Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > 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. > Keep going 'soulbrother' that's what's it all about...its fun!! > > > > > **************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 , " johanhb " <yohansky wrote: > > 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 acausend the egg " ... Ok, Johan, But who is trying hard to cultivate thinking ? It is thinking which does that Have you ever tried to stop think for a while ? And did you succeed ? No you didn't. One cannot stop thinking because who tries to stop thinking ? It is thinking which tries that Much more interesting is why we are constantly thinking ? You must see that loud thinking is called speaking and silent thinking is just silently speaking. Because thinking is created by the brain in order to eventually get communicated the conclusion is that this constant chattering of the mind must have something to do with the fear of being alone. Werner > > It's an entertaining challenge tho, to say the least. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 > > > > > > > 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 " ... > > > Ok, Johan, > > But who is trying hard to cultivate thinking ? It is thinking which > does that > > Have you ever tried to stop think for a while ? And did you succeed ? > No you didn't. > > One cannot stop thinking because who tries to stop thinking ? It is > thinking which tries that > > Much more interesting is why we are constantly thinking ? > > You must see that loud thinking is called speaking and silent > thinking is just silently speaking. > > Because thinking is created by the brain in order to eventually get > communicated the conclusion is that this constant chattering of the > mind must have something to do with the fear of being alone. > > Werner You don't have to take my word for it, but there is a state that goes beyond 'thinking', even if it is for the shortest of 'time'. 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 3:10:49 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tyga writes: 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 I see your point. Hehe. Yeah, mind naturally wants to turn a pointer into a mental process, which keeps it spinning instead of stopping it in it's tracks as it's meant to do. The same can be said of self inquiry. If one is trying to answer the question with the mind, the point of the pointer is missed. Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check 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 3:55:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: Ok, Johan,But who is trying hard to cultivate thinking ? It is thinking which does that :)Have you ever tried to stop think for a while ? And did you succeed ? No you didn't.One cannot stop thinking because who tries to stop thinking ? It is thinking which tries that :)Much more interesting is why we are constantly thinking ?You must see that loud thinking is called speaking and silent thinking is just silently speaking.Because thinking is created by the brain in order to eventually get communicated the conclusion is that this constant chattering of the mind must have something to do with the fear of being alone.Werner I spose in a sense it has to do with the fear of being alone, but maybe more to the point, the identity is formed in the movement of thought, and so the ego is a dynamic thing rather than static. The illusion of personhood has to be continually formed and reinforced since we're nothing more than thoughts happening. If thought stops, the identity formed and experienced within those thoughts literally ends, so it's really a fear of existential death. It's true that one cannot stop thinking on command because there's not actually a person creating the thinking in the first place. (The 'person' is contained within those thoughts). However, the mind is functioning spontaneously according to it's own experience and this understanding that results from experience can change with insight, resulting in a different spontaneous functioning. For example, when the futility and counterproductive nature of thought is clearly seen, the mind slows considerably, and when unconscious processes are made conscious, certain destructive processes end all together. Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check 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 Hi Eric I momentarily misunderstood when I first read your comment as well. "What can be seen is not the seer" That might be interpreted to mean the seer cannot be 'known'. In a message dated 10/22/2008 11:13:05 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, eputkonen writes: "Then please tell me, if there's no seer, what is IT that can be seen."I never said there was no seer...and what do you mean by IT?~ Eric Putkonenhttp://www.awaken2life.orgNisargadatta , "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.>---**If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1Under the Message Delivery option, choose "No Email" for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. 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 10/22/2008 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. P: Hey, Phil, welcome back. This is a good thread, and you all are posting good stuff. This brain has seen that perceiving, and its absence are both good. The problem comes when we prefer to perceive, over being unconscious. The problem gets worse, when we prefer one kind of perception over another. To prefer is to suffer, yet, we cannot stop having preferences. Only seeing that no state lasts will lead to freedom from temporary states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 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 Oh! > > > 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...
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.