Guest guest Posted September 5, 2008 Report Share Posted September 5, 2008 A L L I S O N E This supreme truth cancels out everything....all duality never was. This supreme truth states there is no two anythings....which means not only the words but what the words refer to. This truth is a resting in a nondual holyness. ONENESS is what Nisargadatta revered. This ONENESS even cancels out the creation of existence... So as my teacher Ranjit Maharaj used to say .....WHAT TO WORRY? There is not even an " I " ...'here " .....there is only that unspeakable beyond holyness only k Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > toombaru2006 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote: > > > >> toombaru2006 wrote: > >> > >>> Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok@> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> Few people would argue that life > >>>>>> has a material base, that living > >>>>>> cells are made of protein, molecules, > >>>>>> and atoms. Few people doubt that > >>>>>> emotions and thoughts are the result > >>>>>> of chemicals in the brain. So why > >>>>>> not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > >>>>>> What would consciousness lose if declared > >>>>>> material too? In my opinion nothing, > >>>>>> except that it would no longer keep the > >>>>>> hope of surviving death alive. And there > >>>>>> is the rub! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IMO If consciousness requires life, and > >>>>>> life is material, then, consciousness > >>>>>> must be material too. It wasn't a hard > >>>>>> case. Case close! ) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> yes.....consciousness is material too.... > >>>>> > >>>>> just like thoughts etc.... > >>>>> > >>>>> .... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Marc > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one. > >>>> > >>>> David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' > >>>> problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem. > >>>> > >>>> The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors > >>>> associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: > >>>> How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds of > >>>> sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless > >>>> experience? > >>>> > >>>> " Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're > >>>> > > trivial, > > > >>>> but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive > >>>> sciences, " Chalmers says. > >>>> > >>>> The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience. > >>>> > >>>> The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being > >>>> > > explained > > > >>>> in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success > >>>> > > in other > > > >>>> areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical world, > >>>> which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, > >>>> > > which can > > > >>>> be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible > >>>> > > aspect > > > >>>> of the universe, like space and time and mass. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Era > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Can consciousness see itself? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> t. > >>> > >>> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> > >> There is no practical way to falsify consciousness that I am aware of. > >> > >> We are aware that we are conscious but we have no way of definitively > >> proving it. I have no way of knowing whether you experience anything at > >> all for example, I can only know that I do experience things. > >> > >> tyga > >> > >> > > > > > > What if there were no such thing as " consciousness " > > > > What if there were no such thing as " mind " ? > > > > Oh.....I know.....you think that you are conscious because it appears > > that there is a you thing that is aware of its own thought. > > > > But is there really such a thing as " you " ? > > > > Do " you " really experience " things " ? > > > > Do " things " actually have an existantial reality? > > > > Or does the sense of being a separate entity emerge within the > > experiential arena as a phantom? > > > > Eyes do not see. > > Brains do not see. > > The imaginary individual does not see. > > Eyes cannot see sight. > > Consciousness cannot see itself. > > Consciousness in not a thing anymore than sight is a thing. > > Consciousness can be aware of everything but itself. > > > > So....what can you do with that understanding? > > > > > > Nothing. > > > > > > But it sure makes the struggle evaporate. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > Indeed but we were discussing " material " consciousness, were we not? > > tyga > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2008 Report Share Posted September 5, 2008 htiek0 wrote: > A L L I S O N E > > This supreme truth cancels out everything....all duality never was. > > This supreme truth states there is no two anythings....which means not only the words but > > what the words refer to. > > This truth is a resting in a nondual holyness. > > ONENESS is what Nisargadatta revered. > > This ONENESS even cancels out the creation of existence... > > So as my teacher Ranjit Maharaj used to say .....WHAT TO WORRY? > > There is not even an " I " ...'here " .....there is only that unspeakable beyond holyness only > > k > Yes, what you say may very well be true but it isn't very interesting as it cancels out any conversation. We might as well all just . tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2008 Report Share Posted September 5, 2008 Yes ONENESS does put an end to conversation....if it were true that there is actually existence here to have a conversation in. So no matterr what one APPEARS' to do or not do....it is always only THAT. A not so good example is: No matter how the vegatables are moved around in the bowl of vegatable soup....it`s still vegatable soup. An example I like better is: No matter what ' APPEARS' to be in a dream it is ALL not real. Everything since the beginning of existence and this to is a dream in a dream and so never even started to be understood or delt with. Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > htiek0 wrote: > > A L L I S O N E > > > > This supreme truth cancels out everything....all duality never was. > > > > This supreme truth states there is no two anythings....which means not only the words but > > > > what the words refer to. > > > > This truth is a resting in a nondual holyness. > > > > ONENESS is what Nisargadatta revered. > > > > This ONENESS even cancels out the creation of existence... > > > > So as my teacher Ranjit Maharaj used to say .....WHAT TO WORRY? > > > > There is not even an " I " ...'here " .....there is only that unspeakable beyond holyness only > > > > k > > > Yes, what you say may very well be true but it isn't very interesting as > it cancels out any conversation. We might as well all just . > > tyga > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2008 Report Share Posted September 6, 2008 htiek0 wrote: > Yes ONENESS does put an end to conversation....if it were true that > > there is actually existence here to have a conversation in. > > So no matterr what one APPEARS' to do or not do....it is always only THAT. > > A not so good example is: > > No matter how the vegatables are moved around in the bowl of vegatable soup....it`s still > vegatable soup. > > An example I like better is: > > No matter what ' APPEARS' to be in a dream it is ALL not real. > > Everything since the beginning of existence and this to is a dream in a dream and so > never even started to be understood or delt with. > > Yes, we all know that, it serves no practical purpose to continue to repeat it. tyga 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.