Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of consciousness. This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a content of consciousness. Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of consciousness. > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a content of consciousness. > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > Werner > the one who knows....knows it .... sure, such reality stress out some ignorant fools.... ..... doesn't matter the degree of liberation... .... some are free.... some aren't free ..... Marc Ps: what makes the only difference ....is liberation.... doesn't matter the IQ of some intellectual and spiritual minds... .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of consciousness. > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a content of consciousness. > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > Werner oh wernie that's just a lot of content. it doesn't do anything for me or any other nobody. and you know that you don't know it. etc. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of consciousness. This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a content of consciousness. Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. Werner-----------------Hi Werner.Do you see any relationship between the aboveand the idea that we only know ourselvesin relationship?Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > consciousness. > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > content of consciousness. > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > Werner > ----------------- > > Hi Werner. > > Do you see any relationship between the above > and the idea that we only know ourselves > *in relationship*? > > Bill > Hi Bill, No, I don't. Do you ? Btw, do you see that the knower is the known ? Without the known there is no knower. Therefore when knowing yourself only in relatioship then: Can you see that without knowing yourself there is no yourself ? Because: 1) Who is this " yourself " ? 2) When knowing yourself then who is the " knower " of yourself ? 3) Who is the one who is related to and to what is he related ? 4) Is there a difference between the related to and the one who is related to, or is it just one and the same process ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > consciousness. > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > content of consciousness. > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > Werner > > ----------------- > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > *in relationship*? > > > > Bill > > > > > Hi Bill, > > No, I don't. Do you ? > > Btw, do you see that the knower is the known ? Without the known there is no knower. > > Therefore when knowing yourself only in relatioship then: > > Can you see that without knowing yourself there is no yourself ? > > Because: > > 1) Who is this " yourself " ? > > 2) When knowing yourself then who is the " knower " of yourself ? > > 3) Who is the one who is related to and to what is he related ? > > 4) Is there a difference between the related to and the one who is related to, or is it just one and the same process ? > > Werner i'm the known of that and didn't known it. i guess i own it. the owner is the own in the knowing that is known. his or her own. it's shown that the known can be own by the tone.. of the lone ranger in danger named werner. with a bullet of silver and a horse of the same color.. and shame of a name. Hi Oh! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > consciousness. > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > content of consciousness. > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > Werner > ----------------- > > Hi Werner. > > Do you see any relationship between the above > and the idea that we only know ourselves > *in relationship*? > > Bill > look like Bill went too often to church.... having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > consciousness. > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > content of consciousness. > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > Werner > > ----------------- > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > *in relationship*? > > > > Bill > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > Marc no marc. Bill hit's it on the head. the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. or communicated with or referred to.. (as you your " self " try to do here).. or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. is ..... " in relationship " . even the notion of " nothing " . " nothing " cannot be.. without a relational dimension involving " something " . relationship itself is illusion in that: there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. in order for " relationship " to truly exist. even though it sure " feels " differently. a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship.. even with " self " or " god " . and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. It is the True. a bow to Bill. he says succinctly and clearly.. what werner only dreams of saying. no offense to werner. although he'll " take " it that way. i just can't get a laugh out of.. the werner part of me. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 this is beautifully conveyed by werner. -mahesh dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33Nisargadatta Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 12:49:03 AM Re: To be Aware of being Aware Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn > wrote:>> Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness.> > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist.> Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of> consciousness.> > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created> by thought saying "I am aware of being aware".> > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a> content of consciousness.> > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying "I know that I> know". There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is> doing and no thinker who is thinking etc.> > Werner> ------------ -----> > Hi Werner.> > Do you see any relationship between the above> and the idea that we only know ourselves> *in relationship* ?> > Bill>look like Bill went too often to church....having a nice relationship with the holy ghost...without knowing that nobody ever went to any church...:)Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 what is " this " ? you haven't conveyed anything by being so vague. of course this is not unusual. you seem incapable of conveying anything. just like werner. not so beautiful at all. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote: > > this is beautifully conveyed by werner. > -mahesh > > > ________________________________ > dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33 > Nisargadatta > Friday, April 10, 2009 12:49:03 AM > Re: To be Aware of being Aware > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn@ > wrote: > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > consciousness. > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > content of consciousness. > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > Werner > > ------------ ----- > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > *in relationship* ? > > > > Bill > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 it cannot be realized with application of mind hence it appears vague. -mahesh roberibus111 <Roberibus111Nisargadatta Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:47:00 AM Re: To be Aware of being Aware what is "this"?you haven't conveyed anything by being so vague.of course this is not unusual.you seem incapable of conveying anything.just like werner.not so beautiful at all..b b.b.Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@.. .> wrote:>> this is beautifully conveyed by werner. > -mahesh> > > ____________ _________ _________ __> dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33@ ...>> Nisargadatta> Friday, April 10, 2009 12:49:03 AM> Re: To be Aware of being Aware> > > > > > Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn@ > wrote:> >> > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness.> > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist.> > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of> > consciousness.> > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created> > by thought saying "I am aware of being aware".> > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a> > content of consciousness.> > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying "I know that I> > know". There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is> > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc.> > > > Werner> > ------------ -----> > > > Hi Werner.> > > > Do you see any relationship between the above> > and the idea that we only know ourselves> > *in relationship* ?> > > > Bill> >> > look like Bill went too often to church....> having a nice relationship with the holy ghost...> > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church...> > > > Marc> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , "roberibus111" <Roberibus111 wrote:>> Nisargadatta , "dennis_travis33" <dennis_travis33@> wrote:> >> > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote:> > >> > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness.> > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist.> > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of> > > consciousness.> > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created> > > by thought saying "I am aware of being aware".> > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a> > > content of consciousness.> > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying "I know that I> > > know". There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is> > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc.> > > > > > Werner> > > -----------------> > > > > > Hi Werner.> > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above> > > and the idea that we only know ourselves> > > *in relationship*?> > > > > > Bill> > >> > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church....> > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost...> > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church...> > > > > > > > Marc> > > no marc.> > Bill hit's it on the head.> > the only way any"thing" can be known or understood..> > or communicated with or referred to..> > (as you your"self" try to do here)..> > or even for the notion of "existing" to "be"..> > is ..... "in relationship".> > even the notion of "nothing".> > "nothing" cannot be..> > without a relational dimension involving "something".> > relationship itself is illusion in that:> > there are no "realities" separate one from the other..> > in order for "relationship" to truly exist.> > even though it sure "feels" differently.> > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship..> > even with "self" or "god".> > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt.> > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience.> > It is the True.> > a bow to Bill.> > he says succinctly and clearly..> > what werner only dreams of saying.> > no offense to werner.> > although he'll "take" it that way.> > i just can't get a laugh out of..> > the werner part of me.> > .b b.b.Hi Bob,The notion about knowing oneself onlyin relationship is from Krishnamurti.I put that into play because I know Werner is into Krishnamurti.Your comments about relationship aboveare interesting, and raised a questionI'd like to pose:In terms of what you write above doyou consider that relationship isnon-durational?Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , "Werner Woehr" <wwoehr wrote:>> Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote:> >> > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness.> > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist.> > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of> > consciousness.> > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created> > by thought saying "I am aware of being aware".> > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a> > content of consciousness.> > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying "I know that I> > know". There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is> > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc.> > > > Werner> > -----------------> > > > Hi Werner.> > > > Do you see any relationship between the above> > and the idea that we only know ourselves> > *in relationship*?> > > > Bill> >> > > Hi Bill,> > No, I don't. Do you ?> > Btw, do you see that the knower is the known ? Without the known there is no knower.> > Therefore when knowing yourself only in relatioship then:> > Can you see that without knowing yourself there is no yourself ?> > Because:> > 1) Who is this "yourself" ?> > 2) When knowing yourself then who is the "knower" of yourself ?> > 3) Who is the one who is related to and to what is he related ?> > 4) Is there a difference between the related to and the one who is related to, or is it just one and the same process ?> > WernerIt seems to me that the notion that consciousness is its content is essentially the same notion as thatone can know oneself only in relationship.That consciousness is its content means is that consciousness does not in any sense "exist" apart from its content. And that one can knowoneself only in relationship means that "oneself"does not in any sense exist apart from relationship.Another way of seeing all of this is that in the immediacy of this moment there are no unities,but only the fragmentary immediacy of sensation.The content of consciousness is simply such immediacy of sensation. Note that this meansthat the content of consciousness is not "a book"or "an idea". Such things require time and are"constructs", while the immediacy of sensationis without duration.That the knower is the known yet is another variationon this same them.When consciousness, or attention, is totallydevoted to immediacy of sensation there is a namelesscoherence because there is no opposition anywhere.Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not > exist. > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content > of > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a > delusion created > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought > itself is a > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know > that I > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er > who is > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > no marc. > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship.. > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > It is the True. > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > .b b.b. > > > Hi Bob, > > The notion about knowing oneself only > in relationship is from Krishnamurti. > I put that into play because I know > Werner is into Krishnamurti. > > Your comments about relationship above > are interesting, and raised a question > I'd like to pose: > > In terms of what you write above do > you consider that relationship is > non-durational? > > > Bill continuance or non continuous exist only in terms of relationship. both relationship and time are relative to each other. both are dependencies on that which is both and neither. i don't have words for that. no one does. it's of a domain that contains this realm.. and all and many others. itself being non-many..non-temperal..non-spatial.. non anything that can be conceived or worded. the never ending nor beginning source finality. we have not seen our Friend and IT is us.. to paraphrase Pogo. we treat IT as an enemy to fear and forget. and yet we are all helplessly captured already. this can be known but never understood.. until " we " are no more believed in or by.. any whichever or any whoever that is the believing. this misses the mark. but an intuition can make.. the implication " more " than then the words that surround it. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 oh bullshit. hence: what application are you using then brainless? ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote: > > > it cannot be realized with application of mind hence it appears vague. > -mahesh > > > > ________________________________ > roberibus111 <Roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Friday, April 10, 2009 10:47:00 AM > Re: To be Aware of being Aware > > > > > > what is " this " ? > > you haven't conveyed anything by being so vague. > > of course this is not unusual. > > you seem incapable of conveying anything. > > just like werner. > > not so beautiful at all. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@ .> wrote: > > > > this is beautifully conveyed by werner. > > -mahesh > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33@ ...> > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, April 10, 2009 12:49:03 AM > > Re: To be Aware of being Aware > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn@ > wrote: > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > consciousness. > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > Werner > > > ------------ ----- > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > *in relationship* ? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not > > exist. > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion > > created > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought > > itself is a > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that > > I > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er > > who is > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > No, I don't. Do you ? > > > > > > Btw, do you see that the knower is the known ? Without the known there > > is no knower. > > > > > > Therefore when knowing yourself only in relatioship then: > > > > > > Can you see that without knowing yourself there is no yourself ? > > > > > > Because: > > > > > > 1) Who is this " yourself " ? > > > > > > 2) When knowing yourself then who is the " knower " of yourself ? > > > > > > 3) Who is the one who is related to and to what is he related ? > > > > > > 4) Is there a difference between the related to and the one who is > > related to, or is it just one and the same process ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > It seems to me that the notion that consciousness is > > its content is essentially the same notion as that > > one can know oneself only in relationship. > > > > > No, Bill, it is not the same. To explain why it is not I have to write to you my previous reply again - word for word. It seems that I failed to express myself in a way which is understandable for you. > > > > That consciousness is its content means is that > > consciousness does not in any sense " exist " > > apart from its content. And that one can know > > oneself only in relationship means that " oneself " > > does not in any sense exist apart from relationship. > > > > Another way of seeing all of this is that in the > > immediacy of this moment there are no unities, > > but only the fragmentary immediacy of sensation. > > The content of consciousness is simply such > > immediacy of sensation. > > > No, Bill, consciousness is NOT the immediacy of sensation. > > Consciousness is the result of brain processes comparing and interpreting a sensation whith previous ones stored in memeory for similarity and its story connected to those previcous sensations. > > That way consciousness never, NEVER !, is original and genuine. It always is an image mix of 10% new sensation and 90% added by the interpretation process of the brain. > > The world we see is an interpreted world. Interpreted by one's biography stroed up in memory. > > Thus consciousness never is fresh, NEVER ! but is totally subjective. It is this subjectivity of consciousnes caused by the interpretive process of the brain which do justify to say: You are consciousness. > > Consciousness is your own subjectivity. And that exactly is what Maharaj's teaching is aiming at when saying " Consciousness is a fever, a disease " . > > > > Note that this means > > that the content of consciousness is not " a book " > > or " an idea " . Such things require time and are > > " constructs " , while the immediacy of sensation > > is without duration. > > > As explained before, there is no immediacy of sensation. There only is duration because consciousness is absolute subjective. You are consciousness. The " I am " and consciousness is the same - just different words for the same thing. > > > > > > That the knower is the known yet is another variation > > on this same them. > > > > > As I already explained to you, and as I can see now, in a way which was not luky to beunderstandable for you: > > The knower is the known. And the known is the past and thus the knower never is a variation of immediacy. Just the contrary. > > Werner > > > > When consciousness, or attention, is totally > > devoted to immediacy of sensation there is a nameless > > coherence because there is no opposition anywhere. > > > > Bill > > > Immediacy of sensation is all that can actually be known. Consciousness is *of* immediacy of sensation. The notion " consciousness " is not that important actually. Enough to say immediacy of sensation *is*. The statement, " You are consciousness, " is untenable in my view. Where does that come from? There's a " you " (from where?) and " consciousness " (from where?). The statement, " You are consciousness, " treats consciousness as something that exists in its own right, exists independently as it were. That there is immediacy of sensation is undeniable. That consciousness exists independently of experience is undemonstrable and without foundation. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not > exist. > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > consciousness. > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion > created > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought > itself is a > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that > I > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er > who is > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > Werner > > > ----------------- > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > No, I don't. Do you ? > > > > Btw, do you see that the knower is the known ? Without the known there > is no knower. > > > > Therefore when knowing yourself only in relatioship then: > > > > Can you see that without knowing yourself there is no yourself ? > > > > Because: > > > > 1) Who is this " yourself " ? > > > > 2) When knowing yourself then who is the " knower " of yourself ? > > > > 3) Who is the one who is related to and to what is he related ? > > > > 4) Is there a difference between the related to and the one who is > related to, or is it just one and the same process ? > > > > Werner > > It seems to me that the notion that consciousness is > its content is essentially the same notion as that > one can know oneself only in relationship. > No, Bill, it is not the same. To explain why it is not I have to write my previous reply to you again - word for word. It seems that I failed to express myself in a way which is understandable for you. > That consciousness is its content means is that > consciousness does not in any sense " exist " > apart from its content. And that one can know > oneself only in relationship means that " oneself " > does not in any sense exist apart from relationship. > > Another way of seeing all of this is that in the > immediacy of this moment there are no unities, > but only the fragmentary immediacy of sensation. > The content of consciousness is simply such > immediacy of sensation. No, Bill, consciousness is NOT the immediacy of sensation. Consciousness is the result of brain processes comparing and interpreting a sensation with previous ones stored in memory for similarity together with its subjective story connected to those previcous sensations. That way consciousness never, NEVER ! is original and genuine. It always is a mix of 10% new sensation and 90% added by the interpreting process of the brain. The world we see is an interpreted world. Interpreted by one's subjective biography stroed up in memory. Thus consciousness never is fresh, NEVER ! but is totally subjective. It is this subjectivity of consciousnes caused by the interpretive processes of the brain which does justify to say: You are consciousness. Consciousness is your own subjectivity. And that exactly is what Maharaj's teaching is aiming at when saying " Consciousness is a fever, a disease " . > Note that this means > that the content of consciousness is not " a book " > or " an idea " . Such things require time and are > " constructs " , while the immediacy of sensation > is without duration. As explained before, there is no immediacy of sensation. There only is duration because consciousness is absolutely subjective. You are consciousness. The " I am " and consciousness is the same - just different words for the same thing. > > That the knower is the known yet is another variation > on this same them. > As I already explained to you, and as I can see now, in a way which was not very lucky to become understandable: The knower is the known. And the known is the past and thus the knower never is a variation of immediacy. Just the contrary. What we see as the knower is thought. Thought which says " I know this, I know that " . Thought is verbalizing the past. Verbalizing it for eventual verbal commuication. Werner > When consciousness, or attention, is totally > devoted to immediacy of sensation there is a nameless > coherence because there is no opposition anywhere. > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not > exist. > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > consciousness. > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion > created > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought > itself is a > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that > I > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er > who is > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > Werner > > > ----------------- > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > No, I don't. Do you ? > > > > Btw, do you see that the knower is the known ? Without the known there > is no knower. > > > > Therefore when knowing yourself only in relatioship then: > > > > Can you see that without knowing yourself there is no yourself ? > > > > Because: > > > > 1) Who is this " yourself " ? > > > > 2) When knowing yourself then who is the " knower " of yourself ? > > > > 3) Who is the one who is related to and to what is he related ? > > > > 4) Is there a difference between the related to and the one who is > related to, or is it just one and the same process ? > > > > Werner > > It seems to me that the notion that consciousness is > its content is essentially the same notion as that > one can know oneself only in relationship. > > That consciousness is its content means is that > consciousness does not in any sense " exist " > apart from its content. And that one can know > oneself only in relationship means that " oneself " > does not in any sense exist apart from relationship. > > Another way of seeing all of this is that in the > immediacy of this moment there are no unities, > but only the fragmentary immediacy of sensation. > The content of consciousness is simply such > immediacy of sensation. Note that this means > that the content of consciousness is not " a book " > or " an idea " . Such things require time and are > " constructs " , while the immediacy of sensation > is without duration. > > That the knower is the known yet is another variation > on this same them. > > When consciousness, or attention, is totally > devoted to immediacy of sensation there is a nameless > coherence because there is no opposition anywhere. > > Bill hi again Bill.. you'll soon see that the consciousness that is werner.. is hardly devoted to that nameless coherence.. nor devoted to immediacy of sensation. werner is all and only about opposition. thoughtless opposition that is spawned by: his unconscious need to seem to be aware. he's not even aware of that simple fact. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not > > exist. > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion > > created > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought > > itself is a > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that > > I > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er > > who is > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > No, I don't. Do you ? > > > > > > Btw, do you see that the knower is the known ? Without the known there > > is no knower. > > > > > > Therefore when knowing yourself only in relatioship then: > > > > > > Can you see that without knowing yourself there is no yourself ? > > > > > > Because: > > > > > > 1) Who is this " yourself " ? > > > > > > 2) When knowing yourself then who is the " knower " of yourself ? > > > > > > 3) Who is the one who is related to and to what is he related ? > > > > > > 4) Is there a difference between the related to and the one who is > > related to, or is it just one and the same process ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > It seems to me that the notion that consciousness is > > its content is essentially the same notion as that > > one can know oneself only in relationship. > > > > That consciousness is its content means is that > > consciousness does not in any sense " exist " > > apart from its content. And that one can know > > oneself only in relationship means that " oneself " > > does not in any sense exist apart from relationship. > > > > Another way of seeing all of this is that in the > > immediacy of this moment there are no unities, > > but only the fragmentary immediacy of sensation. > > The content of consciousness is simply such > > immediacy of sensation. Note that this means > > that the content of consciousness is not " a book " > > or " an idea " . Such things require time and are > > " constructs " , while the immediacy of sensation > > is without duration. > > > > That the knower is the known yet is another variation > > on this same them. > > > > When consciousness, or attention, is totally > > devoted to immediacy of sensation there is a nameless > > coherence because there is no opposition anywhere. > > > > Bill > > > hi again Bill.. > > you'll soon see that the consciousness that is werner.. > > is hardly devoted to that nameless coherence.. > > nor devoted to immediacy of sensation. > > werner is all and only about opposition. > > thoughtless opposition that is spawned by: > > his unconscious need to seem to be aware. > > he's not even aware of that simple fact. > > .b b.b. > Hi Bob, I know Werner from way back, maybe five years? But anyway, I posted that for anyone who might be interested. Thanks, though. And I've been enjoying your posts, Bob. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not > > > exist. > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion > > > created > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought > > > itself is a > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that > > > I > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er > > > who is > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > > > No, I don't. Do you ? > > > > > > > > Btw, do you see that the knower is the known ? Without the known there > > > is no knower. > > > > > > > > Therefore when knowing yourself only in relatioship then: > > > > > > > > Can you see that without knowing yourself there is no yourself ? > > > > > > > > Because: > > > > > > > > 1) Who is this " yourself " ? > > > > > > > > 2) When knowing yourself then who is the " knower " of yourself ? > > > > > > > > 3) Who is the one who is related to and to what is he related ? > > > > > > > > 4) Is there a difference between the related to and the one who is > > > related to, or is it just one and the same process ? > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > It seems to me that the notion that consciousness is > > > its content is essentially the same notion as that > > > one can know oneself only in relationship. > > > > > > That consciousness is its content means is that > > > consciousness does not in any sense " exist " > > > apart from its content. And that one can know > > > oneself only in relationship means that " oneself " > > > does not in any sense exist apart from relationship. > > > > > > Another way of seeing all of this is that in the > > > immediacy of this moment there are no unities, > > > but only the fragmentary immediacy of sensation. > > > The content of consciousness is simply such > > > immediacy of sensation. Note that this means > > > that the content of consciousness is not " a book " > > > or " an idea " . Such things require time and are > > > " constructs " , while the immediacy of sensation > > > is without duration. > > > > > > That the knower is the known yet is another variation > > > on this same them. > > > > > > When consciousness, or attention, is totally > > > devoted to immediacy of sensation there is a nameless > > > coherence because there is no opposition anywhere. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > hi again Bill.. > > > > you'll soon see that the consciousness that is werner.. > > > > is hardly devoted to that nameless coherence.. > > > > nor devoted to immediacy of sensation. > > > > werner is all and only about opposition. > > > > thoughtless opposition that is spawned by: > > > > his unconscious need to seem to be aware. > > > > he's not even aware of that simple fact. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Hi Bob, > > I know Werner from way back, maybe five years? > But anyway, I posted that for anyone who might > be interested. > > Thanks, though. > And I've been enjoying your posts, Bob. > Bill > Half of the *problem* of knowing, as far as I know, ;-) is that we don't give one another (or ourselves) the space to grow...in awareness. Much love to all, Anna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > consciousness. > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > Werner > > > ----------------- > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > no marc. > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship.. > > even with " self " or " god " . > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > It is the True. > > a bow to Bill. > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > no offense to werner. > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > the werner part of me. > > .b b.b. > the appearent world consists also on relationships.... everything in the appearent world is related to everything... there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > no marc. > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship.. > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > It is the True. > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships.... > everything in the appearent world is related to everything... > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... > > > Marc > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > no marc. > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship.. > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > It is the True. > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships.... > everything in the appearent world is related to everything... > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... > > > Marc apparently so. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > no marc. > > > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship.. > > > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > > > It is the True. > > > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships.... > > everything in the appearent world is related to everything... > > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... > > > > > > Marc > > > > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? > > Bill apparently no, yes? :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > no marc. > > > > > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship.. > > > > > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > > > > > It is the True. > > > > > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships.... > > > everything in the appearent world is related to everything... > > > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? > > > > Bill > > > apparently no, yes? > > :-) > > .b b.b. apparently yes then, no? :-) ..b b.b. 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.