Guest guest Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Today as I woke up, laying in bed, shaking the nuts and bolts in my head, I realized that bbb and toomba where right in saying that the expression consciousness may be confusing. As both already stated that it is irrelevant, I must clarify things at least to myself. Of course I will gladly listen to different opinions from the list members. Krishnamurti uses the word "consciousness" as the conditioned aspect of the mind. Involves things like envy, hatred, jealousy.... and mainly the idea of an inner observer as a catalyzer. The difference between K's definition and Niz's is that to the former as soon as this inner entity is transcended, the"status quo" is NOT anymore called as consciousness. K would say that "now there is something else". In a dialogue with Bohm, and somewhere else, he will call this something else as the "mind of mankind". In the other hand Niz seems to keep the name consciousness to both conditions. (I know that states, conditions, status quo are just words). He says that when the center is transcended then "I am consciousness", or "I am all" - but still naming it as consciousness. I see now why bbb said that as long as there are things and dogs, there is consciousness. Niz in fact uses the expression "I am this or that" as K's consciousness. The center transcended Niz calls it "I am" (without this or that) as an equivalent to K's mind of mankind. Now with this new light shinning upon the universe (c'mn bbb, its your turn), let me put my fighting gloves on, and read the posts. rgds -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Today as I woke up, laying in bed, shaking the nuts and bolts in my head, > > I realized that bbb and toomba where right in saying that the expression consciousness > > may be confusing. As both already stated that it is irrelevant, I must clarify > > things at least to myself. Of course I will gladly listen to different opinions from the list members. > > > > Krishnamurti uses the word " consciousness " as the conditioned aspect of the mind. Involves > > things like envy, hatred, jealousy.... and mainly the idea of an inner observer as a catalyzer. > > The difference between K's definition and Niz's is that to the former as soon as this inner > > entity is transcended, the " status quo " is NOT anymore called as consciousness. K would say > > that " now there is something else " . In a dialogue with Bohm, and somewhere else, he will call this > > something else as the " mind of mankind " . > > > > In the other hand Niz seems to keep the name consciousness to both conditions. > > (I know that states, conditions, status quo are just words). He says that when the > > center is transcended then " I am consciousness " , or " I am all " - but still naming it as > > consciousness. I see now why bbb said that as long as there are things and dogs, > > there is consciousness. > > > > Niz in fact uses the expression " I am this or that " as K's consciousness. The center > > transcended Niz calls it " I am " (without this or that) as an equivalent to K's mind of mankind. > > > > Now with this new light shinning upon the universe (c'mn bbb, its your turn), let me put my fighting > > gloves on, and read the posts. > > > > rgds > > > > -geo- consciousness schmasciouness... " what's in a name? that which we call a rose.. by any other name would smell as sweet. " but that name or any other is not what's what. it's not " It " at all. ..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.