Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > > > > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > > > > > > > Is that what you're saying? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > ................. > > > > > > > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > > > > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > > > > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > > > > > > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > > > > Consciousness is an aggregate. > > > > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > > > > as consciousness. > > > > > > > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > > > > is unreal. > > > > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > > > > > > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > > > > > > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > > > > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > > > > such a person may consider that is being in the > > > > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > > > > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > > > > what is presented in consciousness are only > > > > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > > > > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > > > > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > > > > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > > > > continuity is illusion. > > > > > > > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > > > > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > > > > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > > > > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > > > > > > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > > > > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > I believe what you say. > > > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of > > > its own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be > > > beyond its own limited purview. > > > > > > The only problem with that statement is the word " ability " . > > > Rephrase that as, " The *apparent *ability to become aware of <name your > > > aggregate, such as own essential > > > emptiness etc.> would have to be beyond its limited purview. " > > > > > > Such ability is *only *apparent because such awareness is illusory. > > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity of mechanism that is > > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > > Cannot have as there is none such. > > > > > > More important than any of the above is the following: > > > Illusion begins when there is a seeming apprehension of > > > experience itself. To do so is to, in a sense, " draw a circle > > > around " phenomenal presence and effectively designate > > > as an object of experience (reify) what is so encompassed. > > > Such a process is entirely false, however, as phenomenal > > > presence is edgeless, borderless, and in constant flux. > > > So to " embrace experience in the moment " in such a way > > > is a most primal form of " pretend " . > > > > > > And it is just such false embrace that constitutes what you > > > refer to above as " becoming aware of its own essential > > > emptiness of conditional attributes. " [Actually, becoming > > > aware " of its own X " amounts to the same thing.] > > > > > > Becoming aware of its own anything never properly gets > > > off the ground because any embrace of " This " however > > > conceived is already an embarking into falsehood. Indeed, > > > any " act " whatsoever by any " it " , however in the moment > > > it may seem to be, is illusory and false, and for all the same > > > reasons. > > > > > > The phenomenal present, ever in flux, is all the reality there is. > > > And nothing of substance can ever arise from it. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > Ok......I can see that.......I think. > > > > There remains a wondering concerning the nature of the apparatus that becomes aware that all there is the " phenomenal present, ever in flux " . > > > > Jan Cox speaks of " standing up in the river " or " awareness becoming aware that it is aware " ....which......I imagine..... is somehow outside of the self-referential circularity. > > > > toombaru > > > and this makes awareness very wary about itself. > > which makes it think. > > which screws it up. > > which tears down the house that jack builds. > > jack's not aware of this though. > > .b b.b. > Are you saying that jack can be aware that he is not aware? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I believe what you say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware > > > of its > > > > > own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be > > > beyond its > > > > > limited own purview. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity or mechanism that > > > is > > > > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > you're " working " it right now. > > > > > > > > or it's " working " " you " . > > > > > > > > same dif. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Doth It livith in the blind spot? > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > I wonder if Bob knows what you mean > > > by " the blind spot " . You are, of course, > > > referring to Metzinger's notion of > > > inability to see that the construction > > > of a phenomenal self by the brain > > > is precisely that, a construction by the > > > brain. > > > > > > That is, the " blind spot " is not where any > > > " it " is hiding. Quite the opposite. Sans the > > > blind spot it would be quite evident that > > > whatever is experienced is simply a > > > construction, is not " real " . > > > > > > What Metzinger is saying is that we are > > > in effect *hard wired* to be deluded > > > about existence of a personal self. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > And wouldn't you say that the sense of " we " is an apparitional result of the hard wiring and not an actuality? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > would it mean anything either way? > > .b b.b. > Granted. It could be relevant only to the self-referential circularity out of which the question concerning its own nature originated. So..........What do you think of those Mets? :-)toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > > > > > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > > > > > > > > > Is that what you're saying? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > ................. > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > > > > > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > > > > > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > > > > > > > > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > > > > > Consciousness is an aggregate. > > > > > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > > > > > as consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > > > > > is unreal. > > > > > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > > > > > > > > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > > > > > > > > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > > > > > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > > > > > such a person may consider that is being in the > > > > > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > > > > > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > > > > > what is presented in consciousness are only > > > > > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > > > > > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > > > > > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > > > > > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > > > > > continuity is illusion. > > > > > > > > > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > > > > > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > > > > > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > > > > > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > > > > > > > > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > > > > > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe what you say. > > > > > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of > > > > its own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be > > > > beyond its own limited purview. > > > > > > > > The only problem with that statement is the word " ability " . > > > > Rephrase that as, " The *apparent *ability to become aware of <name your > > > > aggregate, such as own essential > > > > emptiness etc.> would have to be beyond its limited purview. " > > > > > > > > Such ability is *only *apparent because such awareness is illusory. > > > > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity of mechanism that is > > > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > > > > Cannot have as there is none such. > > > > > > > > More important than any of the above is the following: > > > > Illusion begins when there is a seeming apprehension of > > > > experience itself. To do so is to, in a sense, " draw a circle > > > > around " phenomenal presence and effectively designate > > > > as an object of experience (reify) what is so encompassed. > > > > Such a process is entirely false, however, as phenomenal > > > > presence is edgeless, borderless, and in constant flux. > > > > So to " embrace experience in the moment " in such a way > > > > is a most primal form of " pretend " . > > > > > > > > And it is just such false embrace that constitutes what you > > > > refer to above as " becoming aware of its own essential > > > > emptiness of conditional attributes. " [Actually, becoming > > > > aware " of its own X " amounts to the same thing.] > > > > > > > > Becoming aware of its own anything never properly gets > > > > off the ground because any embrace of " This " however > > > > conceived is already an embarking into falsehood. Indeed, > > > > any " act " whatsoever by any " it " , however in the moment > > > > it may seem to be, is illusory and false, and for all the same > > > > reasons. > > > > > > > > The phenomenal present, ever in flux, is all the reality there is. > > > > And nothing of substance can ever arise from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok......I can see that.......I think. > > > > > > There remains a wondering concerning the nature of the apparatus that becomes aware that all there is the " phenomenal present, ever in flux " . > > > > > > Jan Cox speaks of " standing up in the river " or " awareness becoming aware that it is aware " ....which......I imagine..... is somehow outside of the self-referential circularity. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > and this makes awareness very wary about itself. > > > > which makes it think. > > > > which screws it up. > > > > which tears down the house that jack builds. > > > > jack's not aware of this though. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > Are you saying that jack can be aware that he is not aware? > > > > > toombaru no. not that i'm aware of anyway. jack knows jack shit. read again: " jack's not aware of this though " and he sure as hell doesn't know that. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I believe what you say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware > > > > of its > > > > > > own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be > > > > beyond its > > > > > > limited own purview. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity or mechanism that > > > > is > > > > > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're " working " it right now. > > > > > > > > > > or it's " working " " you " . > > > > > > > > > > same dif. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doth It livith in the blind spot? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > I wonder if Bob knows what you mean > > > > by " the blind spot " . You are, of course, > > > > referring to Metzinger's notion of > > > > inability to see that the construction > > > > of a phenomenal self by the brain > > > > is precisely that, a construction by the > > > > brain. > > > > > > > > That is, the " blind spot " is not where any > > > > " it " is hiding. Quite the opposite. Sans the > > > > blind spot it would be quite evident that > > > > whatever is experienced is simply a > > > > construction, is not " real " . > > > > > > > > What Metzinger is saying is that we are > > > > in effect *hard wired* to be deluded > > > > about existence of a personal self. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > And wouldn't you say that the sense of " we " is an apparitional result of the hard wiring and not an actuality? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > would it mean anything either way? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > Granted. > > It could be relevant only to the self-referential circularity out of which the question concerning its own nature originated. > > So..........What do you think of those Mets? > > > > :-)toombaru i'm not sure if the Mets are relevant.. to the self-referential loop here. but now how 'bout Michigan State? we'll know later this evening. Go Spartans! :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > > > > > > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that what you're saying? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > ................. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > > > > > > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > > > > > > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > > > > > > > > > > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > > > > > > Consciousness is an aggregate. > > > > > > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > > > > > > as consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > > > > > > is unreal. > > > > > > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > > > > > > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > > > > > > such a person may consider that is being in the > > > > > > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > > > > > > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > > > > > > what is presented in consciousness are only > > > > > > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > > > > > > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > > > > > > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > > > > > > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > > > > > > continuity is illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > > > > > > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > > > > > > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > > > > > > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > > > > > > > > > > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > > > > > > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe what you say. > > > > > > > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of > > > > > its own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be > > > > > beyond its own limited purview. > > > > > > > > > > The only problem with that statement is the word " ability " . > > > > > Rephrase that as, " The *apparent *ability to become aware of <name your > > > > > aggregate, such as own essential > > > > > emptiness etc.> would have to be beyond its limited purview. " > > > > > > > > > > Such ability is *only *apparent because such awareness is illusory. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity of mechanism that is > > > > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > > > > > > Cannot have as there is none such. > > > > > > > > > > More important than any of the above is the following: > > > > > Illusion begins when there is a seeming apprehension of > > > > > experience itself. To do so is to, in a sense, " draw a circle > > > > > around " phenomenal presence and effectively designate > > > > > as an object of experience (reify) what is so encompassed. > > > > > Such a process is entirely false, however, as phenomenal > > > > > presence is edgeless, borderless, and in constant flux. > > > > > So to " embrace experience in the moment " in such a way > > > > > is a most primal form of " pretend " . > > > > > > > > > > And it is just such false embrace that constitutes what you > > > > > refer to above as " becoming aware of its own essential > > > > > emptiness of conditional attributes. " [Actually, becoming > > > > > aware " of its own X " amounts to the same thing.] > > > > > > > > > > Becoming aware of its own anything never properly gets > > > > > off the ground because any embrace of " This " however > > > > > conceived is already an embarking into falsehood. Indeed, > > > > > any " act " whatsoever by any " it " , however in the moment > > > > > it may seem to be, is illusory and false, and for all the same > > > > > reasons. > > > > > > > > > > The phenomenal present, ever in flux, is all the reality there is. > > > > > And nothing of substance can ever arise from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok......I can see that.......I think. > > > > > > > > There remains a wondering concerning the nature of the apparatus that becomes aware that all there is the " phenomenal present, ever in flux " . > > > > > > > > Jan Cox speaks of " standing up in the river " or " awareness becoming aware that it is aware " ....which......I imagine..... is somehow outside of the self-referential circularity. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > and this makes awareness very wary about itself. > > > > > > which makes it think. > > > > > > which screws it up. > > > > > > which tears down the house that jack builds. > > > > > > jack's not aware of this though. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that jack can be aware that he is not aware? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > no. > > not that i'm aware of anyway. > > jack knows jack shit. > > read again: > > " jack's not aware of this though " > > and he sure as hell doesn't know that. > > .b b.b. that's not to say that i'm sure about hell. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > > > > > > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that what you're saying? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > ................. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > > > > > > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > > > > > > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > > > > > > > > > > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > > > > > > Consciousness is an aggregate. > > > > > > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > > > > > > as consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > > > > > > is unreal. > > > > > > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > > > > > > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > > > > > > such a person may consider that is being in the > > > > > > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > > > > > > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > > > > > > what is presented in consciousness are only > > > > > > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > > > > > > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > > > > > > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > > > > > > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > > > > > > continuity is illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > > > > > > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > > > > > > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > > > > > > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > > > > > > > > > > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > > > > > > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe what you say. > > > > > > > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of > > > > > its own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be > > > > > beyond its own limited purview. > > > > > > > > > > The only problem with that statement is the word " ability " . > > > > > Rephrase that as, " The *apparent *ability to become aware of <name your > > > > > aggregate, such as own essential > > > > > emptiness etc.> would have to be beyond its limited purview. " > > > > > > > > > > Such ability is *only *apparent because such awareness is illusory. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity of mechanism that is > > > > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > > > > > > Cannot have as there is none such. > > > > > > > > > > More important than any of the above is the following: > > > > > Illusion begins when there is a seeming apprehension of > > > > > experience itself. To do so is to, in a sense, " draw a circle > > > > > around " phenomenal presence and effectively designate > > > > > as an object of experience (reify) what is so encompassed. > > > > > Such a process is entirely false, however, as phenomenal > > > > > presence is edgeless, borderless, and in constant flux. > > > > > So to " embrace experience in the moment " in such a way > > > > > is a most primal form of " pretend " . > > > > > > > > > > And it is just such false embrace that constitutes what you > > > > > refer to above as " becoming aware of its own essential > > > > > emptiness of conditional attributes. " [Actually, becoming > > > > > aware " of its own X " amounts to the same thing.] > > > > > > > > > > Becoming aware of its own anything never properly gets > > > > > off the ground because any embrace of " This " however > > > > > conceived is already an embarking into falsehood. Indeed, > > > > > any " act " whatsoever by any " it " , however in the moment > > > > > it may seem to be, is illusory and false, and for all the same > > > > > reasons. > > > > > > > > > > The phenomenal present, ever in flux, is all the reality there is. > > > > > And nothing of substance can ever arise from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok......I can see that.......I think. > > > > > > > > There remains a wondering concerning the nature of the apparatus that becomes aware that all there is the " phenomenal present, ever in flux " . > > > > > > > > Jan Cox speaks of " standing up in the river " or " awareness becoming aware that it is aware " ....which......I imagine..... is somehow outside of the self-referential circularity. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > and this makes awareness very wary about itself. > > > > > > which makes it think. > > > > > > which screws it up. > > > > > > which tears down the house that jack builds. > > > > > > jack's not aware of this though. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that jack can be aware that he is not aware? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > no. > > not that i'm aware of anyway. > > jack knows jack shit. > > read again: > > " jack's not aware of this though " > > and he sure as hell doesn't know that. > > .b b.b. > Are you separated from jack in a way that you have access to his origin? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > > > > > > > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that what you're saying? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ................. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > > > > > > > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > > > > > > > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > > > > > > > Consciousness is an aggregate. > > > > > > > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > > > > > > > as consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > > > > > > > is unreal. > > > > > > > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > > > > > > > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > > > > > > > such a person may consider that is being in the > > > > > > > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > > > > > > > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > > > > > > > what is presented in consciousness are only > > > > > > > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > > > > > > > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > > > > > > > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > > > > > > > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > > > > > > > continuity is illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > > > > > > > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > > > > > > > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > > > > > > > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > > > > > > > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe what you say. > > > > > > > > > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of > > > > > > its own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be > > > > > > beyond its own limited purview. > > > > > > > > > > > > The only problem with that statement is the word " ability " . > > > > > > Rephrase that as, " The *apparent *ability to become aware of <name your > > > > > > aggregate, such as own essential > > > > > > emptiness etc.> would have to be beyond its limited purview. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Such ability is *only *apparent because such awareness is illusory. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity of mechanism that is > > > > > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > > > > > > > > Cannot have as there is none such. > > > > > > > > > > > > More important than any of the above is the following: > > > > > > Illusion begins when there is a seeming apprehension of > > > > > > experience itself. To do so is to, in a sense, " draw a circle > > > > > > around " phenomenal presence and effectively designate > > > > > > as an object of experience (reify) what is so encompassed. > > > > > > Such a process is entirely false, however, as phenomenal > > > > > > presence is edgeless, borderless, and in constant flux. > > > > > > So to " embrace experience in the moment " in such a way > > > > > > is a most primal form of " pretend " . > > > > > > > > > > > > And it is just such false embrace that constitutes what you > > > > > > refer to above as " becoming aware of its own essential > > > > > > emptiness of conditional attributes. " [Actually, becoming > > > > > > aware " of its own X " amounts to the same thing.] > > > > > > > > > > > > Becoming aware of its own anything never properly gets > > > > > > off the ground because any embrace of " This " however > > > > > > conceived is already an embarking into falsehood. Indeed, > > > > > > any " act " whatsoever by any " it " , however in the moment > > > > > > it may seem to be, is illusory and false, and for all the same > > > > > > reasons. > > > > > > > > > > > > The phenomenal present, ever in flux, is all the reality there is. > > > > > > And nothing of substance can ever arise from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok......I can see that.......I think. > > > > > > > > > > There remains a wondering concerning the nature of the apparatus that becomes aware that all there is the " phenomenal present, ever in flux " . > > > > > > > > > > Jan Cox speaks of " standing up in the river " or " awareness becoming aware that it is aware " ....which......I imagine..... is somehow outside of the self-referential circularity. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > and this makes awareness very wary about itself. > > > > > > > > which makes it think. > > > > > > > > which screws it up. > > > > > > > > which tears down the house that jack builds. > > > > > > > > jack's not aware of this though. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that jack can be aware that he is not aware? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > no. > > > > not that i'm aware of anyway. > > > > jack knows jack shit. > > > > read again: > > > > " jack's not aware of this though " > > > > and he sure as hell doesn't know that. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > Are you separated from jack in a way that you have access to his origin? > > > > toombaru i don't believe there is a " me " . i don't believe there are " origins " . i don't believe in separation. i don't believe in the accessibility of access to anything. i don't believe in believing or not believing. i believe in nothing. but Oh! what a nothing! i really shouldn't mention it.. it's unmentionable. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > 1. Consciousness creates a conceptual overlay along with a sense of a > separate self. > > 2. The imaginary self becomes aware of its own ultimate vacuity. > > 3. Game over. > > toombaru > > ................ > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > Bill > Consciousness & ego are fictions.... fictions can't create anything for real ..... only fiction around/from/by/to fiction .... consciousness and ego create each both remain fiction .... during deep sleep.... no ego and no consciousness ..... loosing consciousness is loosing ego-mind ..... loosing ego-mind is loosing worldly attachments ..... loosing worldly attachments is loosing fictions ..... here now ..... getting free .... like ever before Marc Ps: who is " toombaru " , " Bill " and " bbb " ...?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 > The phenomenal present, ever in flux, is all the reality there is. > And nothing of substance can ever arise from it. > > > Bill > Ok......I can see that.......I think. There remains a wondering concerning the nature of the apparatus that becomes aware that all there is the " phenomenal present, ever in flux " . Jan Cox speaks of " standing up in the river " or " awareness becoming aware that it is aware " ....which......I imagine..... is somehow outside of the self-referential circularity. ------------------- These are great questions Toom! I will address the second one first, and give you time to respond, before addressing the first. In this way we can perhaps lay some groundwork for your first question. Sometimes when engaged in an activity attention is consumed by the activity. So, for example, when driving a car and not sure where the turn is, attention is consumed in examining the street for signs of the place to turn. On the other hand, consider sitting alone on a bench in a park. While one can always invent distractions, it is possible for there to be no intentional engagement in activity, just passive attention to whatever arises. Of the second kind there can be variations. One variation is when attention is relaxed and “open”, not “looking for anything”. Consider the following from Krishnamurti: Have you ever sat very silently, not with your attention fixed on anything, not making an effort to concentrate, but with the mind very quiet, really still? Then you hear everything, don’t you? You hear the far off noises as well as those that are nearer and those that are very close by, the immediate sounds—which means really that you are listening to everything. Your mind is not confined to one narrow little channel. If you can listen in this way, listen with ease, without strain, you will find an extraordinary change taking place within you, a change which comes without your volition, without your asking; and in that change there is great beauty and depth of insight. Notice how there is no direction of intention in what he describes, no effort of any kind. There is no achievement of any kind that is of interest. What he is describing is attention of a very natural sort (albeit perhaps rare). Now consider the kind of attention Krishnamurti describes becoming more and more the norm, so that even when driving the car, even when looking for the turn, there is an openness, a non-directedness behind it all. Now we can imagine the case of someone sitting on a park bench and in the process of contemplating their own consciousness. Is that not considerably different from the kind of very open attention that Krishnamurti describes? The attention Krishnamurti describes has no “object”, whereas the (attempt to) contemplate one’s own consciousness does have (so called) “consciousness” as an object. I am saying that the attempt to contemplate one’s own consciousness effectively creates a false object, a pseudo-something labeled “consciousness”. Now let’s look at the Jan Cox comments about " standing up in the river " or " awareness becoming aware that it is aware " . I am saying that this is still an intentional (in-tension) use of attention, an attempt to grasp something about self-nature; it is not the very open, undirected attention of which Krishnamurti speaks. My interpretation of “standing up in the river” is a “lifting up” so as to transcend specific content, as if the kundalini energy has lifted up to a higher threshold beyond the specific content, and seems to be experiencing the pure streaming of its own vitality. It is a step on the path, and can be an exhilarating one, but it is still delusional. [Note: this is my interpretation. But this reminds me of a story of one of Buddha’s close disciples describing a brilliant three-dimensional rose experienced within during meditation. Buddha’s reply was that it was yet another illusion.] Awareness of awareness is certainly self-referential. But the crucial point I am making is that there can be no “wholes”, no consummate anything in reality (i.e. in actuality. “Reality” is not to be construed here as some grand unity). Intellectually this can be seen if one considers, as indicated before, that “the moment”, immediacy in presence, is without duration, and any “whole”, any unity entails time. Experientially this is apparent when attention is completely open, without any object, without any direction or intent. Any attempt to see “what is” is a grasping, is a act of creating what is sought. The root of falsehood lies in the attempt. The product of the false root is the illusory construction (which can then be maintained and promulgated with the same sort of obsessive desire as that of Gollum for its “Precious”). The only advice I can give, therefore, is to abide in the sort of open attention that Krishnamurti describes always. Sometimes uncomfortable things may come up. Consider such as riches brought to the surface. Do not turn away but be utterly present with whatever discomfort arises. Let every detail impinge upon awareness. In this way, through the ease of open naturalness, obstacles are passed through. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > The phenomenal present, ever in flux, is all the reality there is. > > And nothing of substance can ever arise from it. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Ok......I can see that.......I think. > > There remains a wondering concerning the nature of the apparatus that > becomes aware that all there is the " phenomenal present, ever in flux " . > > Jan Cox speaks of " standing up in the river " or " awareness becoming aware > that it is aware " ....which......I imagine..... is somehow outside of the > self-referential circularity. > > ------------------- > > These are great questions Toom! I will address the second one first, and > give you time to respond, before addressing the first. In this way we can > perhaps lay some groundwork for your first question. > > > > Sometimes when engaged in an activity attention is consumed by the activity. > So, for example, when driving a car and not sure where the turn is, > attention is consumed in examining the street for signs of the place to > turn. > > On the other hand, consider sitting alone on a bench in a park. While one > can always invent distractions, it is possible for there to be no > intentional engagement in activity, just passive attention to whatever > arises. > > Of the second kind there can be variations. One variation is when attention > is relaxed and " open " , not " looking for anything " . Consider the following > from Krishnamurti: > > Have you ever sat very silently, not with your attention fixed on anything, > not making an effort to concentrate, but with the mind very quiet, really > still? Then you hear everything, don't you? You hear the far off noises as > well as those that are nearer and those that are very close by, the > immediate sounds—which means really that you are listening to everything. > Your mind is not confined to one narrow little channel. If you can listen in > this way, listen with ease, without strain, you will find an extraordinary > change taking place within you, a change which comes without your volition, > without your asking; and in that change there is great beauty and depth of > insight. > > Notice how there is no *direction* of intention in what he describes, no > effort of any kind. There is no achievement of any kind that is of interest. > What he is describing is attention of a very natural sort (albeit perhaps > rare). > > Now consider the kind of attention Krishnamurti describes becoming more and > more the norm, so that even when driving the car, even when looking for the > turn, there is an openness, a non-directedness behind it all. > > Now we can imagine the case of someone sitting on a park bench and in the > process of contemplating their own consciousness. Is that not considerably > different from the kind of very open attention that Krishnamurti describes? > The attention Krishnamurti describes has no " object " , whereas the (attempt > to) contemplate one's own consciousness does have (so called) > " consciousness " as an object. I am saying that the attempt to contemplate > one's own consciousness effectively creates a false object, a > pseudo-something labeled " consciousness " . > > Now let's look at the Jan Cox comments about " standing up in the river " or > " awareness becoming aware that it is aware " . I am saying that this is still > an intentional (in-tension) use of attention, an attempt to grasp something > about self-nature; it is not the very open, undirected attention of which > Krishnamurti speaks. > > My interpretation of " standing up in the river " is a " lifting up " so as to > transcend specific content, as if the kundalini energy has lifted up to a > higher threshold beyond the specific content, and seems to be experiencing > the pure streaming of its own vitality. It is a step on the path, and can be > an exhilarating one, but it is still delusional. [Note: this is *my > interpretation*. But this reminds me of a story of one of Buddha's close > disciples describing a brilliant three-dimensional rose experienced within > during meditation. Buddha's reply was that it was yet another illusion.] Indeed. Any experiential complex occurs within the context of the brain's accumulation of mnemonic debris. Any combination of delusions......no natter how how refined......are still delusional. > > Awareness of awareness is certainly self-referential. But the crucial point > I am making is that there can be no " wholes " , no consummate anything *in > reality* (i.e. in actuality. " Reality " is not to be construed here as some > grand unity). Intellectually this can be seen if one considers, as indicated > before, that " the moment " , *immediacy in presence*, is without duration, and > any " whole " , any unity entails time. Experientially this is apparent when > attention is completely open, without any object, without any direction or > intent. I am wondering if attention and its content are the same phenomenon. Consciousness and the world are in each other. .......but I am at a loss of words to go any further with that thought. > > Any *attempt* to see " what is " is a grasping, is a act of creating what is > sought. The root of falsehood lies in the attempt. The product of the false > root is the *illusory* *construction* (which can then be maintained and > promulgated with the same sort of obsessive desire as that of Gollum for its > " Precious " ). > > The only advice I can give, therefore, is to abide in the sort of open > attention that Krishnamurti describes *always*. Sometimes uncomfortable > things may come up. Consider such as riches brought to the surface. Do not > turn away but be utterly present with whatever discomfort arises. Let every > detail impinge upon awareness. In this way, through the ease of open > naturalness, obstacles are passed through. > > > Bill > Thanks Bill, I will ponder what you said. Here the open awareness seems to be the result of the understanding and not a technique to get there. The first impression is that any attempt by the spurious self to work on itself only adds to the opacity and imaginary reality of its conceptual map. I have just started reading " The Ego Tunnel " . The introduction alone is enough to rip the illusion of self from its moorings. One wonders how the " society " as a whole would or could function if the understanding of the empty self became part of the consensus reality. If the self is empty......all of its beliefs are empty. Although, I imagine that we don't have to worry about the Understanding percolating down through the Magnus Machina. LOL toombaru 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.