Guest guest Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 The clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end of your search and realize that you are the limitless being. " Nisargadatta Maharaj The clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end of your search and realize that you are not the limitless being.....you are not consciousness itself....you are nothing what-so-ever. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 toombaru2006 wrote: > The clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be > described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end > of your search and realize that you are the limitless being. " > Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > The clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be > described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end > of your search and realize that you are not the limitless > being.....you are not consciousness itself....you are nothing > what-so-ever. > > > > > toombaru > --- > > What is the purpose of these two contradictory phrases? " you are the limitless being " " you are not the limitless being " tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > toombaru2006 wrote: > > The clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be > > described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end > > of your search and realize that you are the limitless being. " > > Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > > > > > The clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be > > described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end > > of your search and realize that you are not the limitless > > being.....you are not consciousness itself....you are nothing > > what-so-ever. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > What is the purpose of these two contradictory phrases? > > > " you are the limitless being " > > " you are not the limitless being " > > > tyga > The sense of self is pleased with the idea that it is the " limitless being " . It is not. Nor is the I am. When the self searches inside and finds nothing......it thinks: " If I am nothing and I am here.......I must be everything. " It never considers the fact that it simply does not exist. This is the purpose of Ramana's and Nisargadatta's suggestion to ask " Who am I? " They both knew that there was nothing to find....and when that nothingness is found....the search and the searcher collapse. The sense of being a separate self is a phantom which evolved to " look out " . It is not designed to " look in " simply because there is nothing inside. It is not the " limitless being " ........It is no being at all. It appears that some of the phantoms are programmed to see that....... and when it stares into the abyss....something most peculiar occurs. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 toombaru2006 wrote: >> >> What is the purpose of these two contradictory phrases? >> >> >> " you are the limitless being " >> >> " you are not the limitless being " >> >> >> tyga >> >> > > > > The sense of self is pleased with the idea that it is the " limitless > being " . > > It is not. > > Nor is the I am. > > When the self searches inside and finds nothing......it thinks: > > " If I am nothing and I am here.......I must be everything. " > > It never considers the fact that it simply does not exist. > > This is the purpose of Ramana's and Nisargadatta's suggestion to ask > " Who am I? " > > They both knew that there was nothing to find....and when that > nothingness is found....the search and the searcher collapse. > > The sense of being a separate self is a phantom which evolved to " look > out " . > > It is not designed to " look in " simply because there is nothing inside. > > It is not the " limitless being " ........It is no being at all. > > It appears that some of the phantoms are programmed to see that....... > and when it stares into the abyss....something most peculiar occurs. > > > > > toombaru > > > --- > > ** > > I've done that before, stared into the abyss, it resulted in an existential crisis and a nervous break down. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > toombaru2006 wrote: > >> > >> What is the purpose of these two contradictory phrases? > >> > >> > >> " you are the limitless being " > >> > >> " you are not the limitless being " > >> > >> > >> tyga > >> > >> > > > > > > > > The sense of self is pleased with the idea that it is the " limitless > > being " . > > > > It is not. > > > > Nor is the I am. > > > > When the self searches inside and finds nothing......it thinks: > > > > " If I am nothing and I am here.......I must be everything. " > > > > It never considers the fact that it simply does not exist. > > > > This is the purpose of Ramana's and Nisargadatta's suggestion to ask > > " Who am I? " > > > > They both knew that there was nothing to find....and when that > > nothingness is found....the search and the searcher collapse. > > > > The sense of being a separate self is a phantom which evolved to " look > > out " . > > > > It is not designed to " look in " simply because there is nothing inside. > > > > It is not the " limitless being " ........It is no being at all. > > > > It appears that some of the phantoms are programmed to see that....... > > and when it stares into the abyss....something most peculiar occurs. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > --- > > > > ** > > > > > I've done that before, stared into the abyss, it resulted in an > existential crisis and a nervous break down. > > tyga > The trip can be extremely disturbing. Most searchers circle the abyss until the physical organism dies......at which time......they die. A few enter the emptiness before the body dies. The end result of both is the same. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 toombaru2006 wrote: >> > > > The trip can be extremely disturbing. > > Most searchers circle the abyss until the physical organism > dies......at which time......they die. > > A few enter the emptiness before the body dies. > > The end result of both is the same. > > > > > toombaru > > > > > --- > > Is it not also possible that the abyss is simply the net limit of human comprehension? That anything beyond the ability for the mind to either perceive or comprehend simply appears as an abyss? Of course it would not be possible for anyone to answer this question with any certainty. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > toombaru2006 wrote: > >> > > > > > > The trip can be extremely disturbing. > > > > Most searchers circle the abyss until the physical organism > > dies......at which time......they die. > > > > A few enter the emptiness before the body dies. > > > > The end result of both is the same. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > Is it not also possible that the abyss is simply the net limit of human > comprehension? I imagine that that is true. > > That anything beyond the ability for the mind to either perceive or > comprehend simply appears as an abyss? Yes. In order for mind to " be aware " of something it has to be converted into an object....and in so doing....all reality is lost. Conceptual mind is essentially a pile of post-its. Consciousness can never know what consciousness it. Researchers know no more about consciousness than they did a thousand years ago. Perhaps consciousness is not a thing but the process in which conceptualization occurs and thus could not be privy to understanding itself since any understanding would be confined to its own delusional interpretations of reality. > > Of course it would not be possible for anyone to answer this question > with any certainty. > > > tyga > There is a rub in this process. One always comes to an impenetrable wall. I would imagine that that would be the edge of the named world.......beyond which the self cannot go. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 toombaru2006 wrote: > > Yes. > > In order for mind to " be aware " of something it has to be converted > into an object....and in so doing....all reality is lost. > > Conceptual mind is essentially a pile of post-its. > > Consciousness can never know what consciousness it. > > Researchers know no more about consciousness than they did a thousand > years ago. > > Perhaps consciousness is not a thing but the process in which > conceptualization occurs and thus could not be privy to understanding > itself since any understanding would be confined to its own delusional > interpretations of reality. > > > " Consciousness can never know what consciousness is. " Indeed, this actually makes logical sense. In my opinion, consciousness is unable to know itself because the act of knowing is derived through consciousness. This would be like trying to find the telescope by using the telescope to find itself, for example. The other thing is if we imagine that consciousness is the ground of all beingness, that is it say, all things, then we might also imagine that consciousness is the clay in which the universe finds its expression, so to speak. I don't think this necessarily means however that there needs to be an judgement, that consciousness need be considered delusional. Consciousness is nothing more than a medium in which all things be things. We would not consider the paint or the canvas delusional for becoming an absurd work of art, for example. We could not consider clay delusional for becoming an sculpture. > > > > > > >> Of course it would not be possible for anyone to answer this question >> with any certainty. >> >> >> tyga >> >> > > > > There is a rub in this process. > > One always comes to an impenetrable wall. > > I would imagine that that would be the edge of the named > world.......beyond which the self cannot go. > > > > > toombaru > > > > I wouldn't be so hasty in making any conclusions, I can only say that as far as I am aware, this wall, so to speak, appears to be the point at which the self cannot go. This does not mean then that there is a nothing beyond what we comprehend, it simply means that we do not understand. Is the wall impenetrable or are we just too small to climb over it? tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > toombaru2006 wrote: > > > > Yes. > > > > In order for mind to " be aware " of something it has to be converted > > into an object....and in so doing....all reality is lost. > > > > Conceptual mind is essentially a pile of post-its. > > > > Consciousness can never know what consciousness it. > > > > Researchers know no more about consciousness than they did a thousand > > years ago. > > > > Perhaps consciousness is not a thing but the process in which > > conceptualization occurs and thus could not be privy to understanding > > itself since any understanding would be confined to its own delusional > > interpretations of reality. > > > > > > > > " Consciousness can never know what consciousness is. " > > Indeed, this actually makes logical sense. > > In my opinion, consciousness is unable to know itself because the act of knowing is derived through consciousness. This would be like trying to find the telescope by using the telescope to find itself, for example. > Yes. Nothing can see itself. The problem is compounded by the fact the the assumption of separation is searching for a deeper reality within its own conceptual world. The result of conceptual thought (the self) is limited to and confined by the very concepts out of which it arrises. It can never experience anything outside of that arena. I believe that this is the rock solid wall that Nisargadatta speaks about. > The other thing is if we imagine that consciousness is the ground of all beingness, that is it say, all things, then we might also imagine that consciousness is the clay in which the universe finds its expression, so to speak. The " we " arises concurrently with the conceptual overlay and privy to nothing outside of that. It is a problem only within the conceptual shadowland. > > I don't think this necessarily means however that there needs to be an judgement, that consciousness need be considered delusional. It is conceptual consciousness and the identification of self that occurs within that arena that is delusional. Consciousness is nothing more than a medium in which all things be things. Consciousness in man creates " things " . " Things " do not exist as separate entities. Nor does the " thing " that creates them. There is no such thing as the state of Texas. There is no such thing as a Texan. > We would not consider the paint or the canvas delusional for becoming an absurd work of art, for example. We could not consider clay delusional for becoming an sculpture. Clay and paint have an existential reality. The self and its reflections do not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Of course it would not be possible for anyone to answer this question > >> with any certainty. > >> > >> > >> tyga It can't be answered because it is a question about something that exists only as a concept. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > There is a rub in this process. > > > > One always comes to an impenetrable wall. > > > > I would imagine that that would be the edge of the named > > world.......beyond which the self cannot go. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't be so hasty in making any conclusions, I can only say that as > far as I am aware, this wall, so to speak, appears to be the point at > which the self cannot go. Yes. > > This does not mean then that there is a nothing beyond what we > comprehend, it simply means that we do not understand. > > Is the wall impenetrable or are we just too small to climb over it? > > tyga > An imaginary creature is trying to climb an imaginary wall. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 I resemble that remark> this question popped into my mind what is the purpose of this, the dream, I have no answer. I GUESS ,THOUGHT CANNOT ANSWER THOUGHT and it be real. by the way, I had a dream last night, and there is no me so, who had the dream? 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.