Guest guest Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 I want to reply briefly to Marc's response to what I said previously, and from within my limited capacity of understanding, I also want to respond to some of Mahesh's questions: Marc, this is some of what you said: "yes, such pure consciousness isn't related directly to an individual.. .....but an individual is "driven" by such pure consciousness. ...with, or without being aware of it....as long there is individuality and as long there are apparent separations. ....apparent others ...etc.......there is an apparent world in which every forms and forces which work together.... are connected to each......means, there is "whole" of apparent forms working, in fact, in complete harmony....even if it doesn't look thatheavy ego minds aren't aware of such existing harmony...." I agree with most all that you said here except when you say that the individual is "driven" by such pure consciousness. Although I recognize that I may be mis-interpreting the ideas that you were trying to convey, I feel that it is important to be very precise in our meaning, so I want to reiterate some of the things I said previously. What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? In point of fact, what is the individual really? Isn’t it merely an idea formulated within the mind. From my point of view, it is always important to remember that as Nisargadatta pointed out, it is the consciousness that assumes the identity of all the numerous forms, and not the other way around. To Mahesh: As far as comparing the human experience to that of other living creatures, it does seem that there is a survival instinct ingrained and built within the genetic physical structure of all living creatures, but I would venture to say that it is a trait unique to humans which allows us to choose to create, and believe in, such elaborate conceptual worlds built on the ideas of duality and a separate self. Remove those mental ideas and what remains is life undivided (what many refer to as Brahman). And contrary to the exaltations of the ego, this process of life will continue to function quite well with or without its interference. In this day, the typical state of experience of living within the human form is to live in a world that is fabricated by, and sustained by the mind. The so-called ‘real world’ that is often cited by much of humanity, is for all intents and purposes merely a world of ideas made-up out of whole cloth from the mind’s imagination. This powerful human mind is both the blessing and the curse of the human condition. It is a curse, because we can certainly get entangled in its web of fantasy. It is a blessing because, I believe that it is humans alone who have such an extremely powerful cognitive capacity which allows for the investigation into, and the seeing into the nature of reality, and ultimately resolving the mystery. However, to reach that place of understanding, it is imperative that we be able to strip away all the things that the mind has created, and then just try to describe what is seen. It is within this state that we can acknowledge that our true nature or the nature of this reality must precede any and all mentally formulated ideas. And thereafter, we can eventually come to the understanding that, as Nisargadatta pointed out, our true nature is in fact prior to consciousness itself. And lest we forget, the vast powers of love are forever at our disposal, and the heart's capacity to open to this love seems to be truly unlimited. This is perhaps our saving grace. Marv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932 wrote: > > In point of fact, what is the individual really? Isn’t it merely an idea formulated within the mind.  From my point of view, it is always important to remember that as Nisargadatta pointed out, it is the consciousness that assumes the identity of all the numerous forms, and not the other way around. > Marv > Marv, First: Identity is created by thought and not by consciousness. Second: As far as I remember Nis said that consciousness assumes numerous forms. He did not say " it assumes the identity of numnerous forms " . And btw, consciousness doesn't assume any form. Consciousness IS the form. Consciousness IS its content. Without content, no consciousness. Can you see the difference ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 as a baby i was learning to take first step but i was afraid of falling & getting hurt hence i avoided learning to walk and decided rather to focus on learning to talk. i spent time on reading, instrospection & talking and became an intellectual in my own right. i can talk about "i am that", "prior to consciousness", "seeds of consciousness", "consciousness & the absolute ","bhagawat gita" etc etc. i can talk about ego/egoless, illusion/reality, neomenon/phenomena,consiousness/absolute etc. with all this knowledge i am still unable to walk. -mahesh Marvin Moss <mmoss2932Nisargadatta Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:20:31 AM Re: Still more on the ego I want to reply briefly to Marc's response to what I said previously, and from within my limited capacity of understanding, I also want to respond to some of Mahesh's questions: Marc, this is some of what you said: "yes, such pure consciousness isn't related directly to an individual.. .....but an individual is "driven" by such pure consciousness. ...with, or without being aware of it....as long there is individuality and as long there are apparent separations. ....apparent others ...etc.......there is an apparent world in which every forms and forces which work together.... are connected to each......means, there is "whole" of apparent forms working, in fact, in complete harmony.....even if it doesn't look thatheavy ego minds aren't aware of such existing harmony...." I agree with most all that you said here except when you say that the individual is "driven" by such pure consciousness. Although I recognize that I may be mis-interpreting the ideas that you were trying to convey, I feel that it is important to be very precise in our meaning, so I want to reiterate some of the things I said previously. What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? In point of fact, what is the individual really? Isn’t it merely an idea formulated within the mind. From my point of view, it is always important to remember that as Nisargadatta pointed out, it is the consciousness that assumes the identity of all the numerous forms, and not the other way around. To Mahesh: As far as comparing the human experience to that of other living creatures, it does seem that there is a survival instinct ingrained and built within the genetic physical structure of all living creatures, but I would venture to say that it is a trait unique to humans which allows us to choose to create, and believe in, such elaborate conceptual worlds built on the ideas of duality and a separate self. Remove those mental ideas and what remains is life undivided (what many refer to as Brahman). And contrary to the exaltations of the ego, this process of life will continue to function quite well with or without its interference. In this day, the typical state of experience of living within the human form is to live in a world that is fabricated by, and sustained by the mind. The so-called ‘real world’ that is often cited by much of humanity, is for all intents and purposes merely a world of ideas made-up out of whole cloth from the mind’s imagination. This powerful human mind is both the blessing and the curse of the human condition. It is a curse, because we can certainly get entangled in its web of fantasy. It is a blessing because, I believe that it is humans alone who have such an extremely powerful cognitive capacity which allows for the investigation into, and the seeing into the nature of reality, and ultimately resolving the mystery. However, to reach that place of understanding, it is imperative that we be able to strip away all the things that the mind has created, and then just try to describe what is seen. It is within this state that we can acknowledge that our true nature or the nature of this reality must precede any and all mentally formulated ideas. And thereafter, we can eventually come to the understanding that, as Nisargadatta pointed out, our true nature is in fact prior to consciousness itself. And lest we forget, the vast powers of love are forever at our disposal, and the heart's capacity to open to this love seems to be truly unlimited. This is perhaps our saving grace. Marv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932 wrote: > > I want to reply briefly to Marc's response to what I said previously, and from within my limited capacity of understanding, I also want to respond to some of Mahesh's questions: >  > Marc, this is some of what you said: > " yes, such pure consciousness isn't related directly to an individual.. ......but an individual is " driven " by such pure consciousness. ...with, or without being aware of it.... > as long there is individuality and as long there are apparent separations. .....apparent others ...etc.... > ...there is an apparent world in which every forms and forces which work together.... are connected to each...... > means, there is " whole " of apparent forms working, in fact, in complete harmony....even if it doesn't look that > heavy ego minds aren't aware of such existing harmony.... " >  > I agree with most all that you said here except when you say that the individual is " driven " by such pure consciousness. Although I recognize that I may be mis-interpreting the ideas that you were trying to convey, I feel that it is important to be very precise in our meaning, so I want to reiterate some of the things I said previously. What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? > In point of fact, what is the individual really? Isn’t it merely an idea formulated within the mind.  From my point of view, it is always important to remember that as Nisargadatta pointed out, it is the consciousness that assumes the identity of all the numerous forms, and not the other way around. agree with this your words: " What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? " yes, such " someone or something that is driven " by whatever is of mind fiction.... what i want to say is, that, whenever there is talk about " consciousness " .....there also must be talk about " pure consciousness " .....i mean, trying to give a definition about " consciousness " need also a definition of " pure consciousness " .....and onother definition....of " .... " ....and another more definition of.....and so on.... There is not only one kind of consciousness. Consciousness is related to an imaginary ego....who is trapped into other imaginary egos....and other things.....and other forms.....and....and......into a whole world of appearent things. Consciousness is the content. Perciever is the percieved. Ego is The trap. ....... But....everything there Is for real....is all the time present. There has never been any creation of anthing realy. There has never been any creator for real. Means, where there is " Ego " , there is also the presence of the real..... " Ego " can't exist beside the existence and presense of infinite, formless and infinite Brahman, the Self. But such Self, Brahman isn't in any relation to any appearent egos worlds.......isn't the creator of anything....and so also not the creator of any egos...... It is simply being, all the time present. Maybe pure consciousness is necessary to have/get an idea about the Real. ..... Egos are living in a self made cage....a self made prison. Their consciousness isn't enough evaluated to know what happen outside of their self made prison. They Are the prison. Some of this fantastic egos who catched little knowledge here and there.....want others to share such fabulous knowledge.....having them at their feets.....and so, don't feel lonely in this big big imaginary world...... Some of them are even so called " spiritual teachers " .....pseudo non-dualists.....are OPEN to share their prison walls with imaginary others......means, other fools of same kind. ..... When it come to pure consciousness...... There is no individual... There is no prison... There are no others... There is the Real There is Self (Some teachers, therefore, sometimes are tired of this prison games.....based on imaginary worlds.....imaginary others etc....... and tell people.....hey, what do you want?....go home....i have nothing at all to tell and teach you......try out to find " who " you are..... " who " is asking this endless number of useless questions......) Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932@> wrote: > > > > I want to reply briefly to Marc's response to what I said previously, and from within my limited capacity of understanding, I also want to respond to some of Mahesh's questions: > >  > > Marc, this is some of what you said: > > " yes, such pure consciousness isn't related directly to an individual.. ......but an individual is " driven " by such pure consciousness. ...with, or without being aware of it.... > > as long there is individuality and as long there are apparent separations. .....apparent others ...etc.... > > ...there is an apparent world in which every forms and forces which work together.... are connected to each...... > > means, there is " whole " of apparent forms working, in fact, in complete harmony....even if it doesn't look that > > heavy ego minds aren't aware of such existing harmony.... " > >  > > I agree with most all that you said here except when you say that the individual is " driven " by such pure consciousness. Although I recognize that I may be mis-interpreting the ideas that you were trying to convey, I feel that it is important to be very precise in our meaning, so I want to reiterate some of the things I said previously. What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? > > In point of fact, what is the individual really? Isn’t it merely an idea formulated within the mind.  From my point of view, it is always important to remember that as Nisargadatta pointed out, it is the consciousness that assumes the identity of all the numerous forms, and not the other way around. > > > agree with this your words: > > " What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? " > > yes, such " someone or something that is driven " by whatever is of mind fiction.... > > what i want to say is, that, whenever there is talk about " consciousness " .....there also must be talk about " pure consciousness " .....i mean, trying to give a definition about " consciousness " need also a definition of " pure consciousness " .....and onother definition....of " .... " ....and another more definition of.....and so on.... > > There is not only one kind of consciousness. > > Consciousness is related to an imaginary ego....who is trapped into other imaginary egos....and other things.....and other forms.....and....and......into a whole world of appearent things. > > Consciousness is the content. > Perciever is the percieved. > > Ego is The trap. > > ...... > > But....everything there Is for real....is all the time present. > > There has never been any creation of anthing realy. > There has never been any creator for real. > > Means, where there is " Ego " , there is also the presence of the real..... > " Ego " can't exist beside the existence and presense of infinite, formless and infinite Brahman, the Self. > > But such Self, Brahman isn't in any relation to any appearent egos worlds.......isn't the creator of anything....and so also not the creator of any egos...... > > It is simply being, all the time present. > > Maybe pure consciousness is necessary to have/get an idea about the Real. > > .... > > > Egos are living in a self made cage....a self made prison. > Their consciousness isn't enough evaluated to know what happen outside of their self made prison. > They Are the prison. > > Some of this fantastic egos who catched little knowledge here and there.....want others to share such fabulous knowledge.....having them at their feets.....and so, don't feel lonely in this big big imaginary world...... > > Some of them are even so called " spiritual teachers " .....pseudo non-dualists.....are OPEN to share their prison walls with imaginary others......means, other fools of same kind. > > .... > > When it come to pure consciousness...... > There is no individual... > There is no prison... > There are no others... > There is the Real > There is Self > > (Some teachers, therefore, sometimes are tired of this prison games.....based on imaginary worlds.....imaginary others etc....... > > and tell people.....hey, what do you want?....go home....i have nothing at all to tell and teach you......try out to find " who " you are..... " who " is asking this endless number of useless questions......) > > > Marc oh get away with you! :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932@> wrote: > > > > > > I want to reply briefly to Marc's response to what I said previously, and from within my limited capacity of understanding, I also want to respond to some of Mahesh's questions: > > >  > > > Marc, this is some of what you said: > > > " yes, such pure consciousness isn't related directly to an individual.. ......but an individual is " driven " by such pure consciousness. ...with, or without being aware of it.... > > > as long there is individuality and as long there are apparent separations. .....apparent others ...etc.... > > > ...there is an apparent world in which every forms and forces which work together.... are connected to each...... > > > means, there is " whole " of apparent forms working, in fact, in complete harmony....even if it doesn't look that > > > heavy ego minds aren't aware of such existing harmony.... " > > >  > > > I agree with most all that you said here except when you say that the individual is " driven " by such pure consciousness. Although I recognize that I may be mis-interpreting the ideas that you were trying to convey, I feel that it is important to be very precise in our meaning, so I want to reiterate some of the things I said previously. What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? > > > In point of fact, what is the individual really? Isn’t it merely an idea formulated within the mind.  From my point of view, it is always important to remember that as Nisargadatta pointed out, it is the consciousness that assumes the identity of all the numerous forms, and not the other way around. > > > > > > agree with this your words: > > > > " What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? " > > > > yes, such " someone or something that is driven " by whatever is of mind fiction.... > > > > what i want to say is, that, whenever there is talk about " consciousness " .....there also must be talk about " pure consciousness " .....i mean, trying to give a definition about " consciousness " need also a definition of " pure consciousness " .....and onother definition....of " .... " ....and another more definition of.....and so on.... > > > > There is not only one kind of consciousness. > > > > Consciousness is related to an imaginary ego....who is trapped into other imaginary egos....and other things.....and other forms.....and....and......into a whole world of appearent things. > > > > Consciousness is the content. > > Perciever is the percieved. > > > > Ego is The trap. > > > > ...... > > > > But....everything there Is for real....is all the time present. > > > > There has never been any creation of anthing realy. > > There has never been any creator for real. > > > > Means, where there is " Ego " , there is also the presence of the real..... > > " Ego " can't exist beside the existence and presense of infinite, formless and infinite Brahman, the Self. > > > > But such Self, Brahman isn't in any relation to any appearent egos worlds.......isn't the creator of anything....and so also not the creator of any egos...... > > > > It is simply being, all the time present. > > > > Maybe pure consciousness is necessary to have/get an idea about the Real. > > > > .... > > > > > > Egos are living in a self made cage....a self made prison. > > Their consciousness isn't enough evaluated to know what happen outside of their self made prison. > > They Are the prison. > > > > Some of this fantastic egos who catched little knowledge here and there.....want others to share such fabulous knowledge.....having them at their feets.....and so, don't feel lonely in this big big imaginary world...... > > > > Some of them are even so called " spiritual teachers " .....pseudo non-dualists.....are OPEN to share their prison walls with imaginary others......means, other fools of same kind. > > > > .... > > > > When it come to pure consciousness...... > > There is no individual... > > There is no prison... > > There are no others... > > There is the Real > > There is Self > > > > (Some teachers, therefore, sometimes are tired of this prison games.....based on imaginary worlds.....imaginary others etc....... > > > > and tell people.....hey, what do you want?....go home....i have nothing at all to tell and teach you......try out to find " who " you are..... " who " is asking this endless number of useless questions......) > > > > > > Marc > > > oh get away with you! > > :-) > > .b b.b. > hey, pure bastard bbb!, what's up???!!! lol Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I want to reply briefly to Marc's response to what I said previously, and from within my limited capacity of understanding, I also want to respond to some of Mahesh's questions: > > > >  > > > > Marc, this is some of what you said: > > > > " yes, such pure consciousness isn't related directly to an individual.. ......but an individual is " driven " by such pure consciousness. ...with, or without being aware of it.... > > > > as long there is individuality and as long there are apparent separations. ....apparent others ...etc.... > > > > ...there is an apparent world in which every forms and forces which work together.... are connected to each...... > > > > means, there is " whole " of apparent forms working, in fact, in complete harmony....even if it doesn't look that > > > > heavy ego minds aren't aware of such existing harmony.... " > > > >  > > > > I agree with most all that you said here except when you say that the individual is " driven " by such pure consciousness. Although I recognize that I may be mis-interpreting the ideas that you were trying to convey, I feel that it is important to be very precise in our meaning, so I want to reiterate some of the things I said previously. What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? > > > > In point of fact, what is the individual really? Isn’t it merely an idea formulated within the mind.  From my point of view, it is always important to remember that as Nisargadatta pointed out, it is the consciousness that assumes the identity of all the numerous forms, and not the other way around. > > > > > > > > > agree with this your words: > > > > > > " What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? " > > > > > > yes, such " someone or something that is driven " by whatever is of mind fiction.... > > > > > > what i want to say is, that, whenever there is talk about " consciousness " .....there also must be talk about " pure consciousness " .....i mean, trying to give a definition about " consciousness " need also a definition of " pure consciousness " .....and onother definition....of " .... " ....and another more definition of.....and so on.... > > > > > > There is not only one kind of consciousness. > > > > > > Consciousness is related to an imaginary ego....who is trapped into other imaginary egos....and other things.....and other forms.....and....and......into a whole world of appearent things. > > > > > > Consciousness is the content. > > > Perciever is the percieved. > > > > > > Ego is The trap. > > > > > > ...... > > > > > > But....everything there Is for real....is all the time present. > > > > > > There has never been any creation of anthing realy. > > > There has never been any creator for real. > > > > > > Means, where there is " Ego " , there is also the presence of the real..... > > > " Ego " can't exist beside the existence and presense of infinite, formless and infinite Brahman, the Self. > > > > > > But such Self, Brahman isn't in any relation to any appearent egos worlds.......isn't the creator of anything....and so also not the creator of any egos...... > > > > > > It is simply being, all the time present. > > > > > > Maybe pure consciousness is necessary to have/get an idea about the Real. > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > > Egos are living in a self made cage....a self made prison. > > > Their consciousness isn't enough evaluated to know what happen outside of their self made prison. > > > They Are the prison. > > > > > > Some of this fantastic egos who catched little knowledge here and there.....want others to share such fabulous knowledge.....having them at their feets.....and so, don't feel lonely in this big big imaginary world...... > > > > > > Some of them are even so called " spiritual teachers " .....pseudo non-dualists.....are OPEN to share their prison walls with imaginary others......means, other fools of same kind. > > > > > > .... > > > > > > When it come to pure consciousness...... > > > There is no individual... > > > There is no prison... > > > There are no others... > > > There is the Real > > > There is Self > > > > > > (Some teachers, therefore, sometimes are tired of this prison games.....based on imaginary worlds.....imaginary others etc....... > > > > > > and tell people.....hey, what do you want?....go home....i have nothing at all to tell and teach you......try out to find " who " you are..... " who " is asking this endless number of useless questions......) > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > oh get away with you! > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > > hey, pure bastard bbb!, > > what's up???!!! > > lol > > > Marc after years of deep meditation.. the answer to that question has been given unto me: whatever is not down..is what's up. i'm down with that man! and that picks me up. so you see.. i'm nowhere now. that means everything to me. every time and everywhere where nowhere wheres itself. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I want to reply briefly to Marc's response to what I said previously, and from within my limited capacity of understanding, I also want to respond to some of Mahesh's questions: > > > > >  > > > > > Marc, this is some of what you said: > > > > > " yes, such pure consciousness isn't related directly to an individual.. .....but an individual is " driven " by such pure consciousness. ....with, or without being aware of it.... > > > > > as long there is individuality and as long there are apparent separations. ....apparent others ...etc.... > > > > > ...there is an apparent world in which every forms and forces which work together.... are connected to each...... > > > > > means, there is " whole " of apparent forms working, in fact, in complete harmony....even if it doesn't look that > > > > > heavy ego minds aren't aware of such existing harmony.... " > > > > >  > > > > > I agree with most all that you said here except when you say that the individual is " driven " by such pure consciousness. Although I recognize that I may be mis-interpreting the ideas that you were trying to convey, I feel that it is important to be very precise in our meaning, so I want to reiterate some of the things I said previously. What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? > > > > > In point of fact, what is the individual really? Isn’t it merely an idea formulated within the mind.  From my point of view, it is always important to remember that as Nisargadatta pointed out, it is the consciousness that assumes the identity of all the numerous forms, and not the other way around. > > > > > > > > > > > > agree with this your words: > > > > > > > > " What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? " > > > > > > > > yes, such " someone or something that is driven " by whatever is of mind fiction.... > > > > > > > > what i want to say is, that, whenever there is talk about " consciousness " .....there also must be talk about " pure consciousness " .....i mean, trying to give a definition about " consciousness " need also a definition of " pure consciousness " .....and onother definition....of " .... " ....and another more definition of.....and so on.... > > > > > > > > There is not only one kind of consciousness. > > > > > > > > Consciousness is related to an imaginary ego....who is trapped into other imaginary egos....and other things.....and other forms.....and....and......into a whole world of appearent things. > > > > > > > > Consciousness is the content. > > > > Perciever is the percieved. > > > > > > > > Ego is The trap. > > > > > > > > ...... > > > > > > > > But....everything there Is for real....is all the time present. > > > > > > > > There has never been any creation of anthing realy. > > > > There has never been any creator for real. > > > > > > > > Means, where there is " Ego " , there is also the presence of the real..... > > > > " Ego " can't exist beside the existence and presense of infinite, formless and infinite Brahman, the Self. > > > > > > > > But such Self, Brahman isn't in any relation to any appearent egos worlds.......isn't the creator of anything....and so also not the creator of any egos...... > > > > > > > > It is simply being, all the time present. > > > > > > > > Maybe pure consciousness is necessary to have/get an idea about the Real. > > > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > > > > > Egos are living in a self made cage....a self made prison. > > > > Their consciousness isn't enough evaluated to know what happen outside of their self made prison. > > > > They Are the prison. > > > > > > > > Some of this fantastic egos who catched little knowledge here and there.....want others to share such fabulous knowledge.....having them at their feets.....and so, don't feel lonely in this big big imaginary world...... > > > > > > > > Some of them are even so called " spiritual teachers " .....pseudo non-dualists.....are OPEN to share their prison walls with imaginary others......means, other fools of same kind. > > > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > When it come to pure consciousness...... > > > > There is no individual... > > > > There is no prison... > > > > There are no others... > > > > There is the Real > > > > There is Self > > > > > > > > (Some teachers, therefore, sometimes are tired of this prison games.....based on imaginary worlds.....imaginary others etc....... > > > > > > > > and tell people.....hey, what do you want?....go home....i have nothing at all to tell and teach you......try out to find " who " you are..... " who " is asking this endless number of useless questions......) > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > oh get away with you! > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > hey, pure bastard bbb!, > > > > what's up???!!! > > > > lol > > > > > > Marc > > > after years of deep meditation.. > > the answer to that question has been given unto me: > > whatever is not down..is what's up. > > i'm down with that man! > > and that picks me up. > > so you see.. > > i'm nowhere now. > > that means everything to me. > > every time and everywhere where nowhere wheres itself. > > .b b.b. > realy don't need any prison?... sure??... you could try out to enter one of this prisons... please.... so don't let people and teachers alone in this prison worlds! help them to be at their feet!... try please try get some love for this poor little egos show them that they deserve some love and respect! be a good one! one of this good egos! be good be love be whole of this little ego minded world! give birth to more prisons all around.. again and again please do so! ..... lol Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to reply briefly to Marc's response to what I said previously, and from within my limited capacity of understanding, I also want to respond to some of Mahesh's questions: > > > > > >  > > > > > > Marc, this is some of what you said: > > > > > > " yes, such pure consciousness isn't related directly to an individual.. .....but an individual is " driven " by such pure consciousness. ....with, or without being aware of it.... > > > > > > as long there is individuality and as long there are apparent separations. ....apparent others ...etc.... > > > > > > ...there is an apparent world in which every forms and forces which work together.... are connected to each...... > > > > > > means, there is " whole " of apparent forms working, in fact, in complete harmony....even if it doesn't look that > > > > > > heavy ego minds aren't aware of such existing harmony.... " > > > > > >  > > > > > > I agree with most all that you said here except when you say that the individual is " driven " by such pure consciousness. Although I recognize that I may be mis-interpreting the ideas that you were trying to convey, I feel that it is important to be very precise in our meaning, so I want to reiterate some of the things I said previously. What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? > > > > > > In point of fact, what is the individual really? Isn’t it merely an idea formulated within the mind.  From my point of view, it is always important to remember that as Nisargadatta pointed out, it is the consciousness that assumes the identity of all the numerous forms, and not the other way around. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree with this your words: > > > > > > > > > > " What I have been talking about with this group, is that which remains when we remove all the 'apparent' things you refer to above, in order that we may arrive at a core understanding. When we do that, there is in fact no individual, and no one to be driven. Isn't that someone or something that is driven just another mental idea? " > > > > > > > > > > yes, such " someone or something that is driven " by whatever is of mind fiction.... > > > > > > > > > > what i want to say is, that, whenever there is talk about " consciousness " .....there also must be talk about " pure consciousness " .....i mean, trying to give a definition about " consciousness " need also a definition of " pure consciousness " .....and onother definition....of " .... " ....and another more definition of.....and so on.... > > > > > > > > > > There is not only one kind of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is related to an imaginary ego....who is trapped into other imaginary egos....and other things.....and other forms.....and....and......into a whole world of appearent things. > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is the content. > > > > > Perciever is the percieved. > > > > > > > > > > Ego is The trap. > > > > > > > > > > ...... > > > > > > > > > > But....everything there Is for real....is all the time present. > > > > > > > > > > There has never been any creation of anthing realy. > > > > > There has never been any creator for real. > > > > > > > > > > Means, where there is " Ego " , there is also the presence of the real..... > > > > > " Ego " can't exist beside the existence and presense of infinite, formless and infinite Brahman, the Self. > > > > > > > > > > But such Self, Brahman isn't in any relation to any appearent egos worlds.......isn't the creator of anything....and so also not the creator of any egos...... > > > > > > > > > > It is simply being, all the time present. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe pure consciousness is necessary to have/get an idea about the Real. > > > > > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Egos are living in a self made cage....a self made prison. > > > > > Their consciousness isn't enough evaluated to know what happen outside of their self made prison. > > > > > They Are the prison. > > > > > > > > > > Some of this fantastic egos who catched little knowledge here and there.....want others to share such fabulous knowledge.....having them at their feets.....and so, don't feel lonely in this big big imaginary world...... > > > > > > > > > > Some of them are even so called " spiritual teachers " .....pseudo non-dualists.....are OPEN to share their prison walls with imaginary others......means, other fools of same kind. > > > > > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > > > When it come to pure consciousness...... > > > > > There is no individual... > > > > > There is no prison... > > > > > There are no others... > > > > > There is the Real > > > > > There is Self > > > > > > > > > > (Some teachers, therefore, sometimes are tired of this prison games.....based on imaginary worlds.....imaginary others etc....... > > > > > > > > > > and tell people.....hey, what do you want?....go home....i have nothing at all to tell and teach you......try out to find " who " you are..... " who " is asking this endless number of useless questions......) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > oh get away with you! > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > hey, pure bastard bbb!, > > > > > > what's up???!!! > > > > > > lol > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > after years of deep meditation.. > > > > the answer to that question has been given unto me: > > > > whatever is not down..is what's up. > > > > i'm down with that man! > > > > and that picks me up. > > > > so you see.. > > > > i'm nowhere now. > > > > that means everything to me. > > > > every time and everywhere where nowhere wheres itself. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > realy don't need any prison?... > > sure??... > > you could try out to enter one of this prisons... > > please.... > > so don't let people and teachers alone in this prison worlds! > > help them to be at their feet!... > > try > > please try > > get some love for this poor little egos > > show them that they deserve some love and respect! > > be a good one! > > one of this good egos! > > be good > > be love > > be whole of this little ego minded world! > > give birth to more prisons all around.. > > again and again > > please do so! > > .... > > > lol > > > > Marc > Ps: some got even a PHD in prison... are proud of it! can't leave anymore the prison easily because of such great distinction!.....very hard for them! it would need an IQ of about 200 to get over this worthless distinction.... 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.