Guest guest Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Let's take Consciousness to a honky tonk and make her dance and strip her clothes. Make her show her stuff, let's see what she is really made off. Is she a Goddess, or just a bitch from the hood? Let's do a thought experiment on her. Let's suppose, by some birth defect, someone was born without senses, or sensory nerves. This person would neither see, nor hear, nor taste nor feel with his skin, nor have any sensation of warm, or cold, pleasure, or pain, or even feel his body in any way. Furthermore, our subject would be incapable of feeling any emotions Being in that condition since birth, but fully conscious, what could he be conscious of? He could not even think because thinking has to be learnt. Not having any knowledge of his body, or a world outside, his consciousness would be blank. Matter of fact his consciousness would be no different than being unconscious. He would have the capacity, the potential to be conscious, but not be conscious at all. Pete http://cerosoul.wordpress.com enlightenedfiction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Let's take Consciousness to a honky tonk > and make her dance and strip her clothes. > Make her show her stuff, let's see what she is really > made off. Is she a Goddess, or just a bitch > from the hood? > > Let's do a thought experiment on her. Let's > suppose, by some birth defect, someone was > born without senses, or sensory nerves. This > person would neither see, nor hear, nor taste > nor feel with his skin, nor have any sensation > of warm, or cold, pleasure, or pain, or even > feel his body in any way. Furthermore, our > subject would be incapable of feeling any > emotions Being in that condition since birth, > but fully conscious, Hm hm hm, Pete, Consciousness IS its content - no content, no consciousness. And because consciousness IS memory, that person can't be " fully conscious " but in contrary, it will be totally without any consciousness. That person will be fully unconsious, similar like an anesthesia. When that persons dies it won't know it. Werner > what could he be conscious > of? He could not even think because thinking > has to be learnt. Not having any knowledge of his > body, or a world outside, his consciousness would > be blank. Matter of fact his consciousness would > be no different than being unconscious. He would > have the capacity, the potential to be conscious, but > not be conscious at all. > > Pete > > > http://cerosoul.wordpress.com > > enlightenedfiction > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Consciousness IS its content - no content, no consciousness. And > because consciousness IS memory, that person can't be " fully > conscious " but in contrary, it will be totally without any > consciousness. > > That person will be fully unconsious, similar like an anesthesia. > When that persons dies it won't know it. > > Werner > imo Memory is an *indication* of self-identity, indicates rather than establishes or makes the self, or " Consciousness " in the context of Nisargadatta's term. Consciousness *IS and it is there in Deppsleep too. " Advaita-Vedanta swallows everything, and then it gives it back to you. And when it gives it back to you, it is completely different. " ~Swami Dayananda Era Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Consciousness IS its content - no content, no consciousness. And > > because consciousness IS memory, that person can't be " fully > > conscious " but in contrary, it will be totally without any > > consciousness. > > > > That person will be fully unconsious, similar like an anesthesia. > > When that persons dies it won't know it. > > > > Werner > > > > imo Memory is an *indication* of self-identity, indicates rather > than establishes or makes the self, or " Consciousness " in the context > of Nisargadatta's term. > > Consciousness *IS and it is there in Deppsleep too. > Era, dear, Those guys, Ramana or Niz, maintaining that consciousness also is in deep sleep never really were in deep sleep. And when Niz was telling that awareness is prior to consciousness then I simply don't believe him but rather think he was either fooled by his own mind or by some Indian guru, whoever that was. Werner > > > " Advaita-Vedanta swallows everything, and then it gives it back to > you. And when it gives it back to you, it is completely different. " > ~Swami Dayananda > > > Era > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 > > > > > > Consciousness IS its content - no content, no consciousness. And > > > because consciousness IS memory, that person can't be " fully > > > conscious " but in contrary, it will be totally without any > > > consciousness. > > > > > > That person will be fully unconsious, similar like an > > >anesthesia. > > > When that persons dies it won't know it. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > imo Memory is an *indication* of self-identity, indicates rather > > than establishes or makes the self, or " Consciousness " in the > > context > > of Nisargadatta's term. > > > > Consciousness *IS and it is there in Deppsleep too. > > > > > Era, dear, > > Those guys, Ramana or Niz, maintaining that consciousness also is in > deep sleep never really were in deep sleep. > > And when Niz was telling that awareness is prior to consciousness > then I simply don't believe him but rather think he was either > fooled by his own mind or by some Indian guru, whoever that was. > Both Ramana and Niz was able to slip into deepsleep with their awareness..so I heard and I believe them. " Self inquiry Section 22.2. Once you see that you are pure Awareness, you also see that there can be no experience without an object of Awareness. Thus, in deep sleep, anaesthesia, or death there is no experience, but you--pure Awareness- -are always present because you are the unchanging background. Different teachers give different answers to this question. Ramesh usually evades it, or gives the standard answer that you must have been present during deep sleep because you know you are present when awake. I find this less than satisfactory because it is a logical conclusion rather than direct knowledge. Francis Lucille answers by saying there is a residual " perfume " --meaning an intuitive knowledge rather than a memory--remaining after deep sleep that tells you that you were present then " > Werner > > > > > > > > " Advaita-Vedanta swallows everything, and then it gives it back to > > you. And when it gives it back to you, it is completely different. " > > ~Swami Dayananda > > > > > > Era > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 " From a sound, scientific point of view, not only is it impossible to understand the material world without considering the consciousness of its observer, but, in fact, it is Consciousness which manifests the world. However, it cannot be the individual consciousness of the observer that does this, but it must be nonlocal, universal Consciousness Here, we must say what distinction we shall make between mind and consciousness. Many writers use " mind " when other writers use " consciousness " to describe the same thing. In Chapters 1 through 8, we shall use the word consciousness (uncapitalized) rather ambiguously to mean either mind or the general principle of consciousness. This reflects the ambiguity of common usage. Beginning in Chapter 9, we shall be more precise and shall start referring to Consciousness (capitalized) as All-That-Is. This includes Noumenon (the Unmanifest) and phenomenon (the manifest). When we speak of our experience, we shall often refer to Noumenon as Awareness, and to phenomenon as mind. Then the word mind will mean only our experience of the mental, sensory, and perceptual functioning of the individual organism, not to any kind of physical object such as the brain.The combination of body and mind we shall refer to as the body-mind organism. After Chapter 9, we shall not use consciousness (uncapitalized) unless we are following the usage of other writers. " " From a sound, scientific point of view, not only is it impossible to understand the material world without considering the consciousness of its observer, but, in fact, it is Consciousness which manifests the world. However, it cannot be the individual consciousness of the observer that does this, but it must be nonlocal, universal Consciousness Here, we must say what distinction we shall make between mind and consciousness. Many writers use " mind " when other writers use " consciousness " to describe the same thing. In Chapters 1 through 8, we shall use the word consciousness (uncapitalized) rather ambiguously to mean either mind or the general principle of consciousness. This reflects the ambiguity of common usage. Beginning in Chapter 9, we shall be more precise and shall start referring to Consciousness (capitalized) as All-That-Is. This includes Noumenon (the Unmanifest) and phenomenon (the manifest). When we speak of our experience, we shall often refer to Noumenon as Awareness, and to phenomenon as mind. Then the word mind will mean only our experience of the mental, sensory, and perceptual functioning of the individual organism, not to any kind of physical object such as the brain.The combination of body and mind we shall refer to as the body-mind organism. After Chapter 9, we shall not use consciousness (uncapitalized) unless we are following the usage of other writers. " 10. What is God? a. God is another word for Consciousness, which is what You are. c. Transcendent God is pure Awareness, while immanent God is the Background of the objects of Awareness. d. Thus, God is What is aware of objects, and God is also the Background from which objects arise. e. The Background is not different from its objects. Together with Awareness they comprise Consciousness. God, Consciousness, and What-Is are all pointers to the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok wrote: > > > > > > > > > Consciousness IS its content - no content, no consciousness. And > > > > because consciousness IS memory, that person can't be " fully > > > > conscious " but in contrary, it will be totally without any > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > That person will be fully unconsious, similar like an > > > >anesthesia. > > > > When that persons dies it won't know it. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > imo Memory is an *indication* of self-identity, indicates rather > > > than establishes or makes the self, or " Consciousness " in the > > > context > > > of Nisargadatta's term. > > > > > > Consciousness *IS and it is there in Deppsleep too. > > > > > > > > > Era, dear, > > > > Those guys, Ramana or Niz, maintaining that consciousness also is in > > deep sleep never really were in deep sleep. > > > > And when Niz was telling that awareness is prior to consciousness > > then I simply don't believe him but rather think he was either > > fooled by his own mind or by some Indian guru, whoever that was. > > > > Both Ramana and Niz was able to slip into deepsleep with their > awareness..so I heard and I believe them. Era, I did not hear it but only read it and I did not believe it. It seems you easily do believe any rubbish when it origined from a famous name. You very soon should change that. > > " Self inquiry Section 22.2. Once you see that you are pure Awareness, Oh holy goose, what a crap that is, " Pure Awareness " - there is no such a thing. Era, please say good bye to all that shit ! How do you do that saying good bye to what is traded by so called sages ? You do it by doubting, doubting, doubting ... > you also see that there can be no experience without an object of > Awareness. Thus, in deep sleep, anaesthesia, or death there is no > experience, but you--pure Awareness- -are always present because you > are the unchanging background. Hell, what a bullshit that is: You are pure awareness ... Can't you see that, Era ? Werner > Different teachers give different > answers to this question. Ramesh usually evades it, or gives the > standard answer that you must have been present during deep sleep > because you know you are present when awake. I find this less than > satisfactory because it is a logical conclusion rather than direct > knowledge. Francis Lucille answers by saying there is a residual > " perfume " --meaning an intuitive knowledge rather than a > memory--remaining after deep sleep that tells you that you were > present then " > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Advaita-Vedanta swallows everything, and then it gives it back to > > > you. And when it gives it back to you, it is completely different. " > > > ~Swami Dayananda > > > > > > > > > Era > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok wrote: > > " From a sound, scientific point of view, not only is it impossible to > understand the material world without considering the consciousness of > its observer, but, in fact, it is Consciousness which manifests the > world. However, it cannot be the individual consciousness of the > observer that does this, but it must be nonlocal, universal Consciousness > > Here, we must say what distinction we shall make between mind and > consciousness. Many writers use " mind " when other writers use > " consciousness " to describe the same thing. In Chapters 1 through 8, > we shall use the word consciousness (uncapitalized) rather ambiguously > to mean either mind or the general principle of consciousness. This > reflects the ambiguity of common usage. Beginning in Chapter 9, we > shall be more precise and shall start referring to Consciousness > (capitalized) as All-That-Is. This includes Noumenon (the Unmanifest) > and phenomenon (the manifest). When we speak of our experience, we > shall often refer to Noumenon as Awareness, and to phenomenon as mind. > Then the word mind will mean only our experience of the mental, > sensory, and perceptual functioning of the individual organism, not to > any kind of physical object such as the brain.The combination of body > and mind we shall refer to as the body-mind organism. After Chapter 9, > we shall not use consciousness (uncapitalized) unless we are following > the usage of other writers. " > > " From a sound, scientific point of view, not only is it impossible to > understand the material world without considering the consciousness of > its observer, but, in fact, it is Consciousness which manifests the > world. However, it cannot be the individual consciousness of the > observer that does this, but it must be nonlocal, universal Consciousness > > Here, we must say what distinction we shall make between mind and > consciousness. Many writers use " mind " when other writers use > " consciousness " to describe the same thing. In Chapters 1 through 8, > we shall use the word consciousness (uncapitalized) rather ambiguously > to mean either mind or the general principle of consciousness. This > reflects the ambiguity of common usage. Beginning in Chapter 9, we > shall be more precise and shall start referring to Consciousness > (capitalized) as All-That-Is. This includes Noumenon (the Unmanifest) > and phenomenon (the manifest). When we speak of our experience, we > shall often refer to Noumenon as Awareness, and to phenomenon as mind. > Then the word mind will mean only our experience of the mental, > sensory, and perceptual functioning of the individual organism, not to > any kind of physical object such as the brain.The combination of body > and mind we shall refer to as the body-mind organism. After Chapter 9, > we shall not use consciousness (uncapitalized) unless we are following > the usage of other writers. " > > 10. What is God? > > a. God is another word for Consciousness, which is what You are. > c. Transcendent God is pure Awareness, while immanent God is the > Background of the objects of Awareness. > d. Thus, God is What is aware of objects, and God is also the > Background from which objects arise. > e. The Background is not different from its objects. Together with > Awareness they comprise Consciousness. God, Consciousness, and > What-Is are all pointers to the same thing. > This is the same " logic " out of which all religions emerge. I am here.....I certainly didn't make the world or myself.....therefore something...bigger...must have made me. If the I am itself is investigated instead of its accumulated pile of mnemonic debris a whole new possibility can emerge. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 > > > > > > > > imo Memory is an *indication* of self-identity, indicates > > > > rather> > > > than establishes or makes the self, or "Consciousness" in the > > > > context> > > > of Nisargadatta's term. > > > > > > > > Consciousness *IS and it is there in Deppsleep too.> > > >> > > > > > > > > Era, dear,> > > > > > Those guys, Ramana or Niz, maintaining that consciousness also > > > is in deep sleep never really were in deep sleep.> > > > > > And when Niz was telling that awareness is prior to > > > consciousness > > > then I simply don't believe him but rather think he was either > > > fooled by his own mind or by some Indian guru, whoever that was.> > > > > > > Both Ramana and Niz was able to slip into deepsleep with their> > awareness..so I heard and I believe them.> > > Era,> > I did not hear it but only read it and I did not believe it.> > It seems you easily do believe any rubbish when it origined from a > famous name. You very soon should change that.> > > > > > "Self inquiry Section 22.2. Once you see that you are pure > > A wareness,> > Oh holy goose, what a crap that is, "Pure Awareness" - there is no > such a thing.> > Era, please say good bye to all that shit ! ----E: omg ! You have fire Werner ! > How do you do that saying good bye to what is traded by so called > sages ?> > You do it by doubting, doubting, doubting ...----E: ahh YES !! -I just wish, that you would give a try for neti neti Werner, and strip down to naked awareness void of BS, scientific, or spiritual, personal, or any kind *To have firsthand knowledge about awareness without overlay, kinda like being lost in sex or being in the zone in sports.. > > you also see that there can be no experience without an object of> > Awareness. Thus, in deep sleep, anaesthesia, or death there is no> > experience, but you--pure Awareness- -are always present because > > you are the unchanging background.> > > Hell, what a bullshit that is: You are pure awareness ... ----E: okey, naked than. > Can't you see that, Era ? ----E: Yes, I can. Well I tried my best to convince you to practice Werner.. I'm sort of fead up with the neo-advaitin "we are A OK as we are" horseshit. I truly belive to workon removing the veils covering pure consciousness <naked awareness> *sigh> Werner> > > > Different teachers give different> > answers to this question. Ramesh usually evades it, or gives the> > standard answer that you must have been present during deep sleep> > because you know you are present when awake. I find this less than> > satisfactory because it is a logical conclusion rather than direct> > knowledge. Francis Lucille answers by saying there is a residual> > "perfume"--meaning an intuitive knowledge rather than a> > memory--remaining after deep sleep that tells you that you were> > present then" ----Era Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > If the I am itself is investigated instead of its accumulated pile of mnemonic debris a whole > new possibility can emerge. > > > > toombaru > And whose dream would that be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > If the I am itself is investigated instead of its accumulated pile > of mnemonic debris a whole > > new possibility can emerge. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > And whose dream would that be? > The dream's. t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > If the I am itself is investigated instead of its accumulated pile > > of mnemonic debris a whole > > > new possibility can emerge. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > And whose dream would that be? > > > > > The dream's. > > > t. > Aren't you clever... 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.