Guest guest Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 ....with 'mantras' like; " There is no this...There is no that " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 In a message dated 10/21/2008 2:27:15 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, yohansky writes: ....with 'mantras' like;"There is no this...There is no that" There is no reason. Hehe. Mostly, it's an attempt to hypnotize the assumed mind into believing it doesn't exist, which is futile. Mind is not what sees the truth of the matter, and so Neti-Neti was never meant to be a mantra, but a pointer beyond mind; a 'reminder' that if it can be seen, that's not it. It can be seen directly that all knowledge, including the idea that there is a mind, a body and a person who owns them, is 'invented' out of absolute nothingness. The pointer isn't meant to say anything about the illusion beyond that it is illusion, it means to point to that Nothingness out of which it arises, and the pointer isn't even addressed to the mind (since it's just an idea arising in this nothingness), it speaks to that intelligence that is the nothingness. Mind, of course, takes possession of it and turns it into a technique. New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News more. Try it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 In a message dated 10/21/2008 12:42:04 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, yohansky writes: Nisargadatta , "Eric Putkonen" <eputkonen wrote:>> Neti neti was never meant to be a manta.> > For those who can't just realize the Self (tat tvam asi)...then neti> neti is a form of inquiry in which you look at all that you think you> are and realize you are not that. In removing identification with> what is not Self, eventually everything is gone and the Self may be> realized. What can be seen is not the seer...basically.> > It works for some, but won't work at all as a mantra or something you> just mentally do.> > Namaste,> > ~ Eric Putkonen> http://www.awaken2life.org> > > Nisargadatta , "johanhb" <yohansky@> wrote:> >> > > > ...with 'mantras' like;> > > > "There is no this...There is no that"> >>Then please tell me, if there's no seer, what is IT that can be seen. I believe he means, if you can perceive it (object, thought, feeling) then it can't be the seer. The seer can't perceive itself as an object of it's perception. It IS the perceiving itself. New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News more. Try it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Neti neti was never meant to be a manta. For those who can't just realize the Self (tat tvam asi)...then neti neti is a form of inquiry in which you look at all that you think you are and realize you are not that. In removing identification with what is not Self, eventually everything is gone and the Self may be realized. What can be seen is not the seer...basically. It works for some, but won't work at all as a mantra or something you just mentally do. Namaste, ~ Eric Putkonen http://www.awaken2life.org Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky wrote: > > > ...with 'mantras' like; > > " There is no this...There is no that " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Eric Putkonen " <eputkonen wrote: > > Neti neti was never meant to be a manta. > > For those who can't just realize the Self (tat tvam asi)...then neti > neti is a form of inquiry in which you look at all that you think you > are and realize you are not that. In removing identification with > what is not Self, eventually everything is gone and the Self may be > realized. What can be seen is not the seer...basically. > > It works for some, but won't work at all as a mantra or something you > just mentally do. > > Namaste, > > ~ Eric Putkonen > http://www.awaken2life.org > > > Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > ...with 'mantras' like; > > > > " There is no this...There is no that " > > > Then please tell me, if there's no seer, what is IT that can be seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 10/21/2008 12:42:04 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > yohansky writes: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Putkonen " <eputkonen@> > wrote: > > > > Neti neti was never meant to be a manta. > > > > For those who can't just realize the Self (tat tvam asi)...then neti > > neti is a form of inquiry in which you look at all that you think > you > > are and realize you are not that. In removing identification with > > what is not Self, eventually everything is gone and the Self may be > > realized. What can be seen is not the seer...basically. > > > > It works for some, but won't work at all as a mantra or something > you > > just mentally do. > > > > Namaste, > > > > ~ Eric Putkonen > > http://www.awaken2life.org > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > ...with 'mantras' like; > > > > > > " There is no this...There is no that " > > > > > > > Then please tell me, if there's no seer, what is IT that can be seen. > > > > I believe he means, if you can perceive it (object, thought, feeling) then > it can't be the seer. The seer can't perceive itself as an object of it's > perception. It IS the perceiving itself. I think I know what you're saying... ....but that's the problem. it comes from the conceptual mind. > > > > > **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. > Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out > (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/21/2008 12:42:04 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > yohansky@ writes: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Putkonen " <eputkonen@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Neti neti was never meant to be a manta. > > > > > > For those who can't just realize the Self (tat tvam asi)...then > neti > > > neti is a form of inquiry in which you look at all that you > think > > you > > > are and realize you are not that. In removing identification with > > > what is not Self, eventually everything is gone and the Self may > be > > > realized. What can be seen is not the seer...basically. > > > > > > It works for some, but won't work at all as a mantra or > something > > you > > > just mentally do. > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > ~ Eric Putkonen > > > http://www.awaken2life.org > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ...with 'mantras' like; > > > > > > > > " There is no this...There is no that " > > > > > > > > > > > Then please tell me, if there's no seer, what is IT that can be > seen. > > > > > > > > I believe he means, if you can perceive it (object, thought, > feeling) then > > it can't be the seer. The seer can't perceive itself as an object > of it's > > perception. It IS the perceiving itself. > > I think I know what you're saying... > > ...but that's the problem. it comes from the conceptual mind. > > Its way to complicated. There is no see-er, there is only the seen. To say that the see-er can't see itself is nonsense because THERE IS NO SEE-ER. It is thought which says " I see this, I see that " and that way it is causing the illusion of a see-er and the illusion of a separation between the see-er and the seen. But there is no see-er and there never was one. And there also is no need for this neti net stuff. Just the contrary. It will add more confusion. Forget that neti neti. It is thought which says " I am this, I am that. I am a Moslem, I am a computer specialist, I am steering a car " . When you are a bit awake then you will see how thought constantly is maintaining to be you and there is no need to say " No, I am not that " . Because who says " No,I am not that " ? It is thought again. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Putkonen " <eputkonen@> > wrote: > > > > Neti neti was never meant to be a manta. > > > > For those who can't just realize the Self (tat tvam asi)...then neti > > neti is a form of inquiry in which you look at all that you think > you > > are and realize you are not that. In removing identification with > > what is not Self, eventually everything is gone and the Self may be > > realized. What can be seen is not the seer...basically. > > > > It works for some, but won't work at all as a mantra or something > you > > just mentally do. > > > > Namaste, > > > > ~ Eric Putkonen > > http://www.awaken2life.org > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > ...with 'mantras' like; > > > > > > " There is no this...There is no that " > > > > > > > Then please tell me, if there's no seer, what is IT that can be seen. > Johan, Consciousness is all there is. And consciousness IS its content. The whole confuion has its orgin in that old belief which got traded down since millennia til today that consciousness is a mirrot in which objects are appearing. And that is utterly wrong. Consciousness is not a mirror, it is its content, There is no separation between consciousness and content. It is the same, Just go into neuroscience and you will see. And because consciousness is the content there is also no owner of consciousness and also no see-er. When you have grasped that then you will understand that your question was wrong " What is IT than can be seen ? " becaause the categorizing and naming of the seen is not done by consciousness but by thought. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 In a message dated 10/21/2008 1:04:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, yohansky writes: > Then please tell me, if there's no seer, what is IT that can be seen.> > > > I believe he means, if you can perceive it (object, thought, feeling) then > it can't be the seer. The seer can't perceive itself as an object of it's > perception. It IS the perceiving itself.I think I know what you're saying......but that's the problem. it comes from the conceptual mind. Zackly, although to me this is one of the more accessible realizations, and so it's a good one to 'practice' on. No enlightenment of deep meditations required. If we forget about God and Truth and Awareness, blah, blah, blah, for a minute so that we don't get all caught up in the supposed mystery, we can simply ask ourselves, is it possible for something to see itself? The first answer mind comes up with is, "Of course. I know it's possible because I can see myself." But at least conceptually we know a person can't see himself, right? After all, that's the whole delusion. We're convinced we can see ourselves, so when we're told we're not who we think we are, we go looking elsewhere, but we keep the assumption that we can see what we are. It's not possible. So, we can challenge this basic assumption that something that exists, whatever it is, can see itself. If we put the mind on pause and just gently look at it, we can see, 'Ohhh, of course, nothing can really see itself.' In order for that to happen, it would have to be standing apart from itself; somehow an object of it's own perception, and yet it is the subject; the perceiving itself. Even the woo woo enlightened guru knows that he cannot see himself (Awareness, Consciousness, whatever) ,he only knows that he is That. It remains a mystery because even as Awareness itself, Awareness cannot see itself as an object of it's perception, since then it would be seeing something outside of itself, which begs the question, what is perceiving it? The other side of the coin is that, if you can perceive, think, feel it, it can't be You. Sorry for going on, I guess I just felt like blabbering about it. New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News more. Try it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 In a message dated 10/21/2008 2:04:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: > > I believe he means, if you can perceive it (object, thought, > feeling) then > > it can't be the seer. The seer can't perceive itself as an object > of it's > > perception. It IS the perceiving itself.> > I think I know what you're saying...> > ...but that's the problem. it comes from the conceptual mind.Its way to complicated.There is no see-er, there is only the seen.To say that see-er can't see itself is nonsense because THERE IS NO SEE-ER.It is thought which says " I see this, I see that" and that way it is causing the delusion of a see-er and the delusion of a separation between the see-er and the seen.But the is no see-er and never was one.Werner Which I already said, but thanks for capitalizing it and such. Now, lets talk about this "seen". What in the world is that? You mean objects hanging around? Are you sure? New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News more. Try it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 In a message dated 10/21/2008 9:24:05 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: Phil,Objects hanging arround ? Do you mean church bells or sausages in a butcher's shop or your balls ?Do you need some definition of objects or what an object itself is ?Haven't you read what I wrote: CONSCIOUSNESS IS ALL THERE IS.But namimg objects is needed for communcation. The complete society is built on agreements of naming and categorizing objetcts.So don't play the fool, old chap. Or do you need a punch on your nose with an object called "fist" to grasp what objects are ?Werner Has anybody ever told you you're an a-hole?......Well, of course they have. What am I talking about? Anyhoo, yes, consciousness is all there is, and so when you say "there is only the seen", you're just being an ignorant a-hole and contradicting yourself. Consciousness is it's content. How many years has that been your mantra? And yet you still think there is something being seen. Consciousness is all there is, meaning there is only seeing happening. No seer, nothing seen, just seeing happening. No thinker, no thought, just thinking happening. No expriencer, nothing experienced, just experiencing happening. Are you following this at all or is Consciousness presently focused up the ass of your particular vehicle of perception? New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News more. Try it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 In a message dated 10/21/2008 11:54:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: This all is hair-splitting philosophical and conceptual non-dual crap, Phil. Get back to common sense.Non-dual chit chat is nice to impress other people with when playing your little guru game but in daily life we have to communicate and stick to common sense.And now again:There is no see-er, there is only the seen,there is no thinker there is only thought,there is no experiencer there is only the experienced,etc, etc, etc ...Werner Welp, no, it's only conceptual crap when all you can do is conceptualize it, and the function of reducing it all to it's essence is to get the conceptual crap out of your head. Your mind likes hanging onto things and thoughts and events so that it can make them real and own them. You're very proud of your thoughts and so you turn them into things in your head that you can identify with and show off. On the other hand, if you notice that there is nothing but thinking happening, how can you objectify that thought? If all there is is that thinking happening, you must be that thinking. If all there is is experience happening, you must be that experience. You must be the seeing itself. Is it potentially useful to notice that what you are is the seeing itself and not something that is seen? Of course it is. Get rid of both subject and object because neither exists. Then you can't put yourself anywhere. So lets go over this again. There are no objects seen There are no thoughts laying about There is nothing 'out there' to experience New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News more. Try it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 In a message dated 10/22/2008 12:27:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dennis_travis33 writes: don't think that "Neti Neti" is about any mantra or technique...as far i know..."Neti Neti" was/is used by liberated people as an answer to all kind of (dual) conclusions to/of whatever (fantastic) "spiritual experiences"...of whatever fantastic ego's.as for example....here in the group....whoever try to explain or describe his/her personal (fantastic) views and perceptions......"toombaru" appear....and bring them down to some reality.....by a great "NETI NETI" to their illusory entity....lost within whatever illusions The only reason Toom is caught in his own neti neti is that he believes his nonexistent mind cares whether it exists or not, like at some point it's going to hang it's head in shame and shuffle off. Mind loves this stuff. I don't exist. Wohoo! What fun! New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News more. Try it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 10/21/2008 2:04:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > > > I believe he means, if you can perceive it (object, thought, > > feeling) then > > > it can't be the seer. The seer can't perceive itself as an > object > > of it's > > > perception. It IS the perceiving itself. > > > > I think I know what you're saying... > > > > ...but that's the problem. it comes from the conceptual mind. > > > Its way to complicated. > > There is no see-er, there is only the seen. > > To say that see-er can't see itself is nonsense because THERE IS NO > SEE-ER. > > It is thought which says " I see this, I see that " and that way it is > causing the delusion of a see-er and the delusion of a separation > between the see-er and the seen. > > But the is no see-er and never was one. > > Werner > > > > > Which I already said, but thanks for capitalizing it and such. Now, lets > talk about this " seen " . What in the world is that? You mean objects hanging > around? Are you sure? Phil, Objects hanging arround ? Do you mean church bells or sausages in a butcher's shop or your balls ? Do you need some definition of objects or what an object itself is ? Haven't you read what I wrote: CONSCIOUSNESS IS ALL THERE IS. But namimg objects is needed for communcation. The complete society is built on agreements of naming and categorizing objetcts. So don't play the fool, old chap. Or do you need a punch on your nose with an object called " fist " to grasp what objects are ? Werner > > > > > > **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. > Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out > (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 In a message dated 10/22/2008 12:46:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tyga writes: That is the fundamental problem with the "neti neti" philosophy though, in my opinion, it cancels itself out, making itself redundant in the process, is it any wonder people find it so confusing.0 + 1 + 2 = 00 = mystery1 = true2 = Falsetyga It's a pointer rather than a philosophy, and as such it's not to be taken too literally. (i.e. don't make an equation out of it) The only advantage I see is to notice that you can't be anything you perceive. Once you've seen what the pointer is pointing to, toss out the neti neti. It only takes a moment to see, so don't make a career out of it. New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News more. Try it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 In a message dated 10/22/2008 1:16:16 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: No, Phil,It is thought which is assuming to be consciousness and which says to see itself. But thought is NOT consciousness. Thought is a content of consciousness.This being aware of awareness is the greatest bull gurus ever were breeding to justify there gurudom. But they are just criminals misleading naive people.It is again thought which says to be aware of awareness. But thought isn't aware at all. Thought is just another content of consciousness.There is only consciousness. And consciousness cannot see itself because there is no separation between consciousness and content. Consciousness IS its content.Therefore this seeing oneself is a delusion caused by thought.Werner Okay, first of all, thought isn't saying or assuming nuthin, any more than the button on your shirt is planning the overthrow of the government. You give thought the ability to speak and then declare thought unaware. That's foolishness. As you say, thought is just content, just appearance. Your problem is that you think (clue #1) that thought just magically shows up as consciousness and there's nothing prior to it, no intelligence, no Awareness, no You, no nuthin, just thought that magically appears out of nonexistence. It even appears in a somewhat organized manner, but of course that's magic too. For most intelligent folks, they figure there is a source of that intelligence, and of course there is. Makes no difference what you call it. New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News more. Try it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 10/21/2008 9:24:05 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > > Phil, > > Objects hanging arround ? Do you mean church bells or sausages in a > butcher's shop or your balls ? > > Do you need some definition of objects or what an object itself is ? > > Haven't you read what I wrote: CONSCIOUSNESS IS ALL THERE IS. > > But namimg objects is needed for communcation. The complete society > is built on agreements of naming and categorizing objetcts. > > So don't play the fool, old chap. Or do you need a punch on your nose > with an object called " fist " to grasp what objects are ? > > Werner > > > > Has anybody ever told you you're an a-hole?......Well, of course they have. > What am I talking about? Anyhoo, yes, consciousness is all there is, and so > when you say " there is only the seen " , you're just being an ignorant a-hole > and contradicting yourself. Consciousness is it's content. How many years has > that been your mantra? And yet you still think there is something being seen. > Consciousness is all there is, meaning there is only seeing happening. No > seer, nothing seen, just seeing happening. No thinker, no thought, just thinking > happening. No expriencer, nothing experienced, just experiencing happening. > Are you following this at all or is Consciousness presently focused up the > ass of your particular vehicle of perception? > This all is hair-splitting philosophical and conceptual non-dual crap, Phil. Get back to common sense. Non-dual chit chat is nice to impress other people with when playing your little guru game but in daily life we have to communicate and stick to common sense. And now again: There is no see-er, there is only the seen, there is no thinker there is only thought, there is no experiencer there is only the experienced, etc, etc, etc ... Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky wrote: > > > ...with 'mantras' like; > > " There is no this...There is no that " don't think that " Neti Neti " is about any mantra or technique... as far i know... " Neti Neti " was/is used by liberated people as an answer to all kind of (dual) conclusions to/of whatever (fantastic) " spiritual experiences " ...of whatever fantastic ego's. as for example....here in the group.... whoever try to explain or describe his/her personal (fantastic) views and perceptions...... " toombaru " appear....and bring them down to some reality.....by a great " NETI NETI " to their illusory entity....lost within whatever illusions Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 dennis_travis33 wrote: > Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky wrote: > >> ...with 'mantras' like; >> >> " There is no this...There is no that " >> > > > don't think that " Neti Neti " is about any mantra or technique... > > as far i know... " Neti Neti " was/is used by liberated people as an > answer to all kind of (dual) conclusions to/of whatever > (fantastic) " spiritual experiences " ...of whatever fantastic ego's. > > as for example....here in the group.... > > whoever try to explain or describe his/her personal (fantastic) views > and perceptions...... " toombaru " appear....and bring them down to some > reality.....by a great " NETI NETI " to their illusory entity....lost > within whatever illusions > > > > > Marc > > > > --- > > That is the fundamental problem with the " neti neti " philosophy though, in my opinion, it cancels itself out, making itself redundant in the process, is it any wonder people find it so confusing. 0 + 1 + 2 = 0 0 = mystery 1 = true 2 = False tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 10/21/2008 11:54:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > > This all is hair-splitting philosophical and conceptual non-dual > crap, Phil. Get back to common sense. > > Non-dual chit chat is nice to impress other people with when playing > your little guru game but in daily life we have to communicate and > stick to common sense. > > And now again: > > There is no see-er, there is only the seen, > there is no thinker there is only thought, > there is no experiencer there is only the experienced, > etc, etc, etc ... > > Werner > > > > Welp, no, it's only conceptual crap when all you can do is conceptualize it, > and the function of reducing it all to it's essence is to get the conceptual > crap out of your head. Your mind likes hanging onto things and thoughts and > events so that it can make them real and own them. You're very proud of your > thoughts and so you turn them into things in your head that you can identify > with and show off. > > On the other hand, if you notice that there is nothing but thinking > happening, how can you objectify that thought? If all there is is that thinking > happening, you must be that thinking. If all there is is experience happening, you > must be that experience. You must be the seeing itself. > > Is it potentially useful to notice that what you are is the seeing itself > and not something that is seen? No, Phil, It is thought which is assuming to be consciousness and which says to see itself. But thought is NOT consciousness. Thought is a content of consciousness. This being aware of awareness is the greatest bull gurus ever were breeding to justify there gurudom. But they are just criminals misleading naive people. It is again thought which says to be aware of awareness. But thought isn't aware at all. Thought is just another content of consciousness. There is only consciousness. And consciousness cannot see itself because there is no separation between consciousness and content. Consciousness IS its content. Therefore this seeing oneself is a delusion caused by thought. Werner > Of course it is. Get rid of both subject and > object because neither exists. Then you can't put yourself anywhere. So lets go > over this again. > There are no objects seen > There are no thoughts laying about > There is nothing 'out there' to experience > > > > > **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. > Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out > (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > >> ...with 'mantras' like; > >> > >> " There is no this...There is no that " > >> > > > > > > don't think that " Neti Neti " is about any mantra or technique... > > > > as far i know... " Neti Neti " was/is used by liberated people as an > > answer to all kind of (dual) conclusions to/of whatever > > (fantastic) " spiritual experiences " ...of whatever fantastic ego's. > > > > as for example....here in the group.... > > > > whoever try to explain or describe his/her personal (fantastic) views > > and perceptions...... " toombaru " appear....and bring them down to some > > reality.....by a great " NETI NETI " to their illusory entity....lost > > within whatever illusions > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > That is the fundamental problem with the " neti neti " philosophy though, > in my opinion, it cancels itself out, making itself redundant in the > process, is it any wonder people find it so confusing. > > 0 + 1 + 2 = 0 > > 0 = mystery > 1 = true > 2 = False > > > > tyga again.... " neti neti " maybe has never been any theory, technique, mantra or philosophy..... some fools didn't understood " neti neti " ...and so invented some great explanations about it... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/21/2008 12:42:04 P.M. Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > yohansky@ writes: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Putkonen " > <eputkonen@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Neti neti was never meant to be a manta. > > > > > > > > For those who can't just realize the Self (tat tvam > asi)...then > > neti > > > > neti is a form of inquiry in which you look at all that you > > think > > > you > > > > are and realize you are not that. In removing identification > with > > > > what is not Self, eventually everything is gone and the Self > may > > be > > > > realized. What can be seen is not the seer...basically. > > > > > > > > It works for some, but won't work at all as a mantra or > > something > > > you > > > > just mentally do. > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > ~ Eric Putkonen > > > > http://www.awaken2life.org > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...with 'mantras' like; > > > > > > > > > > " There is no this...There is no that " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then please tell me, if there's no seer, what is IT that can be > > seen. > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe he means, if you can perceive it (object, thought, > > feeling) then > > > it can't be the seer. The seer can't perceive itself as an > object > > of it's > > > perception. It IS the perceiving itself. > > > > I think I know what you're saying... > > > > ...but that's the problem. it comes from the conceptual mind. > > > > > > Its way to complicated. > > There is no see-er, there is only the seen. > > To say that the see-er can't see itself is nonsense because THERE IS > NO SEE-ER. > > It is thought which says " I see this, I see that " and that way it is > causing the illusion of a see-er and the illusion of a separation > between the see-er and the seen. > > But there is no see-er and there never was one. > > And there also is no need for this neti net stuff. Just the contrary. > It will add more confusion. Forget that neti neti. > > It is thought which says " I am this, I am that. I am a Moslem, I am a > computer specialist, I am steering a car " . > > When you are a bit awake then you will see how thought constantly is > maintaining to be you and there is no need to say " No, I am not that " . > > Because who says " No,I am not that " ? It is thought again. > > Werner > With due respect Werner, but there always remains the ancient and awefull cliche; who/what is that thought, other than that pool of chemicals running wild in 'our' bodies...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/21/2008 12:42:04 P.M. Pacific Daylight > > Time, > > > > yohansky@ writes: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Putkonen " > > <eputkonen@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Neti neti was never meant to be a manta. > > > > > > > > > > For those who can't just realize the Self (tat tvam > > asi)...then > > > neti > > > > > neti is a form of inquiry in which you look at all that you > > > think > > > > you > > > > > are and realize you are not that. In removing identification > > with > > > > > what is not Self, eventually everything is gone and the Self > > may > > > be > > > > > realized. What can be seen is not the seer...basically. > > > > > > > > > > It works for some, but won't work at all as a mantra or > > > something > > > > you > > > > > just mentally do. > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > > > ~ Eric Putkonen > > > > > http://www.awaken2life.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...with 'mantras' like; > > > > > > > > > > > > " There is no this...There is no that " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then please tell me, if there's no seer, what is IT that can > be > > > seen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe he means, if you can perceive it (object, thought, > > > feeling) then > > > > it can't be the seer. The seer can't perceive itself as an > > object > > > of it's > > > > perception. It IS the perceiving itself. > > > > > > I think I know what you're saying... > > > > > > ...but that's the problem. it comes from the conceptual mind. > > > > > > > > > > Its way to complicated. > > > > There is no see-er, there is only the seen. > > > > To say that the see-er can't see itself is nonsense because THERE > IS > > NO SEE-ER. > > > > It is thought which says " I see this, I see that " and that way it > is > > causing the illusion of a see-er and the illusion of a separation > > between the see-er and the seen. > > > > But there is no see-er and there never was one. > > > > And there also is no need for this neti net stuff. Just the > contrary. > > It will add more confusion. Forget that neti neti. > > > > It is thought which says " I am this, I am that. I am a Moslem, I am > a > > computer specialist, I am steering a car " . > > > > When you are a bit awake then you will see how thought constantly > is > > maintaining to be you and there is no need to say " No, I am not > that " . > > > > Because who says " No,I am not that " ? It is thought again. > > > > Werner > > > > With due respect Werner, but there always remains the ancient and > awefull cliche; who/what is that thought, other than that pool of > chemicals running wild in 'our' bodies...? > Johan, I already was touching and answering that question in my post " Thought and its Origin " : Nisargadatta/message/62579 Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/22/2008 12:46:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > tyga writes: > > That is the fundamental problem with the " neti neti " philosophy > though, > in my opinion, it cancels itself out, making itself redundant in the > process, is it any wonder people find it so confusing. > > 0 + 1 + 2 = 0 > > 0 = mystery > 1 = true > 2 = False > > > > tyga > > > It's a pointer rather than a philosophy, and as such it's not to > be taken too literally. (i.e. don't make an equation out of it) > The only advantage I see is to notice that you can't be anything > you perceive. Once you've seen what the pointer is pointing to, > toss out the neti neti. It only takes a moment to see, so don't > make a career out of it. > > > > > ------ Point taken. Interesting enough though, I was only using the numbers to illustrate a point, to point at something. The pointing I was attempting to illustrate, is that the pointing of the " neti neti " is confusing rather than illuminating, for many people. It may well point to something worth contemplating or whatever, but what many people see is a pointing to a nothing in particular, an absence of direction or relation. If one is making a point, then one needs to be making an illustration in order to be pointing toward. Neti Neit does not do this, it does quite the opposite, I believe, hence my zero sum. That was my only point. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/21/2008 12:42:04 P.M. Pacific Daylight > > > Time, > > > > > yohansky@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Putkonen " > > > <eputkonen@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Neti neti was never meant to be a manta. > > > > > > > > > > > > For those who can't just realize the Self (tat tvam > > > asi)...then > > > > neti > > > > > > neti is a form of inquiry in which you look at all that > you > > > > think > > > > > you > > > > > > are and realize you are not that. In removing > identification > > > with > > > > > > what is not Self, eventually everything is gone and the > Self > > > may > > > > be > > > > > > realized. What can be seen is not the seer...basically. > > > > > > > > > > > > It works for some, but won't work at all as a mantra or > > > > something > > > > > you > > > > > > just mentally do. > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Eric Putkonen > > > > > > http://www.awaken2life.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " johanhb " <yohansky@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...with 'mantras' like; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " There is no this...There is no that " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then please tell me, if there's no seer, what is IT that can > > be > > > > seen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe he means, if you can perceive it (object, thought, > > > > feeling) then > > > > > it can't be the seer. The seer can't perceive itself as an > > > object > > > > of it's > > > > > perception. It IS the perceiving itself. > > > > > > > > I think I know what you're saying... > > > > > > > > ...but that's the problem. it comes from the conceptual mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its way to complicated. > > > > > > There is no see-er, there is only the seen. > > > > > > To say that the see-er can't see itself is nonsense because THERE > > IS > > > NO SEE-ER. > > > > > > It is thought which says " I see this, I see that " and that way > it > > is > > > causing the illusion of a see-er and the illusion of a separation > > > between the see-er and the seen. > > > > > > But there is no see-er and there never was one. > > > > > > And there also is no need for this neti net stuff. Just the > > contrary. > > > It will add more confusion. Forget that neti neti. > > > > > > It is thought which says " I am this, I am that. I am a Moslem, I > am > > a > > > computer specialist, I am steering a car " . > > > > > > When you are a bit awake then you will see how thought constantly > > is > > > maintaining to be you and there is no need to say " No, I am not > > that " . > > > > > > Because who says " No,I am not that " ? It is thought again. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > With due respect Werner, but there always remains the ancient and > > awefull cliche; who/what is that thought, other than that pool of > > chemicals running wild in 'our' bodies...? > > > > > Johan, > > I already was touching and answering that question in my > post " Thought and its Origin " : > > Nisargadatta/message/62579 > > Werner > Maybe, if we really tried not so hard to cultivate the activity of 'thinking', and rest in the origine of 'existence' we wouldn't have to ask about the " chicken and the egg " ... It's an entertaining challenge tho, to say the least. 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.