Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Werner, These are some of the things you said: "When the I am perfectly is seen as what it is then the illusion of a YOU disappears and your own non-existence is realized" ---Who or what is it that is seeing, and who or what is realizing its non-existence? "Consciousness is a fever, a disease". ---Who or what has the disease? ---Who or what is it that this fever, or disease has come upon? Aren't the answers to all of these questions, the 'you' that is prior to any and all words and thoughts; the 'you' that cannot be contained within any description, shape, form, or embodiment of any kind? This is the 'you' that is prior to any and all of that, and prior even to the consciousness that speaks 'I am', and yet it is still most assuredly you. Marv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932 wrote: > > Werner, > These are some of the things you said: > > " When the I am perfectly is seen as what it is then the illusion of a YOU disappears and your own non-existence is realized " > ---Who or what is it that is seeing, and who or what is realizing its non-existence? Good question, Marv, I already a dozenc times have put the same question to myself, what is it that realizes one's own non-existence ? And I only can answer it by using a metaphor: Sound can become the content of consciousness but silence cannot become a content. And yet when there is total silence we are concscious of that silence. Why is that ? Because one can become aware of the absence of something when previously one was aware of its presence. The question which remains is what is that " me " which so obviously seems to exist and to be present ? Werner > > " Consciousness is a fever, a disease " . > ---Who or what has the disease? > ---Who or what is it that this fever, or disease has come upon? > > Aren't the answers to all of these questions, the 'you' that is prior to any and all words and thoughts; the 'you' that cannot be contained within any description, shape, form, or embodiment of any kind? > > This is the 'you' that is prior to any and all of that, and prior even to the consciousness that speaks 'I am', and yet it is still most assuredly you. > > Marv > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , "Werner Woehr" <wwoehr wrote:>> Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932@> wrote:> >> > Werner,> > These are some of the things you said:> > > > "When the I am perfectly is seen as what it is then the illusion of a YOU disappears and your own non-existence is realized"> > ---Who or what is it that is seeing, and who or what is realizing its non-existence?> > > Good question, Marv,> > I already a dozenc times have put the same question to myself, what is it that realizes one's own non-existence ? And I only can answer it by using a metaphor:> > Sound can become the content of consciousness but silence cannot become a content. And yet when there is total silence we are concscious of that silence. Why is that ?> > Because one can become aware of the absence of something when previously one was aware of its presence.> > The question which remains is what is that "me" which so > obviously seems to exist and to be present?The operative word in that question is "seems"...That something seems to exist and be present is no indication that something exists and is present.Keep in mind that all of these phenomena are partof a process. Just because a river has a whirlpoolat a certain spot doesn't mean that there is "something there". All that is being seen is a patternin the water flow. There is no "entity" there.For some reason there tends to be a hangup aroundlooking for "things", hence the notions of "ego","me", "I". Even consciousness tends to be treatedas a "something". If the phenomena that giverise to these things are instead seen as processes orparts of processes most of the confusions will be seento be like trying to make an entity out of the whirlpool.Bill> > Werner> > > > > > "Consciousness is a fever, a disease".> > ---Who or what has the disease?> > ---Who or what is it that this fever, or disease has come upon?> > > > Aren't the answers to all of these questions, the 'you' that is prior to any and all words and thoughts; the 'you' that cannot be contained within any description, shape, form, or embodiment of any kind? > > > > This is the 'you' that is prior to any and all of that, and prior even to the consciousness that speaks 'I am', and yet it is still most assuredly you.> > > > Marv> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Marvin Moss <mmoss2932@> wrote: > > > > > > Werner, > > > These are some of the things you said: > > > > > > " When the I am perfectly is seen as what it is then the illusion of > a YOU disappears and your own non-existence is realized " > > > ---Who or what is it that is seeing, and who or what is realizing > its non-existence? > > > > > > Good question, Marv, > > > > I already a dozenc times have put the same question to myself, what is > it that realizes one's own non-existence ? And I only can answer it by > using a metaphor: > > > > Sound can become the content of consciousness but silence cannot > become a content. And yet when there is total silence we are concscious > of that silence. Why is that ? > > > > Because one can become aware of the absence of something when > previously one was aware of its presence. > > > > The question which remains is what is that " me " which so > > obviously seems to exist and to be present? > > The operative word in that question is " seems " ... > That something seems to exist and be present is > no indication that something exists and is present. > > Keep in mind that all of these phenomena are part > of a process. Just because a river has a whirlpool > at a certain spot doesn't mean that there is > " something there " . All that is being seen is a pattern > in the water flow. There is no " entity " there.ill Thanks Bill, for reminding that there is no entity and that those phenomena we are discussing are part of a process. Eventually there still might be one or two members who believe or think of the me as an entitity. When I used the expression " there seems to be a me " then it is pionting at the undeniable repetitive and constantly returning part of that process which does produce the impression of a stable and fix me. For example the mind needs for any noun the real object which it is pointing at. Like the word tree needs a real tree to get substance. That's why it is called a substantive -> (existing independently; real, tangible; substantial; of or pertaining to the essence of something; functioning as a noun (Grammar); expressing existence (Grammar)) It is that repetitive usage of nouns which gives them more and more substance - not only to objects but also to " me " or " I " . And so the " me " SEEMS to BE something real. Werner > > For some reason there tends to be a hangup around > looking for " things " , hence the notions of " ego " , > " me " , " I " . Even consciousness tends to be treated > as a " something " . If the phenomena that give > rise to these things are instead seen as processes or > parts of processes most of the confusions will be seen > to be like trying to make an entity out of the whirlpool. > > > Bill > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > " Consciousness is a fever, a disease " . > > > ---Who or what has the disease? > > > ---Who or what is it that this fever, or disease has come upon? > > > > > > Aren't the answers to all of these questions, the 'you' that is > prior to any and all words and thoughts; the 'you' that cannot be > contained within any description, shape, form, or embodiment of any > kind? > > > > > > This is the 'you' that is prior to any and all of that, and prior > even to the consciousness that speaks 'I am', and yet it is still most > assuredly you. > > > > > > Marv > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 > > > The question which remains is what is that " me " which > so> > > obviously seems to exist and to be present?> >> > The operative word in that question is " seems " ... > > That something seems to exist and be present is> > no indication that something exists and is present.> >> > Keep in mind that all of these phenomena are part> > of a process. Just because a river has a whirlpool > > at a certain spot doesn't mean that there is> > " something there " . All that is being seen is a pattern> > in the water flow. There is no " entity " there.ill> > Thanks Bill, for reminding that there is no entity and that > those phenomena we are discussing are part of a process. > Eventually there still might be one or two members who > believe or think of the me as an entitity. > > When I used the expression " there seems to be a me " then it > is pionting at the undeniable repetitive and constantly > returning part of that process which does produce the > impression of a stable and fix me. This is an entire subject in itself. I have a lotto say about the " me " issue, so will post it as anew thread.> For example the mind needs for any noun the real object > which it is pointing at. Like the word tree needs a real > tree to get substance.The mind can be *in the habit of* assuming that a substantive refers to a " real object " . " In the habit of " does not mean *needs*. In philosophy there is what is called the " reification fallacy " that relates to this: Reification (also known as hypostatisation, concretism or The fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a " real thing " something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: when one person " holds another's affection " , affection is being reified. Note that reification is generally accepted in literature and other forms of discourse where reified abstractions are understood to be intended metaphorically, for example, " Justice is blind. " But the use of reification in logical arguments is usually regarded as a mistake (fallacy). For example, " Justice is blind; the blind cannot read printed laws; therefore, to print laws cannot serve justice. " In rhetoric it may be sometimes difficult to determine if reification was used correctly or incorrectly. Pathetic fallacy or anthropomorphic fallacy (in literature known as personification) is a specific subset of reification, where the theoretical concepts are not only considered alive, but human-like and intelligent.Ha! Does the notion of " ego " come to mind? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)> That's why it is called a substantive -> (existing > independently; real, tangible; substantial; of or > pertaining to the essence of something; functioning as a > noun (Grammar); expressing existence (Grammar))> > It is that repetitive usage of nouns which gives them more > and more substance - not only to objects but also to " me " > or " I " .> > And so the " me " SEEMS to BE something real.However, it *isn't* real, in fact it is not even an " it " ! I'll be posting a new thread on this topic of the " me " .Bill> Werner 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.