Guest guest Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words ‘mind’, ‘consciousness’, and ‘awareness’. M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you call it consciousness. This is your waking state — your consciousness shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call it: ‘my thought’. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is the cognizance of consciousness as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words 'mind', 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your consciousness shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call it: 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is the cognizance of consciousness as a whole. liquid gurgles from this to that and over again. a musty meat which languishes in loaf and death. not living..killing time. what crap! but i love it to death. even awareness extinguishes itself in itself. persistence without participant.. Perfection. as it always has been.. is now and forever will be... time is no more. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words 'mind', 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your consciousness shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call it: 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is the cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former times it was believed that there is a special organ called mind which is the origin of thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all concentration on special or different contents of consciousness is ending then the whole more and more shines through. 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is thoutht. And thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting contents of consciousness or the absence of those contents. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words 'mind', > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your consciousness > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call it: > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is the > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former times it was believed that there is a special organ called mind which is the origin of thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all concentration on special or different contents of consciousness is ending then the whole more and more shines through. geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who is atesting this shining? 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is thoutht. And thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting contents of consciousness or the absence of those contents. Werner avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words 'mind', > > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when > > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you > > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your consciousness > > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from > > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct > > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The > > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you > > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call it: > > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is the > > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > > > > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former times it was > believed that there is a special organ called mind which is the origin of > thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. > > 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all concentration > on special or different contents of consciousness is ending then the whole > more and more shines through. > > geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who is atesting > this shining? I explain again, Geo, The 'attester' undoubtedly is thought, Geo. And here you are right, I already shared this with you. But - no matter if thought might say " I see a tree', that which it calles to be a tree nevertheless is seen. When there is no attention directed to anything, which means there is concentrating on anything then the whole will shine through - with or without an attester. What I do deny is the existence of an awareness which is prior to consciousness or worse, separate from consciousnes, which Maharaj seemed to believe to be the precondition to be able to see the whole and without this 'awareness' one cannot see the whole. Werner > > 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is thoutht. And > thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting contents of > consciousness or the absence of those contents. > > > > Werner > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words 'mind', > > > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > > > > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when > > > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you > > > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your consciousness > > > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from > > > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct > > > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The > > > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you > > > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call it: > > > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is the > > > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > > > > > > > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former times it was > > believed that there is a special organ called mind which is the origin of > > thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. > > > > 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all concentration > > on special or different contents of consciousness is ending then the whole > > more and more shines through. > > > > geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who is atesting > > this shining? > > > I explain again, Geo, > > The 'attester' undoubtedly is thought, Geo. And here you are right, I already shared this with you. > > But - no matter if thought might say " I see a tree', that which it calles to be a tree nevertheless is seen. > When there is no attention directed to anything, which means there is > concentrating on anything then the whole will shine through - with or without an attester. > > What I do deny is the existence of an awareness which is prior to consciousness or worse, separate from consciousnes, which Maharaj seemed to believe to be the precondition to be able to see the whole and without this 'awareness' one cannot see the whole. > > Werner geo> Maybe you have your own peculiar way of seeing things... > > > > > > 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is thoutht. And > > thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting contents of > > consciousness or the absence of those contents. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words 'mind', > > > > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > > > > > > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when > > > > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you > > > > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your consciousness > > > > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from > > > > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct > > > > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The > > > > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you > > > > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call it: > > > > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is the > > > > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former times it was > > > believed that there is a special organ called mind which is the origin of > > > thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. > > > > > > 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all concentration > > > on special or different contents of consciousness is ending then the whole > > > more and more shines through. > > > > > > geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who is atesting > > > this shining? > > > > > > I explain again, Geo, > > > > The 'attester' undoubtedly is thought, Geo. And here you are right, I already shared this with you. > > > > But - no matter if thought might say " I see a tree', that which it calles to be a tree nevertheless is seen. > > When there is no attention directed to anything, which means there is > > concentrating on anything then the whole will shine through - with or without an attester. > > > > What I do deny is the existence of an awareness which is prior to consciousness or worse, separate from consciousnes, which Maharaj seemed to believe to be the precondition to be able to see the whole and without this 'awareness' one cannot see the whole. > > > > Werner geo> Everything that is, is in a non-fragmented field. I don't think niz. would say that awareness, or perception, or ultimate, or parabraman.... is separate at all. the expression " prior " seems to convey the idea of " beyond " - but not separate. Take an object, it is made of molecules, made of atoms, made of sub-atomic particles...etc..etc...one beyond the other, one prior to the other, one finner then the other - but not separate. And... would make no sense to say that some awareness is " separate " from what it is aware of. But htis awareness is not something far off, away... it is here (there)and has always been. Just a bit deeper then sometimes seems. > > > > > > > > > > 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is thoutht. And > > > thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting contents of > > > consciousness or the absence of those contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > > Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 > > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words 'mind', > > > > > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > > > > > > > > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when > > > > > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you > > > > > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your consciousness > > > > > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from > > > > > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct > > > > > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The > > > > > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you > > > > > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call it: > > > > > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is the > > > > > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former times it was > > > > believed that there is a special organ called mind which is the origin of > > > > thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. > > > > > > > > 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all concentration > > > > on special or different contents of consciousness is ending then the whole > > > > more and more shines through. > > > > > > > > geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who is atesting > > > > this shining? > > > > > > > > > I explain again, Geo, > > > > > > The 'attester' undoubtedly is thought, Geo. And here you are right, I already shared this with you. > > > > > > But - no matter if thought might say " I see a tree', that which it calles to be a tree nevertheless is seen. > > > When there is no attention directed to anything, which means there is > > > concentrating on anything then the whole will shine through - with or without an attester. > > > > > > What I do deny is the existence of an awareness which is prior to consciousness or worse, separate from consciousnes, which Maharaj seemed to believe to be the precondition to be able to see the whole and without this 'awareness' one cannot see the whole. > > > > > > Werner > > geo> Everything that is, is in a non-fragmented field. I don't think niz. would say that awareness, or perception, or ultimate, or parabraman.... is separate at all Sorry Geo, I have no idea what a 'field' means and so aleyondso not what a 'fragmented field' is. > the expression " prior " seems to convey the idea of " beyond " - but not separate. Prior means prior and beyond means beyond. When speakinh of prior then one speaks of prior and not of beond. > Take an object, it is made of molecules, made of atoms, made of sub-atomic particles..etc ..etc...one beyond the other, one prior to the other, one finner then the other - but not separate. And... would make no sense to say that some awareness is " separate " from what it is aware of. I don't understand what you are trying to explain, Geo. But: The firing of neuron cells in the brain is experienced as " consciousness " . That's all ... Werner > > But htis awareness is not something far off, away... it is here (there)and has always been. Just a bit deeper then sometimes seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is thoutht. And > > > > thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting contents of > > > > consciousness or the absence of those contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > > > Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 > > > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 geo.... do not try and make any sense of the replies below. they contain no sense at all. " I have no idea what a 'field' means and... so aleyondso not what a 'fragmented field' is. " now i ask you.. what they hell does that try to communicate? #2.. " The firing of neuron cells in the brain.. is experienced as " consciousness " . That's all ... " " WHO " the hell experiences this? how is this ghost conscious of consciousness? IF there is a " BIG EXPERIENCER " .. who groks the firing neuron things and stuff.. and Werner Christ is introducing us to Him... this is indeed tidings of great joy. but.. i don't believe he knows what he's saying. he believes he's being scientific.. but he honest to god believes in the ghost in the machinery. i don't want to break his heart. so i won't tell him.. just be patient with my pal. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words 'mind', > > > > > > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > > > > > > > > > > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when > > > > > > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you > > > > > > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your consciousness > > > > > > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from > > > > > > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct > > > > > > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The > > > > > > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you > > > > > > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call it: > > > > > > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is the > > > > > > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former times it was > > > > > believed that there is a special organ called mind which is the origin of > > > > > thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all concentration > > > > > on special or different contents of consciousness is ending then the whole > > > > > more and more shines through. > > > > > > > > > > geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who is atesting > > > > > this shining? > > > > > > > > > > > > I explain again, Geo, > > > > > > > > The 'attester' undoubtedly is thought, Geo. And here you are right, I already shared this with you. > > > > > > > > But - no matter if thought might say " I see a tree', that which it calles to be a tree nevertheless is seen. > > > > When there is no attention directed to anything, which means there is > > > > concentrating on anything then the whole will shine through - with or without an attester. > > > > > > > > What I do deny is the existence of an awareness which is prior to consciousness or worse, separate from consciousnes, which Maharaj seemed to believe to be the precondition to be able to see the whole and without this 'awareness' one cannot see the whole. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > geo> Everything that is, is in a non-fragmented field. I don't think niz. would say that awareness, or perception, or ultimate, or parabraman.... is separate at all > > Sorry Geo, > > I have no idea what a 'field' means and so aleyondso not what a 'fragmented field' is. > > > > the expression " prior " seems to convey the idea of " beyond " - but not separate. > > > Prior means prior and beyond means beyond. When speakinh of prior then one speaks of prior and not of beond. > > > > Take an object, it is made of molecules, made of atoms, made of sub-atomic particles..etc ..etc...one beyond the other, one prior to the other, one finner then the other - but not separate. And... would make no sense to say that some awareness is " separate " from what it is aware of. > > > I don't understand what you are trying to explain, Geo. > > But: > The firing of neuron cells in the brain is experienced as " consciousness " . That's all ... > > Werner > > > > > > But htis awareness is not something far off, away... it is here (there)and has always been. Just a bit deeper then sometimes seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is thoutht. And > > > > > thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting contents of > > > > > consciousness or the absence of those contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > > > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > > > > Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 > > > > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I think there is a spark of right intuition in Werner's being. He somehow intuits that the universe is non-dual...nothing separate...and that IS a big stuff really...he just can not make the peaces fit correctly. And the very thing that could help him is the most difficult: he already knows.... he knows...thats the bug. =================== geo.... do not try and make any sense of the replies below. they contain no sense at all. " I have no idea what a 'field' means and... so aleyondso not what a 'fragmented field' is. " now i ask you.. what they hell does that try to communicate? #2.. " The firing of neuron cells in the brain.. is experienced as " consciousness " . That's all ... " " WHO " the hell experiences this? how is this ghost conscious of consciousness? IF there is a " BIG EXPERIENCER " .. who groks the firing neuron things and stuff.. and Werner Christ is introducing us to Him... this is indeed tidings of great joy. but.. i don't believe he knows what he's saying. he believes he's being scientific.. but he honest to god believes in the ghost in the machinery. i don't want to break his heart. so i won't tell him.. just be patient with my pal. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words > > > > > > 'mind', > > > > > > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > > > > > > > > > > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, > > > > > > even when > > > > > > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your > > > > > > mind, you > > > > > > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your > > > > > > consciousness > > > > > > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to > > > > > > perception, from > > > > > > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the > > > > > > direct > > > > > > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the > > > > > > mind. The > > > > > > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the > > > > > > body; you > > > > > > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and > > > > > > call it: > > > > > > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness > > > > > > is the > > > > > > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former times it > > > > > was > > > > > believed that there is a special organ called mind which is the > > > > > origin of > > > > > thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all > > > > > concentration > > > > > on special or different contents of consciousness is ending then > > > > > the whole > > > > > more and more shines through. > > > > > > > > > > geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who is > > > > > atesting > > > > > this shining? > > > > > > > > > > > > I explain again, Geo, > > > > > > > > The 'attester' undoubtedly is thought, Geo. And here you are right, > > > > I already shared this with you. > > > > > > > > But - no matter if thought might say " I see a tree', that which it > > > > calles to be a tree nevertheless is seen. > > > > When there is no attention directed to anything, which means there > > > > is > > > > concentrating on anything then the whole will shine through - with > > > > or without an attester. > > > > > > > > What I do deny is the existence of an awareness which is prior to > > > > consciousness or worse, separate from consciousnes, which Maharaj > > > > seemed to believe to be the precondition to be able to see the whole > > > > and without this 'awareness' one cannot see the whole. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > geo> Everything that is, is in a non-fragmented field. I don't think > > niz. would say that awareness, or perception, or ultimate, or > > parabraman.... is separate at all > > Sorry Geo, > > I have no idea what a 'field' means and so aleyondso not what a > 'fragmented field' is. > > > > the expression " prior " seems to convey the idea of " beyond " - but not > > separate. > > > Prior means prior and beyond means beyond. When speakinh of prior then one > speaks of prior and not of beond. > > > > Take an object, it is made of molecules, made of atoms, made of > > sub-atomic particles..etc ..etc...one beyond the other, one prior to the > > other, one finner then the other - but not separate. And... would make > > no sense to say that some awareness is " separate " from what it is aware > > of. > > > I don't understand what you are trying to explain, Geo. > > But: > The firing of neuron cells in the brain is experienced as " consciousness " . > That's all ... > > Werner > > > > > > But htis awareness is not something far off, away... it is here > > (there)and has always been. Just a bit deeper then sometimes seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is > > > > > thoutht. And > > > > > thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting > > > > > contents of > > > > > consciousness or the absence of those contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > > > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > > > > Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 > > > > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 Tested on: 30/4/2009 18:00:39 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > I think there is a spark of right intuition in Werner's being. He somehow > intuits that the universe > is non-dual...nothing separate...and that IS a big stuff really...he just > can not make the peaces fit > correctly. And the very thing that could help him is the most difficult: > he already knows.... > he knows...thats the bug. That is not a bug, it is a feature And, Geo, you too like everyone else, when you know something then you will know that you know. Therefore my warning and I am not joking, when you call your own knowing of your knowing a bug then you will get more and more neurotic. Better just see how you tick and how others tick but don't try to change it or even to fight it. Please remember: " There is only what is and not what should be " . J.K. And finally one more advice, stop gossiping about other people. Werner > =================== > > geo.... > > do not try and make any sense of the replies below. > > they contain no sense at all. > > " I have no idea what a 'field' means and... > > so aleyondso not what a 'fragmented field' is. " > > now i ask you.. > > what they hell does that try to communicate? > > #2.. > > " The firing of neuron cells in the brain.. > > is experienced as " consciousness " . That's all ... " > > " WHO " the hell experiences this? > > how is this ghost conscious of consciousness? > > IF there is a " BIG EXPERIENCER " .. > > who groks the firing neuron things and stuff.. > > and Werner Christ is introducing us to Him... > > this is indeed tidings of great joy. > > but.. > > i don't believe he knows what he's saying. > > he believes he's being scientific.. > > but he honest to god believes in the ghost in the machinery. > > i don't want to break his heart. > > so i won't tell him.. > > just be patient with my pal. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words > > > > > > > 'mind', > > > > > > > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, > > > > > > > even when > > > > > > > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your > > > > > > > mind, you > > > > > > > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your > > > > > > > consciousness > > > > > > > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to > > > > > > > perception, from > > > > > > > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the > > > > > > > direct > > > > > > > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the > > > > > > > mind. The > > > > > > > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the > > > > > > > body; you > > > > > > > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and > > > > > > > call it: > > > > > > > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness > > > > > > > is the > > > > > > > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former times it > > > > > > was > > > > > > believed that there is a special organ called mind which is the > > > > > > origin of > > > > > > thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all > > > > > > concentration > > > > > > on special or different contents of consciousness is ending then > > > > > > the whole > > > > > > more and more shines through. > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who is > > > > > > atesting > > > > > > this shining? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I explain again, Geo, > > > > > > > > > > The 'attester' undoubtedly is thought, Geo. And here you are right, > > > > > I already shared this with you. > > > > > > > > > > But - no matter if thought might say " I see a tree', that which it > > > > > calles to be a tree nevertheless is seen. > > > > > When there is no attention directed to anything, which means there > > > > > is > > > > > concentrating on anything then the whole will shine through - with > > > > > or without an attester. > > > > > > > > > > What I do deny is the existence of an awareness which is prior to > > > > > consciousness or worse, separate from consciousnes, which Maharaj > > > > > seemed to believe to be the precondition to be able to see the whole > > > > > and without this 'awareness' one cannot see the whole. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > geo> Everything that is, is in a non-fragmented field. I don't think > > > niz. would say that awareness, or perception, or ultimate, or > > > parabraman.... is separate at all > > > > Sorry Geo, > > > > I have no idea what a 'field' means and so aleyondso not what a > > 'fragmented field' is. > > > > > > > the expression " prior " seems to convey the idea of " beyond " - but not > > > separate. > > > > > > Prior means prior and beyond means beyond. When speakinh of prior then one > > speaks of prior and not of beond. > > > > > > > Take an object, it is made of molecules, made of atoms, made of > > > sub-atomic particles..etc ..etc...one beyond the other, one prior to the > > > other, one finner then the other - but not separate. And... would make > > > no sense to say that some awareness is " separate " from what it is aware > > > of. > > > > > > I don't understand what you are trying to explain, Geo. > > > > But: > > The firing of neuron cells in the brain is experienced as " consciousness " . > > That's all ... > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > But htis awareness is not something far off, away... it is here > > > (there)and has always been. Just a bit deeper then sometimes seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is > > > > > > thoutht. And > > > > > > thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting > > > > > > contents of > > > > > > consciousness or the absence of those contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > > > > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > > > > > Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 > > > > > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > Tested on: 30/4/2009 18:00:39 > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > I think there is a spark of right intuition in Werner's being. He somehow > > intuits that the universe > > is non-dual...nothing separate...and that IS a big stuff really...he just > > can not make the peaces fit > > correctly. And the very thing that could help him is the most difficult: > > he already knows.... > > he knows...thats the bug. > > > That is not a bug, it is a feature > > And, Geo, you too like everyone else, when you know something then you will know that you know. > > Therefore my warning and I am not joking, when you call your own knowing of your knowing a bug then you will get more and more neurotic. > > Better just see how you tick and how others tick but don't try to change it or even to fight it. > > Please remember: > > " There is only what is and not what should be " . J.K. > > And finally one more advice, stop gossiping about other people. > > Werner see geo? i told you so. have patience with the little guy. he's got eye problems too. he told me once. ..b b.b. > > =================== > > > > geo.... > > > > do not try and make any sense of the replies below. > > > > they contain no sense at all. > > > > " I have no idea what a 'field' means and... > > > > so aleyondso not what a 'fragmented field' is. " > > > > now i ask you.. > > > > what they hell does that try to communicate? > > > > #2.. > > > > " The firing of neuron cells in the brain.. > > > > is experienced as " consciousness " . That's all ... " > > > > " WHO " the hell experiences this? > > > > how is this ghost conscious of consciousness? > > > > IF there is a " BIG EXPERIENCER " .. > > > > who groks the firing neuron things and stuff.. > > > > and Werner Christ is introducing us to Him... > > > > this is indeed tidings of great joy. > > > > but.. > > > > i don't believe he knows what he's saying. > > > > he believes he's being scientific.. > > > > but he honest to god believes in the ghost in the machinery. > > > > i don't want to break his heart. > > > > so i won't tell him.. > > > > just be patient with my pal. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words > > > > > > > > 'mind', > > > > > > > > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, > > > > > > > > even when > > > > > > > > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your > > > > > > > > mind, you > > > > > > > > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your > > > > > > > > consciousness > > > > > > > > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to > > > > > > > > perception, from > > > > > > > > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the > > > > > > > > direct > > > > > > > > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the > > > > > > > > mind. The > > > > > > > > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the > > > > > > > > body; you > > > > > > > > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and > > > > > > > > call it: > > > > > > > > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness > > > > > > > > is the > > > > > > > > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former times it > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > believed that there is a special organ called mind which is the > > > > > > > origin of > > > > > > > thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all > > > > > > > concentration > > > > > > > on special or different contents of consciousness is ending then > > > > > > > the whole > > > > > > > more and more shines through. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who is > > > > > > > atesting > > > > > > > this shining? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I explain again, Geo, > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'attester' undoubtedly is thought, Geo. And here you are right, > > > > > > I already shared this with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > But - no matter if thought might say " I see a tree', that which it > > > > > > calles to be a tree nevertheless is seen. > > > > > > When there is no attention directed to anything, which means there > > > > > > is > > > > > > concentrating on anything then the whole will shine through - with > > > > > > or without an attester. > > > > > > > > > > > > What I do deny is the existence of an awareness which is prior to > > > > > > consciousness or worse, separate from consciousnes, which Maharaj > > > > > > seemed to believe to be the precondition to be able to see the whole > > > > > > and without this 'awareness' one cannot see the whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > geo> Everything that is, is in a non-fragmented field. I don't think > > > > niz. would say that awareness, or perception, or ultimate, or > > > > parabraman.... is separate at all > > > > > > Sorry Geo, > > > > > > I have no idea what a 'field' means and so aleyondso not what a > > > 'fragmented field' is. > > > > > > > > > > the expression " prior " seems to convey the idea of " beyond " - but not > > > > separate. > > > > > > > > > Prior means prior and beyond means beyond. When speakinh of prior then one > > > speaks of prior and not of beond. > > > > > > > > > > Take an object, it is made of molecules, made of atoms, made of > > > > sub-atomic particles..etc ..etc...one beyond the other, one prior to the > > > > other, one finner then the other - but not separate. And... would make > > > > no sense to say that some awareness is " separate " from what it is aware > > > > of. > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you are trying to explain, Geo. > > > > > > But: > > > The firing of neuron cells in the brain is experienced as " consciousness " . > > > That's all ... > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But htis awareness is not something far off, away... it is here > > > > (there)and has always been. Just a bit deeper then sometimes seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is > > > > > > > thoutht. And > > > > > > > thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting > > > > > > > contents of > > > > > > > consciousness or the absence of those contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > > > > > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > > > > > > Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 > > > > > > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > Tested on: 30/4/2009 18:00:39 > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 geo> I will remain with your last advice. Indeed...gossip is a very ugly feature. From now on I will always say whatever I have to say to you directly. Sorry for that.... " Beyond consciousness, beyond the mind of mankind, beyond the universal mind...there is the ground. " -Jiddu Krishnamurti- (dialogue with Shainberg and Bohm, and another dialogue with Bohm alone) ======= > I think there is a spark of right intuition in Werner's being. He somehow > intuits that the universe > is non-dual...nothing separate...and that IS a big stuff really...he just > can not make the peaces fit > correctly. And the very thing that could help him is the most difficult: > he already knows.... > he knows...thats the bug. That is not a bug, it is a feature And, Geo, you too like everyone else, when you know something then you will know that you know. Therefore my warning and I am not joking, when you call your own knowing of your knowing a bug then you will get more and more neurotic. Better just see how you tick and how others tick but don't try to change it or even to fight it. Please remember: " There is only what is and not what should be " . J.K. And finally one more advice, stop gossiping about other people. Werner > =================== > > geo.... > > do not try and make any sense of the replies below. > > they contain no sense at all. > > " I have no idea what a 'field' means and... > > so aleyondso not what a 'fragmented field' is. " > > now i ask you.. > > what they hell does that try to communicate? > > #2.. > > " The firing of neuron cells in the brain.. > > is experienced as " consciousness " . That's all ... " > > " WHO " the hell experiences this? > > how is this ghost conscious of consciousness? > > IF there is a " BIG EXPERIENCER " .. > > who groks the firing neuron things and stuff.. > > and Werner Christ is introducing us to Him... > > this is indeed tidings of great joy. > > but.. > > i don't believe he knows what he's saying. > > he believes he's being scientific.. > > but he honest to god believes in the ghost in the machinery. > > i don't want to break his heart. > > so i won't tell him.. > > just be patient with my pal. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words > > > > > > > 'mind', > > > > > > > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts > > > > > > > ceaselessly, > > > > > > > even when > > > > > > > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > mind, you > > > > > > > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your > > > > > > > consciousness > > > > > > > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to > > > > > > > perception, from > > > > > > > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the > > > > > > > direct > > > > > > > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the > > > > > > > mind. The > > > > > > > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the > > > > > > > body; you > > > > > > > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and > > > > > > > call it: > > > > > > > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness > > > > > > > is the > > > > > > > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former times > > > > > > it > > > > > > was > > > > > > believed that there is a special organ called mind which is the > > > > > > origin of > > > > > > thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all > > > > > > concentration > > > > > > on special or different contents of consciousness is ending then > > > > > > the whole > > > > > > more and more shines through. > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who is > > > > > > atesting > > > > > > this shining? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I explain again, Geo, > > > > > > > > > > The 'attester' undoubtedly is thought, Geo. And here you are > > > > > right, > > > > > I already shared this with you. > > > > > > > > > > But - no matter if thought might say " I see a tree', that which it > > > > > calles to be a tree nevertheless is seen. > > > > > When there is no attention directed to anything, which means there > > > > > is > > > > > concentrating on anything then the whole will shine through - with > > > > > or without an attester. > > > > > > > > > > What I do deny is the existence of an awareness which is prior to > > > > > consciousness or worse, separate from consciousnes, which Maharaj > > > > > seemed to believe to be the precondition to be able to see the > > > > > whole > > > > > and without this 'awareness' one cannot see the whole. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > geo> Everything that is, is in a non-fragmented field. I don't think > > > niz. would say that awareness, or perception, or ultimate, or > > > parabraman.... is separate at all > > > > Sorry Geo, > > > > I have no idea what a 'field' means and so aleyondso not what a > > 'fragmented field' is. > > > > > > > the expression " prior " seems to convey the idea of " beyond " - but not > > > separate. > > > > > > Prior means prior and beyond means beyond. When speakinh of prior then > > one > > speaks of prior and not of beond. > > > > > > > Take an object, it is made of molecules, made of atoms, made of > > > sub-atomic particles..etc ..etc...one beyond the other, one prior to > > > the > > > other, one finner then the other - but not separate. And... would make > > > no sense to say that some awareness is " separate " from what it is > > > aware > > > of. > > > > > > I don't understand what you are trying to explain, Geo. > > > > But: > > The firing of neuron cells in the brain is experienced as > > " consciousness " . > > That's all ... > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > But htis awareness is not something far off, away... it is here > > > (there)and has always been. Just a bit deeper then sometimes seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is > > > > > > thoutht. And > > > > > > thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting > > > > > > contents of > > > > > > consciousness or the absence of those contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > > > > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > > > > > Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 > > > > > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > Tested on: 30/4/2009 18:00:39 > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 Tested on: 1/5/2009 09:24:18 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > > geo> I will remain with your last advice. Indeed...gossip is a very ugly > feature. > From now on I will always say whatever I have to say to you directly. Sorry > for that.... > > " Beyond consciousness, beyond the mind of mankind, beyond the universal > mind...there is the ground. " > -Jiddu Krishnamurti- (dialogue with Shainberg and Bohm, and another dialogue > with Bohm alone) > Yes nice, Geo, Btw, I have been into K for many years and also for some years I was joing his three weeks talks and discussions in Brockwood and Saanen. And now, do you KNOW what that " ground " is ? That 'ground' is why I am also a fan of maharaj. Werner > ======= > > I think there is a spark of right intuition in Werner's being. He somehow > > intuits that the universe > > is non-dual...nothing separate...and that IS a big stuff really...he just > > can not make the peaces fit > > correctly. And the very thing that could help him is the most difficult: > > he already knows.... > > he knows...thats the bug. > > That is not a bug, it is a feature > > And, Geo, you too like everyone else, when you know something then you will > know that you know. > > Therefore my warning and I am not joking, when you call your own knowing of > your knowing a bug then you will get more and more neurotic. > > Better just see how you tick and how others tick but don't try to change it > or even to fight it. > > Please remember: > > " There is only what is and not what should be " . J.K. > > And finally one more advice, stop gossiping about other people. > > Werner > > > =================== > > > > geo.... > > > > do not try and make any sense of the replies below. > > > > they contain no sense at all. > > > > " I have no idea what a 'field' means and... > > > > so aleyondso not what a 'fragmented field' is. " > > > > now i ask you.. > > > > what they hell does that try to communicate? > > > > #2.. > > > > " The firing of neuron cells in the brain.. > > > > is experienced as " consciousness " . That's all ... " > > > > " WHO " the hell experiences this? > > > > how is this ghost conscious of consciousness? > > > > IF there is a " BIG EXPERIENCER " .. > > > > who groks the firing neuron things and stuff.. > > > > and Werner Christ is introducing us to Him... > > > > this is indeed tidings of great joy. > > > > but.. > > > > i don't believe he knows what he's saying. > > > > he believes he's being scientific.. > > > > but he honest to god believes in the ghost in the machinery. > > > > i don't want to break his heart. > > > > so i won't tell him.. > > > > just be patient with my pal. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words > > > > > > > > 'mind', > > > > > > > > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts > > > > > > > > ceaselessly, > > > > > > > > even when > > > > > > > > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > mind, you > > > > > > > > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your > > > > > > > > consciousness > > > > > > > > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to > > > > > > > > perception, from > > > > > > > > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the > > > > > > > > direct > > > > > > > > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the > > > > > > > > mind. The > > > > > > > > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the > > > > > > > > body; you > > > > > > > > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and > > > > > > > > call it: > > > > > > > > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness > > > > > > > > is the > > > > > > > > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former times > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > believed that there is a special organ called mind which is the > > > > > > > origin of > > > > > > > thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all > > > > > > > concentration > > > > > > > on special or different contents of consciousness is ending then > > > > > > > the whole > > > > > > > more and more shines through. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who is > > > > > > > atesting > > > > > > > this shining? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I explain again, Geo, > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'attester' undoubtedly is thought, Geo. And here you are > > > > > > right, > > > > > > I already shared this with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > But - no matter if thought might say " I see a tree', that which it > > > > > > calles to be a tree nevertheless is seen. > > > > > > When there is no attention directed to anything, which means there > > > > > > is > > > > > > concentrating on anything then the whole will shine through - with > > > > > > or without an attester. > > > > > > > > > > > > What I do deny is the existence of an awareness which is prior to > > > > > > consciousness or worse, separate from consciousnes, which Maharaj > > > > > > seemed to believe to be the precondition to be able to see the > > > > > > whole > > > > > > and without this 'awareness' one cannot see the whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > geo> Everything that is, is in a non-fragmented field. I don't think > > > > niz. would say that awareness, or perception, or ultimate, or > > > > parabraman.... is separate at all > > > > > > Sorry Geo, > > > > > > I have no idea what a 'field' means and so aleyondso not what a > > > 'fragmented field' is. > > > > > > > > > > the expression " prior " seems to convey the idea of " beyond " - but not > > > > separate. > > > > > > > > > Prior means prior and beyond means beyond. When speakinh of prior then > > > one > > > speaks of prior and not of beond. > > > > > > > > > > Take an object, it is made of molecules, made of atoms, made of > > > > sub-atomic particles..etc ..etc...one beyond the other, one prior to > > > > the > > > > other, one finner then the other - but not separate. And... would make > > > > no sense to say that some awareness is " separate " from what it is > > > > aware > > > > of. > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you are trying to explain, Geo. > > > > > > But: > > > The firing of neuron cells in the brain is experienced as > > > " consciousness " . > > > That's all ... > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But htis awareness is not something far off, away... it is here > > > > (there)and has always been. Just a bit deeper then sometimes seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is > > > > > > > thoutht. And > > > > > > > thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting > > > > > > > contents of > > > > > > > consciousness or the absence of those contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > > > > > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > > > > > > Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 > > > > > > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > Tested on: 30/4/2009 18:00:39 > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > Tested on: 1/5/2009 09:24:18 > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 > geo> I will remain with your last advice. Indeed...gossip is a very ugly > feature. > From now on I will always say whatever I have to say to you directly. > Sorry > for that.... > > " Beyond consciousness, beyond the mind of mankind, beyond the universal > mind...there is the ground. " > -Jiddu Krishnamurti- (dialogue with Shainberg and Bohm, and another > dialogue > with Bohm alone) > Yes nice, Geo, Btw, I have been into K for many years and also for some years I was joing his three weeks talks and discussions in Brockwood and Saanen. And now, do you KNOW what that " ground " is ? That 'ground' is why I am also a fan of maharaj. Werner geo> I feel it is a bit dangerous to unswer to your question as yes or no - just like that. Why not investigate? > ======= > > I think there is a spark of right intuition in Werner's being. He > > somehow > > intuits that the universe > > is non-dual...nothing separate...and that IS a big stuff really...he > > just > > can not make the peaces fit > > correctly. And the very thing that could help him is the most difficult: > > he already knows.... > > he knows...thats the bug. > > That is not a bug, it is a feature > > And, Geo, you too like everyone else, when you know something then you > will > know that you know. > > Therefore my warning and I am not joking, when you call your own knowing > of > your knowing a bug then you will get more and more neurotic. > > Better just see how you tick and how others tick but don't try to change > it > or even to fight it. > > Please remember: > > " There is only what is and not what should be " . J.K. > > And finally one more advice, stop gossiping about other people. > > Werner > > > =================== > > > > geo.... > > > > do not try and make any sense of the replies below. > > > > they contain no sense at all. > > > > " I have no idea what a 'field' means and... > > > > so aleyondso not what a 'fragmented field' is. " > > > > now i ask you.. > > > > what they hell does that try to communicate? > > > > #2.. > > > > " The firing of neuron cells in the brain.. > > > > is experienced as " consciousness " . That's all ... " > > > > " WHO " the hell experiences this? > > > > how is this ghost conscious of consciousness? > > > > IF there is a " BIG EXPERIENCER " .. > > > > who groks the firing neuron things and stuff.. > > > > and Werner Christ is introducing us to Him... > > > > this is indeed tidings of great joy. > > > > but.. > > > > i don't believe he knows what he's saying. > > > > he believes he's being scientific.. > > > > but he honest to god believes in the ghost in the machinery. > > > > i don't want to break his heart. > > > > so i won't tell him.. > > > > just be patient with my pal. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the > > > > > > > > words > > > > > > > > 'mind', > > > > > > > > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts > > > > > > > > ceaselessly, > > > > > > > > even when > > > > > > > > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > mind, you > > > > > > > > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your > > > > > > > > consciousness > > > > > > > > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to > > > > > > > > perception, from > > > > > > > > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > direct > > > > > > > > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the > > > > > > > > mind. The > > > > > > > > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the > > > > > > > > body; you > > > > > > > > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > call it: > > > > > > > > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > is the > > > > > > > > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former > > > > > > > times > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > believed that there is a special organ called mind which is > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > origin of > > > > > > > thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all > > > > > > > concentration > > > > > > > on special or different contents of consciousness is ending > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > the whole > > > > > > > more and more shines through. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > atesting > > > > > > > this shining? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I explain again, Geo, > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'attester' undoubtedly is thought, Geo. And here you are > > > > > > right, > > > > > > I already shared this with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > But - no matter if thought might say " I see a tree', that which > > > > > > it > > > > > > calles to be a tree nevertheless is seen. > > > > > > When there is no attention directed to anything, which means > > > > > > there > > > > > > is > > > > > > concentrating on anything then the whole will shine through - > > > > > > with > > > > > > or without an attester. > > > > > > > > > > > > What I do deny is the existence of an awareness which is prior > > > > > > to > > > > > > consciousness or worse, separate from consciousnes, which > > > > > > Maharaj > > > > > > seemed to believe to be the precondition to be able to see the > > > > > > whole > > > > > > and without this 'awareness' one cannot see the whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > geo> Everything that is, is in a non-fragmented field. I don't think > > > > niz. would say that awareness, or perception, or ultimate, or > > > > parabraman.... is separate at all > > > > > > Sorry Geo, > > > > > > I have no idea what a 'field' means and so aleyondso not what a > > > 'fragmented field' is. > > > > > > > > > > the expression " prior " seems to convey the idea of " beyond " - but > > > > not > > > > separate. > > > > > > > > > Prior means prior and beyond means beyond. When speakinh of prior then > > > one > > > speaks of prior and not of beond. > > > > > > > > > > Take an object, it is made of molecules, made of atoms, made of > > > > sub-atomic particles..etc ..etc...one beyond the other, one prior to > > > > the > > > > other, one finner then the other - but not separate. And... would > > > > make > > > > no sense to say that some awareness is " separate " from what it is > > > > aware > > > > of. > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you are trying to explain, Geo. > > > > > > But: > > > The firing of neuron cells in the brain is experienced as > > > " consciousness " . > > > That's all ... > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But htis awareness is not something far off, away... it is here > > > > (there)and has always been. Just a bit deeper then sometimes seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is > > > > > > > thoutht. And > > > > > > > thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting > > > > > > > contents of > > > > > > > consciousness or the absence of those contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > > > > > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > > > > > > Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 > > > > > > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > Tested on: 30/4/2009 18:00:39 > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > Tested on: 1/5/2009 09:24:18 > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > > geo> I will remain with your last advice. Indeed...gossip is a very ugly > > feature. > > From now on I will always say whatever I have to say to you directly. > > Sorry > > for that.... > > > > " Beyond consciousness, beyond the mind of mankind, beyond the universal > > mind...there is the ground. " > > -Jiddu Krishnamurti- (dialogue with Shainberg and Bohm, and another > > dialogue > > with Bohm alone) > > > > Yes nice, Geo, > > Btw, I have been into K for many years and also for some years I was joing > his three weeks talks and discussions in Brockwood and Saanen. > > And now, do you KNOW what that " ground " is ? That 'ground' is why I am also > a fan of maharaj. > > Werner > > geo> I feel it is a bit dangerous to unswer to your question as yes or no - > just like that. Why not investigate? Forget investigation, Geo, Because, who is the investigator ? And where do you start and end your investigation ? And the most odd of all when and how will you know that you succeeded ? Werner > > > > ======= > > > I think there is a spark of right intuition in Werner's being. He > > > somehow > > > intuits that the universe > > > is non-dual...nothing separate...and that IS a big stuff really...he > > > just > > > can not make the peaces fit > > > correctly. And the very thing that could help him is the most difficult: > > > he already knows.... > > > he knows...thats the bug. > > > > That is not a bug, it is a feature > > > > And, Geo, you too like everyone else, when you know something then you > > will > > know that you know. > > > > Therefore my warning and I am not joking, when you call your own knowing > > of > > your knowing a bug then you will get more and more neurotic. > > > > Better just see how you tick and how others tick but don't try to change > > it > > or even to fight it. > > > > Please remember: > > > > " There is only what is and not what should be " . J.K. > > > > And finally one more advice, stop gossiping about other people. > > > > Werner > > > > > =================== > > > > > > geo.... > > > > > > do not try and make any sense of the replies below. > > > > > > they contain no sense at all. > > > > > > " I have no idea what a 'field' means and... > > > > > > so aleyondso not what a 'fragmented field' is. " > > > > > > now i ask you.. > > > > > > what they hell does that try to communicate? > > > > > > #2.. > > > > > > " The firing of neuron cells in the brain.. > > > > > > is experienced as " consciousness " . That's all ... " > > > > > > " WHO " the hell experiences this? > > > > > > how is this ghost conscious of consciousness? > > > > > > IF there is a " BIG EXPERIENCER " .. > > > > > > who groks the firing neuron things and stuff.. > > > > > > and Werner Christ is introducing us to Him... > > > > > > this is indeed tidings of great joy. > > > > > > but.. > > > > > > i don't believe he knows what he's saying. > > > > > > he believes he's being scientific.. > > > > > > but he honest to god believes in the ghost in the machinery. > > > > > > i don't want to break his heart. > > > > > > so i won't tell him.. > > > > > > just be patient with my pal. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the > > > > > > > > > words > > > > > > > > > 'mind', > > > > > > > > > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts > > > > > > > > > ceaselessly, > > > > > > > > > even when > > > > > > > > > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > mind, you > > > > > > > > > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your > > > > > > > > > consciousness > > > > > > > > > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to > > > > > > > > > perception, from > > > > > > > > > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > direct > > > > > > > > > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the > > > > > > > > > mind. The > > > > > > > > > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the > > > > > > > > > body; you > > > > > > > > > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > call it: > > > > > > > > > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > is the > > > > > > > > > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former > > > > > > > > times > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > believed that there is a special organ called mind which is > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > origin of > > > > > > > > thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when all > > > > > > > > concentration > > > > > > > > on special or different contents of consciousness is ending > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > the whole > > > > > > > > more and more shines through. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > atesting > > > > > > > > this shining? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I explain again, Geo, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'attester' undoubtedly is thought, Geo. And here you are > > > > > > > right, > > > > > > > I already shared this with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But - no matter if thought might say " I see a tree', that which > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > calles to be a tree nevertheless is seen. > > > > > > > When there is no attention directed to anything, which means > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > concentrating on anything then the whole will shine through - > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > or without an attester. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I do deny is the existence of an awareness which is prior > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > consciousness or worse, separate from consciousnes, which > > > > > > > Maharaj > > > > > > > seemed to believe to be the precondition to be able to see the > > > > > > > whole > > > > > > > and without this 'awareness' one cannot see the whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > geo> Everything that is, is in a non-fragmented field. I don't think > > > > > niz. would say that awareness, or perception, or ultimate, or > > > > > parabraman.... is separate at all > > > > > > > > Sorry Geo, > > > > > > > > I have no idea what a 'field' means and so aleyondso not what a > > > > 'fragmented field' is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > the expression " prior " seems to convey the idea of " beyond " - but > > > > > not > > > > > separate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Prior means prior and beyond means beyond. When speakinh of prior then > > > > one > > > > speaks of prior and not of beond. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take an object, it is made of molecules, made of atoms, made of > > > > > sub-atomic particles..etc ..etc...one beyond the other, one prior to > > > > > the > > > > > other, one finner then the other - but not separate. And... would > > > > > make > > > > > no sense to say that some awareness is " separate " from what it is > > > > > aware > > > > > of. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you are trying to explain, Geo. > > > > > > > > But: > > > > The firing of neuron cells in the brain is experienced as > > > > " consciousness " . > > > > That's all ... > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But htis awareness is not something far off, away... it is here > > > > > (there)and has always been. Just a bit deeper then sometimes seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole is > > > > > > > > thoutht. And > > > > > > > > thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally denoting > > > > > > > > contents of > > > > > > > > consciousness or the absence of those contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > > > > > > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > > > > > > > Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 > > > > > > > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > > Tested on: 30/4/2009 18:00:39 > > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > Tested on: 1/5/2009 09:24:18 > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 > > geo> I will remain with your last advice. Indeed...gossip is a very ugly > > feature. > > From now on I will always say whatever I have to say to you directly. > > Sorry > > for that.... > > > > " Beyond consciousness, beyond the mind of mankind, beyond the universal > > mind...there is the ground. " > > -Jiddu Krishnamurti- (dialogue with Shainberg and Bohm, and another > > dialogue > > with Bohm alone) > > > > Yes nice, Geo, > > Btw, I have been into K for many years and also for some years I was joing > his three weeks talks and discussions in Brockwood and Saanen. > > And now, do you KNOW what that " ground " is ? That 'ground' is why I am > also > a fan of maharaj. > > Werner > > geo> I feel it is a bit dangerous to unswer to your question as yes or > no - > just like that. Why not investigate? Forget investigation, Geo, Because, who is the investigator ? And where do you start and end your investigation ? And the most odd of all when and how will you know that you succeeded ? Werner geo> OK..mutual convergent investigation ended. > > > > ======= > > > I think there is a spark of right intuition in Werner's being. He > > > somehow > > > intuits that the universe > > > is non-dual...nothing separate...and that IS a big stuff really...he > > > just > > > can not make the peaces fit > > > correctly. And the very thing that could help him is the most > > > difficult: > > > he already knows.... > > > he knows...thats the bug. > > > > That is not a bug, it is a feature > > > > And, Geo, you too like everyone else, when you know something then you > > will > > know that you know. > > > > Therefore my warning and I am not joking, when you call your own knowing > > of > > your knowing a bug then you will get more and more neurotic. > > > > Better just see how you tick and how others tick but don't try to change > > it > > or even to fight it. > > > > Please remember: > > > > " There is only what is and not what should be " . J.K. > > > > And finally one more advice, stop gossiping about other people. > > > > Werner > > > > > =================== > > > > > > geo.... > > > > > > do not try and make any sense of the replies below. > > > > > > they contain no sense at all. > > > > > > " I have no idea what a 'field' means and... > > > > > > so aleyondso not what a 'fragmented field' is. " > > > > > > now i ask you.. > > > > > > what they hell does that try to communicate? > > > > > > #2.. > > > > > > " The firing of neuron cells in the brain.. > > > > > > is experienced as " consciousness " . That's all ... " > > > > > > " WHO " the hell experiences this? > > > > > > how is this ghost conscious of consciousness? > > > > > > IF there is a " BIG EXPERIENCER " .. > > > > > > who groks the firing neuron things and stuff.. > > > > > > and Werner Christ is introducing us to Him... > > > > > > this is indeed tidings of great joy. > > > > > > but.. > > > > > > i don't believe he knows what he's saying. > > > > > > he believes he's being scientific.. > > > > > > but he honest to god believes in the ghost in the machinery. > > > > > > i don't want to break his heart. > > > > > > so i won't tell him.. > > > > > > just be patient with my pal. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Geovani " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the > > > > > > > > > words > > > > > > > > > 'mind', > > > > > > > > > 'consciousness', and 'awareness'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts > > > > > > > > > ceaselessly, > > > > > > > > > even when > > > > > > > > > you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > mind, you > > > > > > > > > call it consciousness. This is your waking state - your > > > > > > > > > consciousness > > > > > > > > > shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to > > > > > > > > > perception, from > > > > > > > > > idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > direct > > > > > > > > > insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > mind. The > > > > > > > > > mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > body; you > > > > > > > > > identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > call it: > > > > > > > > > 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > is the > > > > > > > > > cognizance of consciousness as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) It is the brain which is producing thoughts. In former > > > > > > > > times > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > believed that there is a special organ called mind which is > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > origin of > > > > > > > > thoughts. But such a thing as a mind does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Awareness which sees the whole does not exist. But when > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > concentration > > > > > > > > on special or different contents of consciousness is ending > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > the whole > > > > > > > > more and more shines through. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> If there is no awareness....shines through to who?? Who > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > atesting > > > > > > > > this shining? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I explain again, Geo, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'attester' undoubtedly is thought, Geo. And here you are > > > > > > > right, > > > > > > > I already shared this with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But - no matter if thought might say " I see a tree', that > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > calles to be a tree nevertheless is seen. > > > > > > > When there is no attention directed to anything, which means > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > concentrating on anything then the whole will shine through - > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > or without an attester. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I do deny is the existence of an awareness which is prior > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > consciousness or worse, separate from consciousnes, which > > > > > > > Maharaj > > > > > > > seemed to believe to be the precondition to be able to see the > > > > > > > whole > > > > > > > and without this 'awareness' one cannot see the whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > geo> Everything that is, is in a non-fragmented field. I don't > > > > > think > > > > > niz. would say that awareness, or perception, or ultimate, or > > > > > parabraman.... is separate at all > > > > > > > > Sorry Geo, > > > > > > > > I have no idea what a 'field' means and so aleyondso not what a > > > > 'fragmented field' is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > the expression " prior " seems to convey the idea of " beyond " - but > > > > > not > > > > > separate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Prior means prior and beyond means beyond. When speakinh of prior > > > > then > > > > one > > > > speaks of prior and not of beond. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take an object, it is made of molecules, made of atoms, made of > > > > > sub-atomic particles..etc ..etc...one beyond the other, one prior > > > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > other, one finner then the other - but not separate. And... would > > > > > make > > > > > no sense to say that some awareness is " separate " from what it is > > > > > aware > > > > > of. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you are trying to explain, Geo. > > > > > > > > But: > > > > The firing of neuron cells in the brain is experienced as > > > > " consciousness " . > > > > That's all ... > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But htis awareness is not something far off, away... it is here > > > > > (there)and has always been. Just a bit deeper then sometimes > > > > > seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) That which says to be aware OF something of OF the whole > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > thoutht. And > > > > > > > > thought isn't aware of anything - it just is verbally > > > > > > > > denoting > > > > > > > > contents of > > > > > > > > consciousness or the absence of those contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > > > > > > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > > > > > > > Tested on: 29/4/2009 17:09:10 > > > > > > > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > > Tested on: 30/4/2009 18:00:39 > > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > > Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 31/03/2009 > > Tested on: 1/5/2009 09:24:18 > > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 > Forget investigation, Geo, > > Because, who is the investigator ? And where do you start and end your > investigation ? > > And the most odd of all when and how will you know that you succeeded ? > > Werner > > geo> OK..mutual convergent investigation ended. > > You won't get it by investigation. You won't get it if you don' investigate. There in lies the truth of.....................of................. .........The Great Poopaa. And you will know when it has succeeded when the investigator evaporates. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 > Forget investigation, Geo, > > Because, who is the investigator ? And where do you start and end your > investigation ? > > And the most odd of all when and how will you know that you succeeded ? > > Werner > > geo> OK..mutual convergent investigation ended. > > You won't get it by investigation. You won't get it if you don' investigate. There in lies the truth of.....................of................. .........The Great Poopaa. And you will know when it has succeeded when the investigator evaporates. toombaru You investigate until the investigator is not...thought an enormous sense of wondering remains...Or you may investigate just for the fun of it, just because you love to investigate into the dark abissal clouds of eternal-ethereal ignorance. -geo- -geo- 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.