Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Werner: I do feel really sorry to say that it seems as yet we are still not communicating on the same frequency or wavelength. Although I expect that you sincerely believe that I am holding onto some ill-conceived concept of the Absolute, I believe that it is in fact you that is the one that needs to let go. If I may make a suggestion, offered in all humility, please try to find a way to lay aside all your thoughts of what the Absolute may or may not be. Just try to take in what has been said, and try to think about it with an open mind. You seem to be resolute in your determination to hold onto the I am, and it seems I may have inadvertently become your button pusher in this regard. However, to restate my point, I do agree, that yes, we must first understand the I am, but ultimately we must then find a way to go beyond it. Bill, First of all, I want to express my gratitude for your considered response. Then, to answer your first question, I believe that I have read through all of the series of available books spanning the many, many years of Nisargadatta’s discourses. Secondly, I feel I can empathize with your feeling of kinship with Ramana Maharshi, as I too feel as you do that (to borrow some of your words) he did try to point to a condition where the mind yields its power, and allows itself to die in the heart. Every now and then, I will fondly recall one of the things that he said in response to some question regarding chakras and energy centers. Although I am paraphrasing, the response he gave was something along the lines of “the only center I care about is the heart centerâ€. Whenever I recall that statement, I am still drawn to an inward smile, and that statement continues to ring true for me with the tone of a crystal clear bell. As to your expressed distaste with the use of the word Self, I can only say that I do not share that same aversion or even concern with the use of that word. Whether it is called the Self, or simply ‘I’, or “I-I’ (the term sometimes used by Maharshi), or the ‘I-principle’ (as sometimes used by Krishna Menon), or the ‘unmanifest’ (as sometimes used by Adyashanti, and even Eckhart Tolle – both modern teachers), or Atma, or Parabrahman, or the Absolute, it still all amounts to the same thing to me. Regardless of whatever the preferred term of use may be, it is only a word or words that attempts to convey the nature of what we truly are. Marv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932 wrote: > > Werner: > I do feel really sorry to say that it seems as yet we are still not communicating on the same frequency or wavelength. Although I expect that you sincerely believe that I am holding onto some ill-conceived concept of the Absolute, I believe that it is in fact you that is the one that needs to let go. If I may make a suggestion, offered in all humility, please try to find a way to lay aside all your thoughts of what the Absolute may or may not be. Just try to take in what has been said, and try to think about it with an open mind. You seem to be resolute in your determination to hold onto the I am, and it seems I may have inadvertently become your button pusher in this regard. However, to restate my point, I do agree, that yes, we must first understand the I am, but ultimately we must then find a way to go beyond it. Marv, " YOU " cannot go beyond the I am. When the I am perfectly is seen as what it is then the illusion of a YOU disappears and your own non-exsitence is realized which for heaven's sake you might call the " Beyond " . Therefore stick to the I am and forget all of that remaining spiritual ballast which is needed to feel to be a some-one. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932@> wrote: > > > > Werner: > > I do feel really sorry to say that it seems as yet we are still not communicating on the same frequency or wavelength. Although I expect that you sincerely believe that I am holding onto some ill-conceived concept of the Absolute, I believe that it is in fact you that is the one that needs to let go. If I may make a suggestion, offered in all humility, please try to find a way to lay aside all your thoughts of what the Absolute may or may not be. Just try to take in what has been said, and try to think about it with an open mind. You seem to be resolute in your determination to hold onto the I am, and it seems I may have inadvertently become your button pusher in this regard. However, to restate my point, I do agree, that yes, we must first understand the I am, but ultimately we must then find a way to go beyond it. > > > Marv, > > " YOU " cannot go beyond the I am. > > When the I am perfectly is seen as what it is then the illusion of a YOU disappears and your own non-exsitence is realized which for heaven's sake you might call the " Beyond " . > > Therefore stick to the I am and forget all of that remaining spiritual ballast which is needed to feel to be a some-one. > > Werner you obviously haven't seen your own non-existence then... nonexistence doesn't post posts obviously. therefore you are still in the " Before " . and you still aren't a " someone " . life can be a bitch yes? :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 However, to restate my point, I do agree, that yes, we must first understand the I am, but ultimately we must then find a way to go beyond it. Marv, " YOU " cannot go beyond the I am. ------------------- " I am " is not a last stop on the turnpike and no one can go beyond it because it isn't You might call it Final Fantasy Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > However, to restate my point, I do agree, that yes, we must first understand the > I am, but ultimately we must then find a way to go beyond it. > > > Marv, > > " YOU " cannot go beyond the I am. > > ------------------- > > " I am " is not a last stop on the turnpike > > and no one can go beyond it > > because > > it isn't > > > You might call it > Final Fantasy > > > Bill > Great, Bill, This expresses what I already wrote you in a previous mail that consciousness and the I am is the same (and which you seemed not to have read): Consciousness is your own subjectivity. And that exactly is what Maharaj's teaching is aiming at when saying " Consciousness is a fever, a disease " . Nisargadatta/message/65405 Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > However, to restate my point, I do agree, that yes, we must first understand the > > I am, but ultimately we must then find a way to go beyond it. > > > > > > Marv, > > > > " YOU " cannot go beyond the I am. > > > > ------------------- > > > > " I am " is not a last stop on the turnpike > > > > and no one can go beyond it > > > > because > > > > it isn't > > > > > > You might call it > > Final Fantasy > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Great, Bill, > > This expresses what I already wrote you in a previous mail that consciousness and the I am is the same (and which you seemed not to have read): > > Consciousness is your own subjectivity. And that exactly is what Maharaj's teaching is aiming at when saying " Consciousness is a fever, a disease " . > > Nisargadatta/message/65405 > > Werner yes werner says it all in 65405 different ways. and it all says nothing. that's actually a good thing werner.. except of course it's not a thing at all. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > However, to restate my point, I do agree, that yes, we must first understand the > > I am, but ultimately we must then find a way to go beyond it. > > > > > > Marv, > > > > " YOU " cannot go beyond the I am. > > > > ------------------- > > > > " I am " is not a last stop on the turnpike > > > > and no one can go beyond it > > > > because > > > > it isn't > > > > > > You might call it > > Final Fantasy > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Great, Bill, > > This expresses what I already wrote you in a previous mail that consciousness and the I am is the same (and which you seemed not to have read): > > Consciousness is your own subjectivity. And that exactly is what Maharaj's teaching is aiming at when saying " Consciousness is a fever, a disease " . > > Nisargadatta/message/65405 > > Werner > aaahhhh...... Werner! yes... don't know that I ever thought of it that way... nice. and seems to fit tidily, as freedom is non-identification with consciousness. However when " I am " is seen as a fraud, as " non-actual " ... consciousness still is... it is just not identified with...do you see that Werner? so " I am " and consciousness are not exactly the same. So let's look at this:Without consciousness there can beno I am, that much is clear, and whatyou must be really saying.Without I am there can still be consciousness.So consciousness itself is not a fever, a disease,though there is a very strong propensity for itto be so, and that propensity is what we call " I am " . There never was an " I am " ... ever...but there can be a " sense of I am " ...which is a " sense of consciousness " mis-takenas a " sense of I am " .When the " sense of I am " is seen through, dissolves, disappears, a " sense of consciousness " can still remain. But it is no longer mis-takenas a " sense of I am " .Very interesting Werner.Interesting indeed! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > However, to restate my point, I do agree, that yes, we must first > understand the > > > I am, but ultimately we must then find a way to go beyond it. > > > > > > > > > Marv, > > > > > > " YOU " cannot go beyond the I am. > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > " I am " is not a last stop on the turnpike > > > > > > and no one can go beyond it > > > > > > because > > > > > > it isn't > > > > > > > > > You might call it > > > Final Fantasy > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Great, Bill, > > > > This expresses what I already wrote you in a previous mail that > consciousness and the I am is the same (and which you seemed not to have > read): > > > > Consciousness is your own subjectivity. And that exactly is what Maharaj's > teaching is aiming at when saying " Consciousness is a fever, a disease " . > > > > Nisargadatta/message/65405 > > > > Werner > > > > aaahhhh...... > > Werner! > > yes... don't know that I ever thought > of it that way... > > nice. > > and seems to fit tidily, as freedom > is non-identification with > consciousness. > > However when " I am " is seen > as a fraud, as " non-actual " ... > consciousness still is... it is > just not identified with... > do you see that Werner? Wait a moment Bill, It was Mharaj himself who said that consciousness and the I am is the same. I was pondering his statement and concluded he was right. To recapitulate: Consciousness and the I am is one and the same thing - just different words for it. And a pity that you have not read my mail and pondered if it couldn't be true and that your idea that consciousness is the actual is false. Nisargadatta/message/65405 Neither consciousness nor the I am is actual. Both are the same and here I am with you: Fraud. > > so " I am " and consciousness are > not exactly *the same*. > Sorry, Bill, they are the same. > So let's look at this: > > Without consciousness there can be > no *I am*, that much is clear, and what > you must be really saying. Consciousness IS the I am, Bill. > > Without *I am* there can still be > consciousness. No, Bill. No matter what consciouness is presenting, no matter how crooked or crazy or beautiful and marvelous - it is the I am. The qualities consciousness is revealing are the qulities of the I am. Consciousness and the I am is the same. I will stop here. Thanks, for your reply. Werner > > So consciousness itself is not a fever, a disease, > though there is a very strong propensity for it > to be so, and that propensity is what we call " I am " . > > There never was an " I am " ... ever... > but there can be a " sense of I am " ... > which is a " sense of consciousness " mis-taken > as a " sense of I am " . > > When the " sense of I am " is seen through, > dissolves, disappears, a " sense of consciousness " > can still remain. But it is no longer mis-taken > as a " sense of I am " . > > Very interesting Werner. > Interesting indeed! > > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > However, to restate my point, I do agree, that yes, we must first > > understand the > > > > I am, but ultimately we must then find a way to go beyond it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Marv, > > > > > > > > " YOU " cannot go beyond the I am. > > > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > > > " I am " is not a last stop on the turnpike > > > > > > > > and no one can go beyond it > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > it isn't > > > > > > > > > > > > You might call it > > > > Final Fantasy > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Great, Bill, > > > > > > This expresses what I already wrote you in a previous mail that > > consciousness and the I am is the same (and which you seemed not to have > > read): > > > > > > Consciousness is your own subjectivity. And that exactly is what Maharaj's > > teaching is aiming at when saying " Consciousness is a fever, a disease " . > > > > > > Nisargadatta/message/65405 > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > aaahhhh...... > > > > Werner! > > > > yes... don't know that I ever thought > > of it that way... > > > > nice. > > > > and seems to fit tidily, as freedom > > is non-identification with > > consciousness. > > > > However when " I am " is seen > > as a fraud, as " non-actual " ... > > consciousness still is... it is > > just not identified with... > > do you see that Werner? > > > Wait a moment Bill, > > It was Mharaj himself who said that consciousness and the I am is the same. I was pondering his statement and concluded he was right. > > To recapitulate: Consciousness and the I am is one and the same thing - just different words for it. > > And a pity that you have not read my mail and pondered if it couldn't be true and that your idea that consciousness is the actual is false. > > Nisargadatta/message/65405 > > Neither consciousness nor the I am is actual. Both are the same and here I am with you: Fraud. > > > > > > so " I am " and consciousness are > > not exactly *the same*. > > > > > Sorry, Bill, they are the same. > > > > So let's look at this: > > > > Without consciousness there can be > > no *I am*, that much is clear, and what > > you must be really saying. > > > Consciousness IS the I am, Bill. > > > > > > Without *I am* there can still be > > consciousness. > > > No, Bill. No matter what consciouness is presenting, no matter how crooked or crazy or beautiful and marvelous - it is the I am. The qualities consciousness is revealing are the qulities of the I am. > > Consciousness and the I am is the same. > > I will stop here. Thanks, for your reply. > > Werner So, Werner, does the " I am " *exist* in your view or not? Do you have a " sense of I am " ? Do you have a " sense of consciousness " ? Are you saying that both " I am " and " consciousness " are illusions? What are *you* saying? And please don't try to support your arguments by quoting Nisargadatta or anyone else. I am only interested in what is directly evident to you. Bill > > > > > > So consciousness itself is not a fever, a disease, > > though there is a very strong propensity for it > > to be so, and that propensity is what we call " I am " . > > > > There never was an " I am " ... ever... > > but there can be a " sense of I am " ... > > which is a " sense of consciousness " mis-taken > > as a " sense of I am " . > > > > When the " sense of I am " is seen through, > > dissolves, disappears, a " sense of consciousness " > > can still remain. But it is no longer mis-taken > > as a " sense of I am " . > > > > Very interesting Werner. > > Interesting indeed! > > > > > > Bill > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > However, to restate my point, I do agree, that yes, we must first > > > understand the > > > > > I am, but ultimately we must then find a way to go beyond it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marv, > > > > > > > > > > " YOU " cannot go beyond the I am. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > > > > > " I am " is not a last stop on the turnpike > > > > > > > > > > and no one can go beyond it > > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > it isn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You might call it > > > > > Final Fantasy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Great, Bill, > > > > > > > > This expresses what I already wrote you in a previous mail that > > > consciousness and the I am is the same (and which you seemed not to have > > > read): > > > > > > > > Consciousness is your own subjectivity. And that exactly is what Maharaj's > > > teaching is aiming at when saying " Consciousness is a fever, a disease " . > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta/message/65405 > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > aaahhhh...... > > > > > > Werner! > > > > > > yes... don't know that I ever thought > > > of it that way... > > > > > > nice. > > > > > > and seems to fit tidily, as freedom > > > is non-identification with > > > consciousness. > > > > > > However when " I am " is seen > > > as a fraud, as " non-actual " ... > > > consciousness still is... it is > > > just not identified with... > > > do you see that Werner? > > > > > > Wait a moment Bill, > > > > It was Mharaj himself who said that consciousness and the I am is the same. I was pondering his statement and concluded he was right. > > > > To recapitulate: Consciousness and the I am is one and the same thing - just different words for it. > > > > And a pity that you have not read my mail and pondered if it couldn't be true and that your idea that consciousness is the actual is false. > > > > Nisargadatta/message/65405 > > > > Neither consciousness nor the I am is actual. Both are the same and here I am with you: Fraud. > > > > > > > > > > so " I am " and consciousness are > > > not exactly *the same*. > > > > > > > > > Sorry, Bill, they are the same. > > > > > > > So let's look at this: > > > > > > Without consciousness there can be > > > no *I am*, that much is clear, and what > > > you must be really saying. > > > > > > Consciousness IS the I am, Bill. > > > > > > > > > > Without *I am* there can still be > > > consciousness. > > > > > > No, Bill. No matter what consciouness is presenting, no matter how crooked or crazy or beautiful and marvelous - it is the I am. The qualities consciousness is revealing are the qulities of the I am. > > > > Consciousness and the I am is the same. > > > > I will stop here. Thanks, for your reply. > > > > Werner > > So, Werner, does the " I am " *exist* in your view or not? Ok, Bill, Thanks for putting the word 'exist' in quotes. Consciousness is all there is. All the rest is mental (knowledge) like the dark side of the moon, or the stomach (which we have learned to be inside the belly etc. Consciousness (which is its contents) is the only media. Everything else is learned and told to us (which I call mental). Is Jesus Christ or the Buddha a content of consciousness or are they just menatal ? Same with the I am. All you experience of the I am is via the media of consciousness. Evrything else you know and have read about the I am again just is mental. Because consciousness is its content the I am also is the content of consciousness. Now my question to you is where in your opinion is the dividing line between the I am and the rest of consciousness ? Can you separate the I am from consciousness without presenting any mental knowledge ? Please understand I never was interested in the " I am " and I am only mention it and writing about it here in the Nis forum. Werner > > Do you have a " sense of I am " ? > Do you have a " sense of consciousness " ? > > Are you saying that both " I am " and " consciousness " are illusions? > > What are *you* saying? > > And please don't try to support your arguments by quoting > Nisargadatta or anyone else. I am only interested in what > is directly evident to you. > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So consciousness itself is not a fever, a disease, > > > though there is a very strong propensity for it > > > to be so, and that propensity is what we call " I am " . > > > > > > There never was an " I am " ... ever... > > > but there can be a " sense of I am " ... > > > which is a " sense of consciousness " mis-taken > > > as a " sense of I am " . > > > > > > When the " sense of I am " is seen through, > > > dissolves, disappears, a " sense of consciousness " > > > can still remain. But it is no longer mis-taken > > > as a " sense of I am " . > > > > > > Very interesting Werner. > > > Interesting indeed! > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 > So, Werner, does the " I am " *exist* in your view or not? Ok, Bill, Thanks for putting the word 'exist' in quotes. Consciousness is all there is. All the rest is mental (knowledge) like the dark side of the moon, or the stomach (which we have learned to be inside the belly etc. Consciousness (which is its contents) is the only media. Everything else is learned and told to us (which I call mental). Is Jesus Christ or the Buddha a content of consciousness or are they just menatal ? Same with the I am. All you experience of the I am is via the media of consciousness. Evrything else you know and have read about the I am again just is mental. Because consciousness is its content the I am also is the content of consciousness. Now my question to you is where in your opinion is the dividing line between the I am and the rest of consciousness ? Can you separate the I am from consciousness without presenting any mental knowledge ?to me the " I am " does not exist,so no " dividing line " .As I said before, a " sense of I am " can appearto exist via a confused identification with consciousness, but it is an illusion. Please understand I never was interested in the " I am " and I am only mention it and writing about it here in the Nis forum.Same with me, Werner.I'm still interested in your answer to this question: " Do you have a sense of consciousness or to youis it just an abstract idea? " I'm not trying to set you up, or anything.I am genuinely curious. Werner > > Do you have a " sense of I am " ? > Do you have a " sense of consciousness " ? > > Are you saying that both " I am " and " consciousness " are illusions? > > What are *you* saying? > > And please don't try to support your arguments by quoting > Nisargadatta or anyone else. I am only interested in what > is directly evident to you. > > > Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > So, Werner, does the " I am " *exist* in your view or not? > > > > Ok, Bill, > > Thanks for putting the word 'exist' in quotes. > > Consciousness is all there is. All the rest is mental (knowledge) like the > dark > side of the moon, or the stomach (which we have learned to be inside the > belly > etc. > > Consciousness (which is its contents) is the only media. Everything else is > learned and told to us (which I call mental). > > Is Jesus Christ or the Buddha a content of consciousness or are they just > menatal ? > > Same with the I am. All you experience of the I am is via the media of > consciousness. Evrything else you know and have read about the I am again > just > is mental. > > Because consciousness is its content the I am also is the content of > consciousness. > > Now my question to you is where in your opinion is the dividing line between > the > I am and the rest of consciousness ? Can you separate the I am from > consciousness without presenting any mental knowledge ? > > to me the " I am " does not exist, > so no " dividing line " . > As I said before, a " sense of I am " can *appear* > to exist via a confused identification with > consciousness, but it is an illusion. > > Please understand I never was interested in the " I am " and I am only mention > it > and writing about it here in the Nis forum. > > Same with me, Werner. > > I'm still interested in your answer to this question: > " Do you have a *sense *of consciousness or to you > is it just an abstract idea? " > I'm not trying to set you up, or anything. > I am genuinely curious. > > Fine, Bill, I did not suspect you trying to set me up. To satisfy your curiosity, the answer is simple. Same as a child just is conscious without having any abstract concept of something called consciousness, so also what I " know " about consciousness is mental, is ideas and concepts about consciousness. But concepts have their place, which is fine and they are needed for communication and also can become the first experimental step into new adventures. I have no problems with concepts and it is fun to play with them. And surely, no doubt, with concepts you cannot feed the hungry. Werner > > > > > > Do you have a " sense of I am " ? > > Do you have a " sense of consciousness " ? > > > > Are you saying that both " I am " and " consciousness " are illusions? > > > > What are *you* saying? > > > > And please don't try to support your arguments by quoting > > Nisargadatta or anyone else. I am only interested in what > > is directly evident to you. > > > > > > Bill > 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.