but I

> > > think

> > > > the idea is of an awareness without a trace of distinction or

> > > duality.

> > > > He speaks of it as " shining, " and of it being an uncaused

> mystery.

> > > > This is even beyond our idea of God, so he does not call

> it " God "

> > > but

> > > > simply says " the absolute, " or the ultimate reality, beyond

> time,

> > > > which ever was and ever will be.

> > > >

> > > > So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual),

> > > > awareness is not OF something, it is not even aware OF itself,

> and

> > > > thus is absolutely singular, nondual.

> > > >

> > > > This difference between his use of the words " consciousness " and

> > > > " awareness " took me a long time to grasp, because we don't

> really

> > > make

> > > > this distinction in ordinary common English. Being conscious or

> > > being

> > > > aware are thought of as the same. But Nisargadatta uses the

> terms

> > > > differently and difference is a great key, I think, to

> understanding

> > > > what he is trying to convey to us.

> > > >

> > > > I was amazed when I first realized that he had played a kind of

> > > > " trick " in leading us from one realization to another. This is

> the

> > > > trick: first he is telling us to realize that we are really

> > > the " sense

> > > > of presence " or the " sense of beingness, " and when we finally

> > > realize

> > > > that he turns us around to the next higher realization and says

> what

> > > > seems to be the opposite: " NO, you are not that " I Am " either!

> You

> > > are

> > > > beyond the beingness, beyond the consciousness, beyond the

> sense of

> > > > presence, you are the pure awareness only by which the

> conscious has

> > > > been able to come into being: you are the absolutely pure

> original

> > > > awareness only. " This latter realization can only proceed out

> of the

> > > > former realization. First I must realize that I am the " I am, "

> the

> > > > universal consciousness, then out of that I can realize that I

> am

> > > NOT

> > > > the " I am! " I am actually the absolute only, and nothing else

> REALLY

> > > > exists at all! Everything else is no more real than a dream.

> > > >

> > > Namaste,

> > >

> > > However very simply the stage of ajativada does not consider I Am

> and

> > > pure awareness as the ultimate for beyond all description is the

> > > Truth...NirGuna Brahman or neti neti. Beyond all consciousness

> and

> > > awareness, for consciousness is conscious of something and

> awareness

> > > is aware of something, therefore are of the mind, albeit the

> higher

> > > mind, mind all the same and ultimately unreal and never

> > > happened...> > >

> >

> >

> > " are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

> >

> > just how much higher is this mind?

> >

> > an imaginary 10 feet higher?

> >

> > that impresses for sure.

> >

> > details, details, details...

> >

> > pin the tail on the donkey for us.

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

>

> yes....funny this " higher mind " .....

>

> but maybe it's true....

>

> such " higher mind " never happened....anywhere....anyhow....

>

>

>

>

> Marc

 

 

what about de donkey?

 

and de donkey's tail?

 

detail de tail in de tale dats true.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932

wrote:

>

>

> I am new to the party here on this site, but when I haphazardly came

> across the exposition concerning the author's (whomever he or she

> may be) explanation behind Nisargadatta's differentiation between

> consciousness & awareness, I was so struck by the exquisite

eloquence of

> that explanation that I felt I had to respond. I suppose the

reasons

> that I felt so strong a connection to the elucidations given in that

> post were simply that the discoveries I made along my path ran along

> lines that were, if not exactly identical, then certainly on lines

that

> were directly parallel.

>

> So this response is primarily directed at the one who wrote that

> explanatory post.

>

> There is not a whole lot I could add to what you have said, except

to

> say that by how I am interpreting some of the things you said in the

> latter part of your piece, I am left with a sense of curiosity in

> regards to whether or not you are still feeling a little

apprehensive to

> make that final leap. I am trying not to read too much into your

words,

> so I would be interested in hearing directly from you how and where

you

> see your self in this journey. It seems to me that you have seen

into

> the source, the Absolute, and have recognized your self as that, and

> although I totally agree with you that the final letting go of the

I AM

> is an absolutely terrifying prospect for the I AM, when one sees

beyond,

> one is only letting go into his or her ultimate nature.

>

> It seems that as a result of your own self-discoveries, you have

come to

> recognize that as we investigate the deeper and deeper levels of our

> self, we will ultimately arrive at that state which can be

perceived as

> the core `I'. But as you said, and I am paraphrasing here a

> bit, this state can never be quite touched and stands just beyond

our

> reach, for the simple reason that its nature is that which

underlies,

> and is therefore, prior to any and all experience. Contemplating

this

> state is very much like contemplating the koan, " what is the sound

> of one hand clapping? It is beyond the resources of the mind to

grasp

> hold of. So stepping into this Absolute state, which is often

referred

> to as the `thing which is no-thing' or to a term which I

> sometimes prefer, as `the source of all there is', is very much

> like stepping into an unfathomable `Silence' (Maharshi's

> term).

>

> I would like to interject at this point that I am really not one who

> puts all that much stock in quoting what some other sage may have

said

> regarding any of this (which clearly was also Nisargadatta's way),

> because I think all would agree that anything we can really know

with

> any certainty, and anything we can then speak about with any real

> authority, must ultimately derive from our own direct experience.

> Although quoting what some sage said can sometimes provide valuable

> second hand resource information, and can sometimes be helpful and

> useful in our efforts to clarify some particular point, I feel we

should

> always come back to our own experience, otherwise we are essentially

> just shooting b.s. (although I want to be clear that I am not

directing

> that statement to anyone on this site).

>

> So, even when I say that I often have reservations in putting forth

some

> quote, even from some highly respected sage, there is one thing that

> comes to my mind at this time that Nisargadatta said that I feel

> highlights what we are talking about when we try to describe what it

> means to step from the state of consciousness into the more primary

> state which universal consciousness or beingness arises from. And

so, I

> feel this is probably one of those times when it is appropriate to

quote

> from another in the hopes that it may help convey a deeper

understanding

> into this matter. This is not a verbatim quote, but is construed

from

> my memory from a passage that I had read some time ago:

>

> n Love says I am everything; wisdom says I am nothing…

>

>

>

> Blessings

>

Blessings indeed. Vigilance is precise words that point the way

home,yes? I am you as you are me as we are all together. You say that

and then I say this:

 

You have nailed the ego coffin shut. Not to eliminate but rather to

simply ignore until death. Then, it really is choicelessness is it

not? When mind is seen as a lie and rendered irrelevant and thus

rendered quiescent for realization.

What freedom is this! The leap is no leap it is only to succumb to

what is. Then experience becomes ever so holy.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

<marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " mmoss2932 " <mmoss2932@>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > I am new to the party here on this site, but when I haphazardly came

> > across the exposition concerning the author's (whomever he or she

> > may be) explanation behind Nisargadatta's differentiation between

> > consciousness & awareness, I was so struck by the exquisite

> eloquence of

> > that explanation that I felt I had to respond. I suppose the

> reasons

> > that I felt so strong a connection to the elucidations given in that

> > post were simply that the discoveries I made along my path ran along

> > lines that were, if not exactly identical, then certainly on lines

> that

> > were directly parallel.

> >

> > So this response is primarily directed at the one who wrote that

> > explanatory post.

> >

> > There is not a whole lot I could add to what you have said, except

> to

> > say that by how I am interpreting some of the things you said in the

> > latter part of your piece, I am left with a sense of curiosity in

> > regards to whether or not you are still feeling a little

> apprehensive to

> > make that final leap. I am trying not to read too much into your

> words,

> > so I would be interested in hearing directly from you how and where

> you

> > see your self in this journey. It seems to me that you have seen

> into

> > the source, the Absolute, and have recognized your self as that, and

> > although I totally agree with you that the final letting go of the

> I AM

> > is an absolutely terrifying prospect for the I AM, when one sees

> beyond,

> > one is only letting go into his or her ultimate nature.

> >

> > It seems that as a result of your own self-discoveries, you have

> come to

> > recognize that as we investigate the deeper and deeper levels of our

> > self, we will ultimately arrive at that state which can be

> perceived as

> > the core `I'. But as you said, and I am paraphrasing here a

> > bit, this state can never be quite touched and stands just beyond

> our

> > reach, for the simple reason that its nature is that which

> underlies,

> > and is therefore, prior to any and all experience. Contemplating

> this

> > state is very much like contemplating the koan, " what is the sound

> > of one hand clapping? It is beyond the resources of the mind to

> grasp

> > hold of. So stepping into this Absolute state, which is often

> referred

> > to as the `thing which is no-thing' or to a term which I

> > sometimes prefer, as `the source of all there is', is very much

> > like stepping into an unfathomable `Silence' (Maharshi's

> > term).

> >

> > I would like to interject at this point that I am really not one who

> > puts all that much stock in quoting what some other sage may have

> said

> > regarding any of this (which clearly was also Nisargadatta's way),

> > because I think all would agree that anything we can really know

> with

> > any certainty, and anything we can then speak about with any real

> > authority, must ultimately derive from our own direct experience.

> > Although quoting what some sage said can sometimes provide valuable

> > second hand resource information, and can sometimes be helpful and

> > useful in our efforts to clarify some particular point, I feel we

> should

> > always come back to our own experience, otherwise we are essentially

> > just shooting b.s. (although I want to be clear that I am not

> directing

> > that statement to anyone on this site).

> >

> > So, even when I say that I often have reservations in putting forth

> some

> > quote, even from some highly respected sage, there is one thing that

> > comes to my mind at this time that Nisargadatta said that I feel

> > highlights what we are talking about when we try to describe what it

> > means to step from the state of consciousness into the more primary

> > state which universal consciousness or beingness arises from. And

> so, I

> > feel this is probably one of those times when it is appropriate to

> quote

> > from another in the hopes that it may help convey a deeper

> understanding

> > into this matter. This is not a verbatim quote, but is construed

> from

> > my memory from a passage that I had read some time ago:

> >

> > n Love says I am everything; wisdom says I am nothing…

> >

> >

> >

> > Blessings

> >

> Blessings indeed. Vigilance is precise words that point the way

> home,yes? I am you as you are me as we are all together. You say that

> and then I say this:

>

> You have nailed the ego coffin shut. Not to eliminate but rather to

> simply ignore until death. Then, it really is choicelessness is it

> not? When mind is seen as a lie and rendered irrelevant and thus

> rendered quiescent for realization.

> What freedom is this! The leap is no leap it is only to succumb to

> what is. Then experience becomes ever so holy.

>

> Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

" Holy Moly! "

 

Captain Marvel

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

>

> > >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > However very simply the stage of ajativada does not consider I Am

and

> > pure awareness as the ultimate for beyond all description is the

> > Truth...NirGuna Brahman or neti neti. Beyond all consciousness

and

> > awareness, for consciousness is conscious of something and

awareness

> > is aware of something, therefore are of the mind, albeit the

higher

> > mind, mind all the same and ultimately unreal and never

> > happened...>

> P: And you really think you needed to write that?

> What did you add to the man's fine post? You just

> went in circles dropping your favorite Sanskrit

> words to make an impression.

>

> Never happened! I wish we could say that of

> your post. )

> >

>

Namaste,

 

There is no point in leaving things unfinished, I just finished off

the steps for him. Because you are incapable of grasping it doesn't

mean it is wrong,,,,,,,,,,,Tony

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

 

>

>

> " are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

>

> just how much higher is this mind?

>

> an imaginary 10 feet higher?

>

> that impresses for sure.

>

> details, details, details...

>

> pin the tail on the donkey for us.

>

> :-)

>

> .b b.b.

 

Namaste,

 

Stick your trolling arse out and I'll pin the tail on you...>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > " are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

> >

> > just how much higher is this mind?

> >

> > an imaginary 10 feet higher?

> >

> > that impresses for sure.

> >

> > details, details, details...

> >

> > pin the tail on the donkey for us.

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> Namaste,

>

> Stick your trolling arse out and I'll pin the tail on you...

 

 

 

go bag your ass twerp.

 

how enlightening is that?

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok@> wrote:

> >

> > from Swami Premananda

> >

> >

> > CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS

> >

> > I have noticed in some posts a confusion, one which I also had

when

> I

> > first began reading Nisargadatta. It concerns the difference

between

> > the way he uses the two terms " consciousness " and " awareness. "

> >

> > Like most people I had always thought of these two words as

meaning

> > basically the same thing, but N. uses them to point to two very

> > different meanings. When he uses the term " consciousness " he

seems

> to

> > equate that term with the " I Am " and when he talks

> about " awareness "

> > he is pointing to something altogether beyond the consciousness

( " I

> > Am " ), that is, to the absolute.

> >

> > As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the consciousness,

> that

> > it is all that we know, it is the fundamental sense of presence

that

> > we feel, and that it is a universal feeling of the sense of being.

> > Consciousness = " sense of presence " = " the beingness " = the " I

Am. "

> >

> > Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And while he

> > directs us, as we start out, to simply be aware of the " I Am " so

> that

> > we come to the realization that we are the consciousness itself,

and

> > not the body or the mind or the mind's thoughts and

identification,

> he

> > does an amazing twist at the end of all that. When the

realization

> has

> > established itself that I am the consciousness itself (and he

always

> > points out that this means the universal consciousness only, the

> same

> > in a human or a cow or a dog or an ant), when I realize that I am

> the

> > " I am " he take us to the next realization which is when I

> subsequently

> > realize that I am NOT the " I am, " I am beyond that, I am pure

> > awareness only!

> >

> > These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the

word " consciousness "

> > there is always the touch of the duality. If I am conscious it is

in

> > relation to being unconscious. If " I am " it is always in relation

to

> > the " not-me. " If I am conscious it is always conscious OF

something.

> > Consciousness always has an object of which I am conscious. So

while

> > the realization of my identity as the " I am " is very much closer

to

> > reality than the idea that " I am so-and-so, a person " it is still

a

> > step away from the final realization of the absolute, that I am

the

> > non- dual awareness which is allowing the consciousness to be

> > conscious. Awareness is that which is shining through the

> > consciousness, but it is beyond the consciousness itself. So "

> > awareness " is different from " consciousness " in Nisargadatta's

> talks.

> > The pure awareness is the absolute, without which there can be no

> > consciousness.

> >

> > Another way he puts it is that the awareness " is that by which I

> know

> > that I am. " Thus the awareness is there before the " I am " (or

> > consciousness) appears, and is there after the consciousness

> > disappears (unconsciousness or death). So the awareness is beyond

> even

> > the universal consciousness. Another way that he put this

> astonishing

> > distinction is by saying that the absolute is " awareness unaware

of

> > itself. " That statement of his is almost like a Zen koan, but I

> think

> > the idea is of an awareness without a trace of distinction or

> duality.

> > He speaks of it as " shining, " and of it being an uncaused mystery.

> > This is even beyond our idea of God, so he does not call it " God "

> but

> > simply says " the absolute, " or the ultimate reality, beyond time,

> > which ever was and ever will be.

> >

> > So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual),

> > awareness is not OF something, it is not even aware OF itself, and

> > thus is absolutely singular, nondual.

> >

> > This difference between his use of the words " consciousness " and

> > " awareness " took me a long time to grasp, because we don't really

> make

> > this distinction in ordinary common English. Being conscious or

> being

> > aware are thought of as the same. But Nisargadatta uses the terms

> > differently and difference is a great key, I think, to

understanding

> > what he is trying to convey to us.

> >

> > I was amazed when I first realized that he had played a kind of

> > " trick " in leading us from one realization to another. This is the

> > trick: first he is telling us to realize that we are really

> the " sense

> > of presence " or the " sense of beingness, " and when we finally

> realize

> > that he turns us around to the next higher realization and says

what

> > seems to be the opposite: " NO, you are not that " I Am " either!

You

> are

> > beyond the beingness, beyond the consciousness, beyond the sense

of

> > presence, you are the pure awareness only by which the conscious

has

> > been able to come into being: you are the absolutely pure original

> > awareness only. " This latter realization can only proceed out of

the

> > former realization. First I must realize that I am the " I am, " the

> > universal consciousness, then out of that I can realize that I am

> NOT

> > the " I am! " I am actually the absolute only, and nothing else

REALLY

> > exists at all! Everything else is no more real than a dream.

> >

> Namaste,

>

> However very simply the stage of ajativada does not consider I Am

and

> pure awareness as the ultimate for beyond all description is the

> Truth...NirGuna Brahman or neti neti. Beyond all consciousness and

> awareness, for consciousness is conscious of something and

awareness

> is aware of something, therefore are of the mind, albeit the higher

> mind, mind all the same and ultimately unreal and never

> happened...>

the thought " I am aware " is mind

it is a thought that appears in awareness

Is that distinction too subtle for your mind

to grasp?

Mark

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > " are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

> > >

> > > just how much higher is this mind?

> > >

> > > an imaginary 10 feet higher?

> > >

> > > that impresses for sure.

> > >

> > > details, details, details...

> > >

> > > pin the tail on the donkey for us.

> > >

> > > :-)

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Stick your trolling arse out and I'll pin the tail on you...>

>

>

>

> go bag your ass twerp.

>

> how enlightening is that?

>

> LOL!

>

> .b b.b.

 

Namaste,

 

If your big hair and big ears are not in the way, stick your head up

your arse and gasp for breath and see how enlightening that is..Tony

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

> > > >

> > > > just how much higher is this mind?

> > > >

> > > > an imaginary 10 feet higher?

> > > >

> > > > that impresses for sure.

> > > >

> > > > details, details, details...

> > > >

> > > > pin the tail on the donkey for us.

> > > >

> > > > :-)

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > Namaste,

> > >

> > > Stick your trolling arse out and I'll pin the tail on you...> >

> >

> >

> >

> > go bag your ass twerp.

> >

> > how enlightening is that?

> >

> > LOL!

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> Namaste,

>

> If your big hair and big ears are not in the way, stick your head up

> your arse and gasp for breath and see how enlightening that is..

 

 

 

name-ass-to ye too.

 

yesiree bob!

 

after spending hours trying to come up with something of your own.

 

you rewrite what i said in the previous post.

 

just keep following your leader like this is all you need do.

 

i'll remain looking down and back at you... as you do this.

 

there's a big boy!

 

:-)

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > " are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

> > > > >

> > > > > just how much higher is this mind?

> > > > >

> > > > > an imaginary 10 feet higher?

> > > > >

> > > > > that impresses for sure.

> > > > >

> > > > > details, details, details...

> > > > >

> > > > > pin the tail on the donkey for us.

> > > > >

> > > > > :-)

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > > Namaste,

> > > >

> > > > Stick your trolling arse out and I'll pin the tail on you...> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > go bag your ass twerp.

> > >

> > > how enlightening is that?

> > >

> > > LOL!

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > If your big hair and big ears are not in the way, stick your head up

> > your arse and gasp for breath and see how enlightening that is..>

>

>

>

> name-ass-to ye too.

>

> yesiree bob!

>

> after spending hours trying to come up with something of your own.

>

> you rewrite what i said in the previous post.

>

> just keep following your leader like this is all you need do.

>

> i'll remain looking down and back at you... as you do this.

>

> there's a big boy!

>

> :-)

>

> .b b.b.

 

 

p.s.

 

you still believe in trolls????

 

Wernie!

 

they are fictional fella.

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > " are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

> > > > >

> > > > > just how much higher is this mind?

> > > > >

> > > > > an imaginary 10 feet higher?

> > > > >

> > > > > that impresses for sure.

> > > > >

> > > > > details, details, details...

> > > > >

> > > > > pin the tail on the donkey for us.

> > > > >

> > > > > :-)

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > > Namaste,

> > > >

> > > > Stick your trolling arse out and I'll pin the tail on

you...> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > go bag your ass twerp.

> > >

> > > how enlightening is that?

> > >

> > > LOL!

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > If your big hair and big ears are not in the way, stick your head

up

> > your arse and gasp for breath and see how enlightening that

is..>

>

>

>

> name-ass-to ye too.

>

> yesiree bob!

>

> after spending hours trying to come up with something of your own.

>

> you rewrite what i said in the previous post.

>

> just keep following your leader like this is all you need do.

>

> i'll remain looking down and back at you... as you do this.

>

> there's a big boy!

>

> :-)

>

> .b b.b.

>

Namaste,

 

Apparently even for a troll your were so ugly that the doctor

smacked your face instead of your arse, when you were born. This has

created a need in you to seek attention as a troll, to try and

correct this humiliating experience the your giant troll

ego...........Tony

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@>

> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > just how much higher is this mind?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > an imaginary 10 feet higher?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > that impresses for sure.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > details, details, details...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > pin the tail on the donkey for us.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > :-)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > >

> > > > > Namaste,

> > > > >

> > > > > Stick your trolling arse out and I'll pin the tail on

> you...> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > go bag your ass twerp.

> > > >

> > > > how enlightening is that?

> > > >

> > > > LOL!

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > Namaste,

> > >

> > > If your big hair and big ears are not in the way, stick your head

> up

> > > your arse and gasp for breath and see how enlightening that

> is..> >

> >

> >

> >

> > name-ass-to ye too.

> >

> > yesiree bob!

> >

> > after spending hours trying to come up with something of your own.

> >

> > you rewrite what i said in the previous post.

> >

> > just keep following your leader like this is all you need do.

> >

> > i'll remain looking down and back at you... as you do this.

> >

> > there's a big boy!

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> Namaste,

>

> Apparently even for a troll your were so ugly that the doctor

> smacked your face instead of your arse, when you were born. This has

> created a need in you to seek attention as a troll, to try and

> correct this humiliating experience the your giant troll

> ego...........

 

 

ROFLMAO!

 

when the doctor snapped off your tail at birth..

 

i bet he pressed down too hard on your head to get a grip hold.

 

the damage is evident.

 

:-)

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery "

<aoclery@>

> > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > just how much higher is this mind?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > an imaginary 10 feet higher?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > that impresses for sure.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > details, details, details...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > pin the tail on the donkey for us.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > :-)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Namaste,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Stick your trolling arse out and I'll pin the tail on

> > you...> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > go bag your ass twerp.

> > > > >

> > > > > how enlightening is that?

> > > > >

> > > > > LOL!

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > > Namaste,

> > > >

> > > > If your big hair and big ears are not in the way, stick your

head

> > up

> > > > your arse and gasp for breath and see how enlightening that

> > is..> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > name-ass-to ye too.

> > >

> > > yesiree bob!

> > >

> > > after spending hours trying to come up with something of your

own.

> > >

> > > you rewrite what i said in the previous post.

> > >

> > > just keep following your leader like this is all you need do.

> > >

> > > i'll remain looking down and back at you... as you do this.

> > >

> > > there's a big boy!

> > >

> > > :-)

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Apparently even for a troll your were so ugly that the doctor

> > smacked your face instead of your arse, when you were born. This

has

> > created a need in you to seek attention as a troll, to try and

> > correct this humiliating experience the your giant troll

> > ego...........>

>

>

> ROFLMAO!

>

> when the doctor snapped off your tail at birth..

>

> i bet he pressed down too hard on your head to get a grip hold.

>

> the damage is evident.

>

> :-)

>

> .b b.b.

 

Namaste,

 

Comparing me to a Hanuman is a compliment, I use to keep two monkeys.

 

My head is normal Irish shaped like a cabbage...Very useful..Tony

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@>

> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery "

> <aoclery@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > just how much higher is this mind?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > an imaginary 10 feet higher?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > that impresses for sure.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > details, details, details...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > pin the tail on the donkey for us.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > :-)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Namaste,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Stick your trolling arse out and I'll pin the tail on

> > > you...> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > go bag your ass twerp.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > how enlightening is that?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > LOL!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > >

> > > > > Namaste,

> > > > >

> > > > > If your big hair and big ears are not in the way, stick your

> head

> > > up

> > > > > your arse and gasp for breath and see how enlightening that

> > > is..> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > name-ass-to ye too.

> > > >

> > > > yesiree bob!

> > > >

> > > > after spending hours trying to come up with something of your

> own.

> > > >

> > > > you rewrite what i said in the previous post.

> > > >

> > > > just keep following your leader like this is all you need do.

> > > >

> > > > i'll remain looking down and back at you... as you do this.

> > > >

> > > > there's a big boy!

> > > >

> > > > :-)

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > Namaste,

> > >

> > > Apparently even for a troll your were so ugly that the doctor

> > > smacked your face instead of your arse, when you were born. This

> has

> > > created a need in you to seek attention as a troll, to try and

> > > correct this humiliating experience the your giant troll

> > > ego...........> >

> >

> >

> > ROFLMAO!

> >

> > when the doctor snapped off your tail at birth..

> >

> > i bet he pressed down too hard on your head to get a grip hold.

> >

> > the damage is evident.

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> Namaste,

>

> Comparing me to a Hanuman is a compliment, I use to keep two monkeys.

>

> My head is normal Irish shaped like a cabbage...Very useful..

 

 

 

that's nice.

 

i was referring to a donkey.

 

what kind of ass worships a donkey?

 

a two headed cabbage head?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery "

<aoclery@>

> > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery "

> > <aoclery@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > " are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > just how much higher is this mind?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > an imaginary 10 feet higher?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > that impresses for sure.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > details, details, details...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > pin the tail on the donkey for us.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > :-)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Namaste,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Stick your trolling arse out and I'll pin the tail on

> > > > you...> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > go bag your ass twerp.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > how enlightening is that?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > LOL!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Namaste,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If your big hair and big ears are not in the way, stick

your

> > head

> > > > up

> > > > > > your arse and gasp for breath and see how enlightening

that

> > > > is..> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > name-ass-to ye too.

> > > > >

> > > > > yesiree bob!

> > > > >

> > > > > after spending hours trying to come up with something of

your

> > own.

> > > > >

> > > > > you rewrite what i said in the previous post.

> > > > >

> > > > > just keep following your leader like this is all you need

do.

> > > > >

> > > > > i'll remain looking down and back at you... as you do this.

> > > > >

> > > > > there's a big boy!

> > > > >

> > > > > :-)

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > >

> > > > Namaste,

> > > >

> > > > Apparently even for a troll your were so ugly that the

doctor

> > > > smacked your face instead of your arse, when you were born.

This

> > has

> > > > created a need in you to seek attention as a troll, to try

and

> > > > correct this humiliating experience the your giant troll

> > > > ego...........> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ROFLMAO!

> > >

> > > when the doctor snapped off your tail at birth..

> > >

> > > i bet he pressed down too hard on your head to get a grip hold.

> > >

> > > the damage is evident.

> > >

> > > :-)

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Comparing me to a Hanuman is a compliment, I use to keep two

monkeys.

> >

> > My head is normal Irish shaped like a cabbage...Very useful..>

>

>

>

> that's nice.

>

> i was referring to a donkey.

>

> what kind of ass worships a donkey?

>

> a two headed cabbage head?

>

> .b b.b.

>

Namaste,

 

What kind of ass worships an elephant----Ganesa, ganapathi. A half

lion Narasimha, an avatar fish, tortoise or any being...Hanuman the

monkey....? What have you got against asses anway or it that the name

constantly reminds of your present egoistic condition as a troll..Tony

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@>

> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery "

> <aoclery@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery "

> > > <aoclery@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > " are of the mind, albeit the higher mind.. "

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > just how much higher is this mind?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > an imaginary 10 feet higher?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > that impresses for sure.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > details, details, details...

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > pin the tail on the donkey for us.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > :-)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Namaste,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Stick your trolling arse out and I'll pin the tail on

> > > > > you...> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > go bag your ass twerp.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > how enlightening is that?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > LOL!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Namaste,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If your big hair and big ears are not in the way, stick

> your

> > > head

> > > > > up

> > > > > > > your arse and gasp for breath and see how enlightening

> that

> > > > > is..> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > name-ass-to ye too.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > yesiree bob!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > after spending hours trying to come up with something of

> your

> > > own.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > you rewrite what i said in the previous post.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > just keep following your leader like this is all you need

> do.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i'll remain looking down and back at you... as you do this.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there's a big boy!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > :-)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > >

> > > > > Namaste,

> > > > >

> > > > > Apparently even for a troll your were so ugly that the

> doctor

> > > > > smacked your face instead of your arse, when you were born.

> This

> > > has

> > > > > created a need in you to seek attention as a troll, to try

> and

> > > > > correct this humiliating experience the your giant troll

> > > > > ego...........> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ROFLMAO!

> > > >

> > > > when the doctor snapped off your tail at birth..

> > > >

> > > > i bet he pressed down too hard on your head to get a grip hold.

> > > >

> > > > the damage is evident.

> > > >

> > > > :-)

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > Namaste,

> > >

> > > Comparing me to a Hanuman is a compliment, I use to keep two

> monkeys.

> > >

> > > My head is normal Irish shaped like a cabbage...Very useful..> >

> >

> >

> >

> > that's nice.

> >

> > i was referring to a donkey.

> >

> > what kind of ass worships a donkey?

> >

> > a two headed cabbage head?

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> Namaste,

>

> What kind of ass worships an elephant----Ganesa, ganapathi. A half

> lion Narasimha, an avatar fish, tortoise or any being...Hanuman the

> monkey....? What have you got against asses anway or it that the name

> constantly reminds of your present egoistic condition as a troll..

 

that's just plain dumb.

 

so you do still believe in trolls!

 

hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

 

i don't have anything against dumb asses.

 

my gracious i'm talking to one now.

 

anyway..or anway as you say..

 

LOL!

 

:-)

 

..b b.b.