Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Reality is a story we tell ourselves to sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. All knowledge, even the most mundane or the most scientific is only fiction, poetry and myth. Practical knowhow (our manipulation of the world) creates the illusion that our concepts are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble form. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > myth. > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > form. > > Pete > , Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > myth. > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > form. > > > > Pete > > > , > > Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. > > Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. > > The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. > > Werner Hau ab, Du Pfeife. Du bist ein verdammter Wichser. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Reality orientation also involves a felt-sense, constructed by the body, in an effort to orient to location and environment, identify threats, identify needed resources, and continue and survive. Thus, much of reality orientation goes on outside of the kind of conscious deliberation and supposed rationality involved in human decision-making that we discuss and ponder. Much of our reality orientation occurs on a visceral, felt level, which tends to overrun and sometimes overwhelm the supposedly rational decision-making and pondering of human thinking. To be really clear about the ambiguity, uncertainty, and tentative nature of reality formation involves awareness that sees through and beyond bodily level concerns related to survival that can generate intense anxiety, greed, anger, lust, varied kinds of deceit, manipulations and direct attacks on others, etc. These kinds of intense emotions and survival strategies tend to be ignored, supressed or avoided by people as they engage in their intellectual discussions and debates about morality, ethics, the nature of logic, memory, spiritual experiences, and so on. But those emotions and that attempt to maintain a reality associated with personal survival are there,and can be seen to surface at times when there are direct challenges and threats (such as threat to one's life, one's livelihood, one's wealth, access to resources and possessions, one's loved ones, one's religion, one's country, one's status and reputation, one's beliefs, one's security, etc.). Nonetheless, reality is tentative, probabilistic, constructed, and actually has no center in any kind of personalized being. To live aware-ly, without anchoring to a reality orientation, yet able to participate in consensus reality, involves the " overthrow " of the body's reality principle, the principle that associates identification and effective response related to threats and needed resources, with reality and knowledge. - Dan Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > myth. > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > form. > > Pete > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > myth. > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > form. > > > > Pete > > > , > > Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. > > Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. > > The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. > > Werner Awareness transcendent of time and knowledge isn't defined by memory, but doesn't prevent the " use " of memory. Memory simply " materializes " along with every aspect of your experience. Experiencer and experience are not-two. Thus, memory can't track " what is. " And " what is " doesn't have any concern to prevent memory functions. Why would it? Concerns, motives, acting to prevent something from happening -- all of these activities are associated with memory. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > > myth. > > > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > > form. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > , > > > > Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. > > > > Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. > > > > The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. > > > > Werner > > Awareness transcendent of time and knowledge isn't defined by memory, but doesn't prevent the " use " of memory. No Dan, Awareness is a neuronal activity. Awareness or consciousness is memory. When memory neuros are lit then it is called awareness, when these nurons are inactive then just they represent memory. All the decoratiion you added like 'transcendet of time and knowledge' is just like decorating a dead cow. > > Memory simply " materializes " along with every aspect of your experience. No, Dan, Experience is q rather a complex activity of the neuronal network associating and comparing new sensory input with past data already stored in memory. The result is called 'experience'. > > Experiencer and experience are not-two. Yes, it is the same. > > Thus, memory can't track " what is. " No, as already written before 'what is' is the result of neuronal activities. > > And " what is " doesn't have any concern to prevent memory functions. > > Why would it? Concerns, motives, acting to prevent something from happening -- all of these activities are associated with memory. Yes, just consider conditioned responses. Werner > > > -- Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > > > myth. > > > > > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > > > form. > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > , > > > > > > Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. > > > > > > Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. > > > > > > The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Awareness transcendent of time and knowledge isn't defined by memory, but doesn't prevent the " use " of memory. > > > No Dan, > > Awareness is a neuronal activity. Awareness or consciousness is memory. When memory neuros are lit then it is called awareness, when these nurons are inactive then just they represent memory. Hi Werner - Awareness is not the same as consciousness. Awareness allows you to define yourself as conscious at some times and not conscious at other times. When you are in deep sleep, you are not conscious, but awareness is. Who am I, prior to the conception of my body-mind by my parents? ... One only knows how to define memory, memory neurons, activity of neurons, by using memory. Yet, one is aware of memory. Memory is not producing awareness. Awareness transcends memory. It seems odd to me that you cited a talk by Krishnamurti wherein he made the point that awareness transcends memory, and now you attempt to refute that very point that you cited in that talk. You asked me to read through the text of the talk. Now you attempt to refute the point that K made. (However, you haven't refuted it, imho.) > All the decoratiion you added like 'transcendet of time and knowledge' is just like decorating a dead cow. To you, perhaps. To me, it is the closest approximation I can make to the truth, by using words, when I understand that this truth is not of words (nor of memory). > > Memory simply " materializes " along with every aspect of your experience. > > > No, Dan, > > Experience is q rather a complex activity of the neuronal network associating and comparing new sensory input with past data already stored in memory. The result is called 'experience'. Again, you can only make these designations and definitions by referring to memory. Apparently, you are associating awareness with the activity of neurons and memory. Apparently, you hold to a definition of yourself in a way that depends on memory and knowledge. Have you noticed awareness with no memory active? It is so, although your words claim that it cannot be, and claim that only when memory and neuronal activity is there awareness. You also seem to assume that only when there is individual consciousness is there awareness. Again, it seems odd to me that you cited a K talk, and insisted on the importance of reading it through, when the very point he made was concerning " this immensity " that is " not of time. " This " nothingness " (as he referred to it in another point in that dialogue). Apparently, you view all of your experience as generated by neurons. However, you neglect to notice that the only reason you have seen neurons or heard about neurons, is through your experience. *Trying to make a part of your experience (neurons and ideas you've heard about neurons) responsible for producing all of your experience, is a contradiction.* These assertions are self-contradictory, I'm not sure if you've noticed that. I understand how emotionally involved the attempt to explain experience and awareness can be, and attempting to dissuade someone from such an attempt is unlikely, if they are invested in it. I understand that there is no ultimate explanation for awareness. Because experience arises from, with, and through awareness, there ultimately is no explanation for experience either. There are aspects of experience that are attributable to neuronal activity, to be sure. Yet the totality of what experience is, cannot be explained that way. Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " or " nothingness " - and that is all. > > > > Experiencer and experience are not-two. > > > Yes, it is the same. As this is so, *the experiencer isn't able to define the experience nor how experience is " made " or from what it is made.* The experiencer is the experience and the experiencing. > > Thus, memory can't track " what is. " > > > No, as already written before 'what is' is the result of neuronal activities. The truth of this matter is the very " isness, " the very " nothing " itself - no activity involved, nothing producing it - beyond words and definitions. Here, one is. No memory, no neuronal activity is defining what this is. > > And " what is " doesn't have any concern to prevent memory functions. > > > > Why would it? Concerns, motives, acting to prevent something from happening -- all of these activities are associated with memory. > > > Yes, just consider conditioned responses. Indeed. And the conditioned responder has no way of knowing the unconditioned and unconditional. *The conditioned responder, and his sense of self and existence, and his world of experiences based on memory, cannot touch or know this unconditional truth.* Thus, it is only the dropping away of the conditioned responder, his sense of self, his consciousness anchored in memory and past experiences, that " opens " this truth as it is. Nothing is really opened, but the dropping away of the attempt at an individual center for knowledge and experience gives that sense of an opening. It simply is as is - neither opening or closing, neither being nor not being. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > > > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > > > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > > > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > > > > myth. > > > > > > > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > > > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > > > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > > > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > > > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > > > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > > > > form. > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. > > > > > > > > Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. > > > > > > > > The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Awareness transcendent of time and knowledge isn't defined by memory, but doesn't prevent the " use " of memory. > > > > > > No Dan, > > > > Awareness is a neuronal activity. Awareness or consciousness is memory. When memory neuros are lit then it is called awareness, when these nurons are inactive then just they represent memory. > > Hi Werner - > > Awareness is not the same as consciousness. > > Awareness allows you to define yourself as conscious at some times and not conscious at other times. > > When you are in deep sleep, you are not conscious, but awareness is. > > > Who am I, prior to the conception of my body-mind by my parents? ... > > > One only knows how to define memory, memory neurons, activity of neurons, by using memory. > > Yet, one is aware of memory. > > Memory is not producing awareness. > > Awareness transcends memory. > > It seems odd to me that you cited a talk by Krishnamurti wherein he made the point that awareness transcends memory, and now you attempt to refute that very point that you cited in that talk. You asked me to read through the text of the talk. Now you attempt to refute the point that K made. (However, you haven't refuted it, imho.) > > > > All the decoratiion you added like 'transcendet of time and knowledge' is just like decorating a dead cow. > > To you, perhaps. To me, it is the closest approximation I can make to the truth, by using words, when I understand that this truth is not of words (nor of memory). > > > > Memory simply " materializes " along with every aspect of your experience. > > > > > > No, Dan, > > > > Experience is q rather a complex activity of the neuronal network associating and comparing new sensory input with past data already stored in memory. The result is called 'experience'. > > Again, you can only make these designations and definitions by referring to memory. > > Apparently, you are associating awareness with the activity of neurons and memory. Apparently, you hold to a definition of yourself in a way that depends on memory and knowledge. > > Have you noticed awareness with no memory active? It is so, although your words claim that it cannot be, and claim that only when memory and neuronal activity is there awareness. You also seem to assume that only when there is individual consciousness is there awareness. > > Again, it seems odd to me that you cited a K talk, and insisted on the importance of reading it through, when the very point he made was concerning " this immensity " that is " not of time. " This " nothingness " (as he referred to it in another point in that dialogue). > > Apparently, you view all of your experience as generated by neurons. However, you neglect to notice that the only reason you have seen neurons or heard about neurons, is through your experience. *Trying to make a part of your experience (neurons and ideas you've heard about neurons) responsible for producing all of your experience, is a contradiction.* These assertions are self-contradictory, I'm not sure if you've noticed that. > > I understand how emotionally involved the attempt to explain experience and awareness can be, and attempting to dissuade someone from such an attempt is unlikely, if they are invested in it. I understand that there is no ultimate explanation for awareness. Because experience arises from, with, and through awareness, there ultimately is no explanation for experience either. There are aspects of experience that are attributable to neuronal activity, to be sure. Yet the totality of what experience is, cannot be explained that way. > > Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " or " nothingness " - and that is all. > > > > > > > Experiencer and experience are not-two. > > > > > > Yes, it is the same. > > As this is so, *the experiencer isn't able to define the experience nor how experience is " made " or from what it is made.* The experiencer is the experience and the experiencing. > > > > Thus, memory can't track " what is. " > > > > > > No, as already written before 'what is' is the result of neuronal activities. > > The truth of this matter is the very " isness, " the very " nothing " itself - no activity involved, nothing producing it - beyond words and definitions. > > Here, one is. > > No memory, no neuronal activity is defining what this is. > > > > > And " what is " doesn't have any concern to prevent memory functions. > > > > > > Why would it? Concerns, motives, acting to prevent something from happening -- all of these activities are associated with memory. > > > > > > Yes, just consider conditioned responses. > > Indeed. > > And the conditioned responder has no way of knowing the unconditioned and unconditional. > > *The conditioned responder, and his sense of self and existence, and his world of experiences based on memory, cannot touch or know this unconditional truth.* > > Thus, it is only the dropping away of the conditioned responder, his sense of self, his consciousness anchored in memory and past experiences, that " opens " this truth as it is. > > Nothing is really opened, but the dropping away of the attempt at an individual center for knowledge and experience gives that sense of an opening. > > It simply is as is - neither opening or closing, neither being nor not being. > > - Dan - oh.. so.. it's just asing as it's asing and ising as it's ising.. and that clears'er all up. yup. sure thing. you go ahead and believe that. that's just believing as it's believing.. and that's just thating as it thating. i mean that is so fucking profound as it's profounding that it's.. it's ..it's..it's.. it's funnier than anything you could have said. saying that it's just saying as it's saying.. neither opening nor closing nor both nor neither nor anything. yeah that's it! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > > > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > > > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > > > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > > > > myth. > > > > > > > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > > > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > > > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > > > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > > > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > > > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > > > > form. > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. > > > > > > > > Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. > > > > > > > > The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Awareness transcendent of time and knowledge isn't defined by memory, but doesn't prevent the " use " of memory. > > > > > > No Dan, > > > > Awareness is a neuronal activity. Awareness or consciousness is memory. When memory neuros are lit then it is called awareness, when these nurons are inactive then just they represent memory. > > Hi Werner - > > Awareness is not the same as consciousness. > > Awareness allows you to define yourself as conscious at some times and not conscious at other times. > > When you are in deep sleep, you are not conscious, but awareness is. That deep sleep stuff from Ramana in my eyes is nonsense. Either Raman never really was in deep sleep or he was just inventing that there exists that kind of 'awareness'. In short - I do not believe Ramana. And therefore I stay with it: Such a state called 'awareness' in which you seem to belief in is just an idea and has no worth whatsoever. If you want to build your house of argumentation on a belief then just go on but please don't invite me to share it with you. Werner > > > Who am I, prior to the conception of my body-mind by my parents? ... > > > One only knows how to define memory, memory neurons, activity of neurons, by using memory. > > Yet, one is aware of memory. > > Memory is not producing awareness. > > Awareness transcends memory. > > It seems odd to me that you cited a talk by Krishnamurti wherein he made the point that awareness transcends memory, and now you attempt to refute that very point that you cited in that talk. You asked me to read through the text of the talk. Now you attempt to refute the point that K made. (However, you haven't refuted it, imho.) > > > > All the decoratiion you added like 'transcendet of time and knowledge' is just like decorating a dead cow. > > To you, perhaps. To me, it is the closest approximation I can make to the truth, by using words, when I understand that this truth is not of words (nor of memory). > > > > Memory simply " materializes " along with every aspect of your experience. > > > > > > No, Dan, > > > > Experience is q rather a complex activity of the neuronal network associating and comparing new sensory input with past data already stored in memory. The result is called 'experience'. > > Again, you can only make these designations and definitions by referring to memory. > > Apparently, you are associating awareness with the activity of neurons and memory. Apparently, you hold to a definition of yourself in a way that depends on memory and knowledge. > > Have you noticed awareness with no memory active? It is so, although your words claim that it cannot be, and claim that only when memory and neuronal activity is there awareness. You also seem to assume that only when there is individual consciousness is there awareness. > > Again, it seems odd to me that you cited a K talk, and insisted on the importance of reading it through, when the very point he made was concerning " this immensity " that is " not of time. " This " nothingness " (as he referred to it in another point in that dialogue). > > Apparently, you view all of your experience as generated by neurons. However, you neglect to notice that the only reason you have seen neurons or heard about neurons, is through your experience. *Trying to make a part of your experience (neurons and ideas you've heard about neurons) responsible for producing all of your experience, is a contradiction.* These assertions are self-contradictory, I'm not sure if you've noticed that. > > I understand how emotionally involved the attempt to explain experience and awareness can be, and attempting to dissuade someone from such an attempt is unlikely, if they are invested in it. I understand that there is no ultimate explanation for awareness. Because experience arises from, with, and through awareness, there ultimately is no explanation for experience either. There are aspects of experience that are attributable to neuronal activity, to be sure. Yet the totality of what experience is, cannot be explained that way. > > Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " or " nothingness " - and that is all. > > > > > > > Experiencer and experience are not-two. > > > > > > Yes, it is the same. > > As this is so, *the experiencer isn't able to define the experience nor how experience is " made " or from what it is made.* The experiencer is the experience and the experiencing. > > > > Thus, memory can't track " what is. " > > > > > > No, as already written before 'what is' is the result of neuronal activities. > > The truth of this matter is the very " isness, " the very " nothing " itself - no activity involved, nothing producing it - beyond words and definitions. > > Here, one is. > > No memory, no neuronal activity is defining what this is. > > > > > And " what is " doesn't have any concern to prevent memory functions. > > > > > > Why would it? Concerns, motives, acting to prevent something from happening -- all of these activities are associated with memory. > > > > > > Yes, just consider conditioned responses. > > Indeed. > > And the conditioned responder has no way of knowing the unconditioned and unconditional. > > *The conditioned responder, and his sense of self and existence, and his world of experiences based on memory, cannot touch or know this unconditional truth.* > > Thus, it is only the dropping away of the conditioned responder, his sense of self, his consciousness anchored in memory and past experiences, that " opens " this truth as it is. > > Nothing is really opened, but the dropping away of the attempt at an individual center for knowledge and experience gives that sense of an opening. > > It simply is as is - neither opening or closing, neither being nor not being. > > - Dan - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 P:Very good addendum to what I said. Thanks. We think we feel our body, actually, we feel the model of the body stored in the brain, as demonstrated by people who feel pain on an amputated hand, or others who claim that their leg is not theirs because they lost the feeling of owning the leg. Orientation also depends on this model. Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Reality orientation also involves a felt-sense, constructed by the body, in an effort to orient to location and environment, identify threats, identify needed resources, and continue and survive. > > Thus, much of reality orientation goes on outside of the kind of conscious deliberation and supposed rationality involved in human decision-making that we discuss and ponder. > > Much of our reality orientation occurs on a visceral, felt level, which tends to overrun and sometimes overwhelm the supposedly rational decision-making and pondering of human thinking. > > To be really clear about the ambiguity, uncertainty, and tentative nature of reality formation involves awareness that sees through and beyond bodily level concerns related to survival that can generate intense anxiety, greed, anger, lust, varied kinds of deceit, manipulations and direct attacks on others, etc. > > These kinds of intense emotions and survival strategies tend to be ignored, supressed or avoided by people as they engage in their intellectual discussions and debates about morality, ethics, the nature of logic, memory, spiritual experiences, and so on. But those emotions and that attempt to maintain a reality associated with personal survival are there,and can be seen to surface at times when there are direct challenges and threats (such as threat to one's > life, one's livelihood, one's wealth, access to resources and possessions, one's loved ones, one's religion, one's country, one's status and reputation, one's beliefs, one's security, etc.). > > Nonetheless, reality is tentative, probabilistic, constructed, and actually has no center in any kind of personalized being. > > To live aware-ly, without anchoring to a reality orientation, yet able to participate in consensus reality, involves the " overthrow " of the body's reality principle, the principle that associates identification and effective response related to threats and needed resources, with reality and knowledge. > > - Dan > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > myth. > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > form. > > > > Pete > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > > > > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > > > > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > > > > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > > > > > myth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > > > > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > > > > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > > > > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > > > > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > > > > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > > > > > form. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. > > > > > > > > > > Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. > > > > > > > > > > The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Awareness transcendent of time and knowledge isn't defined by memory, but doesn't prevent the " use " of memory. > > > > > > > > > No Dan, > > > > > > Awareness is a neuronal activity. Awareness or consciousness is memory. When memory neuros are lit then it is called awareness, when these nurons are inactive then just they represent memory. > > > > Hi Werner - > > > > Awareness is not the same as consciousness. > > > > Awareness allows you to define yourself as conscious at some times and not conscious at other times. > > > > When you are in deep sleep, you are not conscious, but awareness is. > > > That deep sleep stuff from Ramana in my eyes is nonsense. Either Raman never really was in deep sleep or he was just inventing that there exists that kind of 'awareness'. > > In short - I do not believe Ramana. I'm not saying this because of Ramana. Does your hair stop growing while you sleep? Do you stop breathing? Apparently, you think that things exist and happen outside of awareness. So, you conceive of a fragmented awareness, existing separately from things, things that exist apart from awareness and from each other. This is belief in division, although to you it is " how things are, " so you don't count it as a belief. You think you are arguing without involving belief. Because this is reality for you. > And therefore I stay with it: Such a state called 'awareness' in which you seem to belief in is just an idea and has no worth whatsoever. It has no worth to you, perhaps because it challenges your assumptions. Awareness isn't a state. Perhaps consider re-reading Krishnamurti and what he said about awareness, since you seem to like him. When you hear it from me, you don't like it. So be it. No problemo -- I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just putting it out there, discard it if it has no relevance for you. > If you want to build your house of argumentation on a belief then just go on but please don't invite me to share it with you. I'm just putting out a point of view. I notice that you disregarded everything I said below about your previous citation of Krishnamurti and what he said. Apparently, that doesn't fit with your current " argument. " So be it. - Dan > Werner > > > > > > > > Who am I, prior to the conception of my body-mind by my parents? ... > > > > > > One only knows how to define memory, memory neurons, activity of neurons, by using memory. > > > > Yet, one is aware of memory. > > > > Memory is not producing awareness. > > > > Awareness transcends memory. > > > > It seems odd to me that you cited a talk by Krishnamurti wherein he made the point that awareness transcends memory, and now you attempt to refute that very point that you cited in that talk. You asked me to read through the text of the talk. Now you attempt to refute the point that K made. (However, you haven't refuted it, imho.) > > > > > > > All the decoratiion you added like 'transcendet of time and knowledge' is just like decorating a dead cow. > > > > To you, perhaps. To me, it is the closest approximation I can make to the truth, by using words, when I understand that this truth is not of words (nor of memory). > > > > > > Memory simply " materializes " along with every aspect of your experience. > > > > > > > > > No, Dan, > > > > > > Experience is q rather a complex activity of the neuronal network associating and comparing new sensory input with past data already stored in memory. The result is called 'experience'. > > > > Again, you can only make these designations and definitions by referring to memory. > > > > Apparently, you are associating awareness with the activity of neurons and memory. Apparently, you hold to a definition of yourself in a way that depends on memory and knowledge. > > > > Have you noticed awareness with no memory active? It is so, although your words claim that it cannot be, and claim that only when memory and neuronal activity is there awareness. You also seem to assume that only when there is individual consciousness is there awareness. > > > > Again, it seems odd to me that you cited a K talk, and insisted on the importance of reading it through, when the very point he made was concerning " this immensity " that is " not of time. " This " nothingness " (as he referred to it in another point in that dialogue). > > > > Apparently, you view all of your experience as generated by neurons. However, you neglect to notice that the only reason you have seen neurons or heard about neurons, is through your experience. *Trying to make a part of your experience (neurons and ideas you've heard about neurons) responsible for producing all of your experience, is a contradiction.* These assertions are self-contradictory, I'm not sure if you've noticed that. > > > > I understand how emotionally involved the attempt to explain experience and awareness can be, and attempting to dissuade someone from such an attempt is unlikely, if they are invested in it. I understand that there is no ultimate explanation for awareness. Because experience arises from, with, and through awareness, there ultimately is no explanation for experience either. There are aspects of experience that are attributable to neuronal activity, to be sure. Yet the totality of what experience is, cannot be explained that way. > > > > Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " or " nothingness " - and that is all. > > > > > > > > > > Experiencer and experience are not-two. > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is the same. > > > > As this is so, *the experiencer isn't able to define the experience nor how experience is " made " or from what it is made.* The experiencer is the experience and the experiencing. > > > > > > Thus, memory can't track " what is. " > > > > > > > > > No, as already written before 'what is' is the result of neuronal activities. > > > > The truth of this matter is the very " isness, " the very " nothing " itself - no activity involved, nothing producing it - beyond words and definitions. > > > > Here, one is. > > > > No memory, no neuronal activity is defining what this is. > > > > > > > > And " what is " doesn't have any concern to prevent memory functions. > > > > > > > > Why would it? Concerns, motives, acting to prevent something from happening -- all of these activities are associated with memory. > > > > > > > > > Yes, just consider conditioned responses. > > > > Indeed. > > > > And the conditioned responder has no way of knowing the unconditioned and unconditional. > > > > *The conditioned responder, and his sense of self and existence, and his world of experiences based on memory, cannot touch or know this unconditional truth.* > > > > Thus, it is only the dropping away of the conditioned responder, his sense of self, his consciousness anchored in memory and past experiences, that " opens " this truth as it is. > > > > Nothing is really opened, but the dropping away of the attempt at an individual center for knowledge and experience gives that sense of an opening. > > > > It simply is as is - neither opening or closing, neither being nor not being. > > > > - Dan - > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > > > > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > > > > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > > > > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > > > > > myth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > > > > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > > > > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > > > > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > > > > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > > > > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > > > > > form. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. > > > > > > > > > > Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. > > > > > > > > > > The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Awareness transcendent of time and knowledge isn't defined by memory, but doesn't prevent the " use " of memory. > > > > > > > > > No Dan, > > > > > > Awareness is a neuronal activity. Awareness or consciousness is memory. When memory neuros are lit then it is called awareness, when these nurons are inactive then just they represent memory. > > > > Hi Werner - > > > > Awareness is not the same as consciousness. > > > > Awareness allows you to define yourself as conscious at some times and not conscious at other times. > > > > When you are in deep sleep, you are not conscious, but awareness is. > > > > > > Who am I, prior to the conception of my body-mind by my parents? ... > > > > > > One only knows how to define memory, memory neurons, activity of neurons, by using memory. > > > > Yet, one is aware of memory. > > > > Memory is not producing awareness. > > > > Awareness transcends memory. > > > > It seems odd to me that you cited a talk by Krishnamurti wherein he made the point that awareness transcends memory, and now you attempt to refute that very point that you cited in that talk. You asked me to read through the text of the talk. Now you attempt to refute the point that K made. (However, you haven't refuted it, imho.) > > > > > > > All the decoratiion you added like 'transcendet of time and knowledge' is just like decorating a dead cow. > > > > To you, perhaps. To me, it is the closest approximation I can make to the truth, by using words, when I understand that this truth is not of words (nor of memory). > > > > > > Memory simply " materializes " along with every aspect of your experience. > > > > > > > > > No, Dan, > > > > > > Experience is q rather a complex activity of the neuronal network associating and comparing new sensory input with past data already stored in memory. The result is called 'experience'. > > > > Again, you can only make these designations and definitions by referring to memory. > > > > Apparently, you are associating awareness with the activity of neurons and memory. Apparently, you hold to a definition of yourself in a way that depends on memory and knowledge. > > > > Have you noticed awareness with no memory active? It is so, although your words claim that it cannot be, and claim that only when memory and neuronal activity is there awareness. You also seem to assume that only when there is individual consciousness is there awareness. > > > > Again, it seems odd to me that you cited a K talk, and insisted on the importance of reading it through, when the very point he made was concerning " this immensity " that is " not of time. " This " nothingness " (as he referred to it in another point in that dialogue). > > > > Apparently, you view all of your experience as generated by neurons. However, you neglect to notice that the only reason you have seen neurons or heard about neurons, is through your experience. *Trying to make a part of your experience (neurons and ideas you've heard about neurons) responsible for producing all of your experience, is a contradiction.* These assertions are self-contradictory, I'm not sure if you've noticed that. > > > > I understand how emotionally involved the attempt to explain experience and awareness can be, and attempting to dissuade someone from such an attempt is unlikely, if they are invested in it. I understand that there is no ultimate explanation for awareness. Because experience arises from, with, and through awareness, there ultimately is no explanation for experience either. There are aspects of experience that are attributable to neuronal activity, to be sure. Yet the totality of what experience is, cannot be explained that way. > > > > Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " or " nothingness " - and that is all. > > > > > > > > > > Experiencer and experience are not-two. > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is the same. > > > > As this is so, *the experiencer isn't able to define the experience nor how experience is " made " or from what it is made.* The experiencer is the experience and the experiencing. > > > > > > Thus, memory can't track " what is. " > > > > > > > > > No, as already written before 'what is' is the result of neuronal activities. > > > > The truth of this matter is the very " isness, " the very " nothing " itself - no activity involved, nothing producing it - beyond words and definitions. > > > > Here, one is. > > > > No memory, no neuronal activity is defining what this is. > > > > > > > > And " what is " doesn't have any concern to prevent memory functions. > > > > > > > > Why would it? Concerns, motives, acting to prevent something from happening -- all of these activities are associated with memory. > > > > > > > > > Yes, just consider conditioned responses. > > > > Indeed. > > > > And the conditioned responder has no way of knowing the unconditioned and unconditional. > > > > *The conditioned responder, and his sense of self and existence, and his world of experiences based on memory, cannot touch or know this unconditional truth.* > > > > Thus, it is only the dropping away of the conditioned responder, his sense of self, his consciousness anchored in memory and past experiences, that " opens " this truth as it is. > > > > Nothing is really opened, but the dropping away of the attempt at an individual center for knowledge and experience gives that sense of an opening. > > > > It simply is as is - neither opening or closing, neither being nor not being. > > > > - Dan - > > > oh.. > > so.. > > it's just asing as it's asing and ising as it's ising.. > > and that clears'er all up. > > yup. > > sure thing. > > you go ahead and believe that. > > that's just believing as it's believing.. > > and that's just thating as it thating. > > i mean that is so fucking profound as it's profounding that it's.. > > it's ..it's..it's.. > > it's funnier than anything you could have said. > > saying that it's just saying as it's saying.. > > neither opening nor closing nor both nor neither nor anything. > > yeah that's it! > > LOL! > > .b b.b. Tao Te Ching: Chapter 16: Empty your mind of all thoughts. Let your heart be at peace. Watch the turmoil of beings, but contemplate their return. Each separate being in the universe returns to the common source. Returning to the source is serenity. If you don't realize the source, you stumble in confusion and sorrow. When you realize where you come from, you naturally become tolerant, disinterested, amused, kindhearted as a grandmother, dignified as a king. Immersed in the wonder of the Tao, you can deal with whatever life brings you, and when death comes, you are ready. Chapter 41: When a superior man hears of the Tao, he immediately begins to embody it. When an average man hears of the Tao, he half believes it, half doubts it. When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud. If he didn't laugh, it wouldn't be the Tao. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Hi Pete - Enjoying the discsussion -- Certainly representations of limbs occur in the brain. Also, it is very likely that memories are stored in other cells in the body in addition to the brain. I once read a research article about memories stored in the gut, referring to the gut as " the second brain, " and how the muscles in the gut area are involved in bodily tensions that retain memory, and are involved in emotional reactions to events. I've also heard much " anecdotal evidence " about this, such as memories of trauma that surfaced during a deep tissue massage. There is no reason to assume that only the brain is involved in memory retention. The brain is just a system of cells, specialized through evolution and time, but nonetheless, cells communicating with one another through chemical and electrical interactions. Just as cells in the rest of the body-mind system are involved in commmunicating through chemical and electric interaction. Whatever memory is, it seems to have developed increasingly specialized functions through the evolution of the brain. Yet, the function that was developed can be traced back to cellular functions of the rest of the body. I'm sure this is true for every organ of the body. The body operates as a whole, inclusive of the brain, and not with the brain existing in any separate way in terms of function. This is not to say that the brain doesn't have very significant, unique functions that evolved over time, that are critical to the life of the human organism. It does. As do other organ systems. Hands, feet, gut, liver, lungs. There is interdependent organization involved in all of it, a " bodily intelligence " if you will, that includes the brain, but is not solely a property of the brain. -- Dan -- Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > P:Very good addendum to what I said. Thanks. > We think we feel our body, actually, we feel > the model of the body stored in the brain, > as demonstrated by people who feel pain on > an amputated hand, or others who claim that > their leg is not theirs because they lost > the feeling of owning the leg. Orientation > also depends on this model. > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Reality orientation also involves a felt-sense, constructed by the body, in an effort to orient to location and environment, identify threats, identify needed resources, and continue and survive. > > > > Thus, much of reality orientation goes on outside of the kind of conscious deliberation and supposed rationality involved in human decision-making that we discuss and ponder. > > > > Much of our reality orientation occurs on a visceral, felt level, which tends to overrun and sometimes overwhelm the supposedly rational decision-making and pondering of human thinking. > > > > To be really clear about the ambiguity, uncertainty, and tentative nature of reality formation involves awareness that sees through and beyond bodily level concerns related to survival that can generate intense anxiety, greed, anger, lust, varied kinds of deceit, manipulations and direct attacks on others, etc. > > > > These kinds of intense emotions and survival strategies tend to be ignored, supressed or avoided by people as they engage in their intellectual discussions and debates about morality, ethics, the nature of logic, memory, spiritual experiences, and so on. But those emotions and that attempt to maintain a reality associated with personal survival are there,and can be seen to surface at times when there are direct challenges and threats (such as threat to one's > > life, one's livelihood, one's wealth, access to resources and possessions, one's loved ones, one's religion, one's country, one's status and reputation, one's beliefs, one's security, etc.). > > > > Nonetheless, reality is tentative, probabilistic, constructed, and actually has no center in any kind of personalized being. > > > > To live aware-ly, without anchoring to a reality orientation, yet able to participate in consensus reality, involves the " overthrow " of the body's reality principle, the principle that associates identification and effective response related to threats and needed resources, with reality and knowledge. > > > > - Dan > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > > myth. > > > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > > form. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 > > > > No Dan, > > > > > > > > Awareness is a neuronal activity. Awareness or consciousness is memory. When memory neuros are lit then it is called awareness, when these nurons are inactive then just they represent memory. > > > > > > Hi Werner - > > > > > > Awareness is not the same as consciousness. > > > > > > Awareness allows you to define yourself as conscious at some times and not conscious at other times. > > > > > > When you are in deep sleep, you are not conscious, but awareness is. > > > > > > That deep sleep stuff from Ramana in my eyes is nonsense. Either Raman never really was in deep sleep or he was just inventing that there exists that kind of 'awareness'. > > > > In short - I do not believe Ramana. > > I'm not saying this because of Ramana. > > Does your hair stop growing while you sleep? your hair doesn't stop growing even after you die. check it out. open a casket months after burial.. and both hair and fingernails have continued to 'grow " . even with nothing but embalming fluid in the bod's dead plumbing. it's a forensic scientists laughing point. > Do you stop breathing? in sleep no..after death most of the time yes. > > Apparently, you think that things exist and happen outside of awareness. who's aware of that hair growing or fingernail lenghtening.. after the meat's been laid to rest and to waste? i mean besides the ghouls who dig it up to find out? > So, you conceive of a fragmented awareness, existing separately from things, things that exist apart from awareness and from each other. > > This is belief in division, although to you it is " how things are, " so you don't count it as a belief. You think you are arguing without involving belief. Because this is reality for you. and the opposite of that belief is just and only your belief. god i don't believe it. i'm sticking up for wernie. LOL! > > And therefore I stay with it: Such a state called 'awareness' in which you seem to belief in is just an idea and has no worth whatsoever. it's worth saying but not worth many Deutsch Marks. that's not saying much that it's not worth saying though. god i can't believe it. i'm sticking up for danny. LOL! > It has no worth to you, perhaps because it challenges your assumptions. you're assuming that. that's not worth much either. > Awareness isn't a state. it's not another name for Idaho? well when a hooker says " I da ho " .. what isn't she aware of? > Perhaps consider re-reading Krishnamurti and what he said about awareness, since you seem to like him. When you hear it from me, you don't like it. So be it. aw you need to be loved. it be so. > No problemo -- I'm not trying to convince you. bullshit. what do you call it then? > I'm just putting it out there, discard it if it has no relevance for you. if that were true for you.. you wouldn't " put it out there' for him in the first place. who you trying to kid? > > If you want to build your house of argumentation on a belief then just go on but please don't invite me to share it with you. that's big of you wernie. who'd want to share anything with you anyway? > I'm just putting out a point of view. > > I notice that you disregarded everything I said below about your previous citation of Krishnamurti and what he said. Apparently, that doesn't fit with your current " argument. " > > So be it. > > - Dan and so it is. suck it up and live with it. don't keep going on with that " so be it " bullshit. Let It Be Written! LOL! this is fun! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > > > > > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > > > > > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > > > > > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > > > > > > myth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > > > > > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > > > > > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > > > > > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > > > > > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > > > > > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > > > > > > form. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. > > > > > > > > > > > > The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > Awareness transcendent of time and knowledge isn't defined by memory, but doesn't prevent the " use " of memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > No Dan, > > > > > > > > Awareness is a neuronal activity. Awareness or consciousness is memory. When memory neuros are lit then it is called awareness, when these nurons are inactive then just they represent memory. > > > > > > Hi Werner - > > > > > > Awareness is not the same as consciousness. > > > > > > Awareness allows you to define yourself as conscious at some times and not conscious at other times. > > > > > > When you are in deep sleep, you are not conscious, but awareness is. > > > > > > > > > Who am I, prior to the conception of my body-mind by my parents? ... > > > > > > > > > One only knows how to define memory, memory neurons, activity of neurons, by using memory. > > > > > > Yet, one is aware of memory. > > > > > > Memory is not producing awareness. > > > > > > Awareness transcends memory. > > > > > > It seems odd to me that you cited a talk by Krishnamurti wherein he made the point that awareness transcends memory, and now you attempt to refute that very point that you cited in that talk. You asked me to read through the text of the talk. Now you attempt to refute the point that K made. (However, you haven't refuted it, imho.) > > > > > > > > > > All the decoratiion you added like 'transcendet of time and knowledge' is just like decorating a dead cow. > > > > > > To you, perhaps. To me, it is the closest approximation I can make to the truth, by using words, when I understand that this truth is not of words (nor of memory). > > > > > > > > Memory simply " materializes " along with every aspect of your experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Dan, > > > > > > > > Experience is q rather a complex activity of the neuronal network associating and comparing new sensory input with past data already stored in memory. The result is called 'experience'. > > > > > > Again, you can only make these designations and definitions by referring to memory. > > > > > > Apparently, you are associating awareness with the activity of neurons and memory. Apparently, you hold to a definition of yourself in a way that depends on memory and knowledge. > > > > > > Have you noticed awareness with no memory active? It is so, although your words claim that it cannot be, and claim that only when memory and neuronal activity is there awareness. You also seem to assume that only when there is individual consciousness is there awareness. > > > > > > Again, it seems odd to me that you cited a K talk, and insisted on the importance of reading it through, when the very point he made was concerning " this immensity " that is " not of time. " This " nothingness " (as he referred to it in another point in that dialogue). > > > > > > Apparently, you view all of your experience as generated by neurons. However, you neglect to notice that the only reason you have seen neurons or heard about neurons, is through your experience. *Trying to make a part of your experience (neurons and ideas you've heard about neurons) responsible for producing all of your experience, is a contradiction.* These assertions are self-contradictory, I'm not sure if you've noticed that. > > > > > > I understand how emotionally involved the attempt to explain experience and awareness can be, and attempting to dissuade someone from such an attempt is unlikely, if they are invested in it. I understand that there is no ultimate explanation for awareness. Because experience arises from, with, and through awareness, there ultimately is no explanation for experience either. There are aspects of experience that are attributable to neuronal activity, to be sure. Yet the totality of what experience is, cannot be explained that way. > > > > > > Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " or " nothingness " - and that is all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiencer and experience are not-two. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is the same. > > > > > > As this is so, *the experiencer isn't able to define the experience nor how experience is " made " or from what it is made.* The experiencer is the experience and the experiencing. > > > > > > > > Thus, memory can't track " what is. " > > > > > > > > > > > > No, as already written before 'what is' is the result of neuronal activities. > > > > > > The truth of this matter is the very " isness, " the very " nothing " itself - no activity involved, nothing producing it - beyond words and definitions. > > > > > > Here, one is. > > > > > > No memory, no neuronal activity is defining what this is. > > > > > > > > > > > And " what is " doesn't have any concern to prevent memory functions. > > > > > > > > > > Why would it? Concerns, motives, acting to prevent something from happening -- all of these activities are associated with memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, just consider conditioned responses. > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > And the conditioned responder has no way of knowing the unconditioned and unconditional. > > > > > > *The conditioned responder, and his sense of self and existence, and his world of experiences based on memory, cannot touch or know this unconditional truth.* > > > > > > Thus, it is only the dropping away of the conditioned responder, his sense of self, his consciousness anchored in memory and past experiences, that " opens " this truth as it is. > > > > > > Nothing is really opened, but the dropping away of the attempt at an individual center for knowledge and experience gives that sense of an opening. > > > > > > It simply is as is - neither opening or closing, neither being nor not being. > > > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > oh.. > > > > so.. > > > > it's just asing as it's asing and ising as it's ising.. > > > > and that clears'er all up. > > > > yup. > > > > sure thing. > > > > you go ahead and believe that. > > > > that's just believing as it's believing.. > > > > and that's just thating as it thating. > > > > i mean that is so fucking profound as it's profounding that it's.. > > > > it's ..it's..it's.. > > > > it's funnier than anything you could have said. > > > > saying that it's just saying as it's saying.. > > > > neither opening nor closing nor both nor neither nor anything. > > > > yeah that's it! > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > Tao Te Ching: > > Chapter 16: > > Empty your mind of all thoughts. > Let your heart be at peace. > Watch the turmoil of beings, > but contemplate their return. > > Each separate being in the universe > returns to the common source. > Returning to the source is serenity. > > If you don't realize the source, > you stumble in confusion and sorrow. > When you realize where you come from, > you naturally become tolerant, > disinterested, amused, > kindhearted as a grandmother, > dignified as a king. > Immersed in the wonder of the Tao, > you can deal with whatever life brings you, > and when death comes, you are ready. > > Chapter 41: > > When a superior man hears of the Tao, > he immediately begins to embody it. > When an average man hears of the Tao, > he half believes it, half doubts it. > When a foolish man hears of the Tao, > he laughs out loud. > If he didn't laugh, > it wouldn't be the Tao. you think you're a superior man? a..ah..ahhhaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa haa haharghhhhhhhh!!!!!! that's the most bullshit you've come up with yet danny. oh my god! you're a sheep son. if you didn't quote this crap you'd not be the dumb ass you are. ROFLMAO! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > > > > > > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > > > > > > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > > > > > > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > > > > > > > myth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > > > > > > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > > > > > > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > > > > > > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > > > > > > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > > > > > > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > > > > > > > form. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness transcendent of time and knowledge isn't defined by memory, but doesn't prevent the " use " of memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Dan, > > > > > > > > > > Awareness is a neuronal activity. Awareness or consciousness is memory. When memory neuros are lit then it is called awareness, when these nurons are inactive then just they represent memory. > > > > > > > > Hi Werner - > > > > > > > > Awareness is not the same as consciousness. > > > > > > > > Awareness allows you to define yourself as conscious at some times and not conscious at other times. > > > > > > > > When you are in deep sleep, you are not conscious, but awareness is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Who am I, prior to the conception of my body-mind by my parents? ... > > > > > > > > > > > > One only knows how to define memory, memory neurons, activity of neurons, by using memory. > > > > > > > > Yet, one is aware of memory. > > > > > > > > Memory is not producing awareness. > > > > > > > > Awareness transcends memory. > > > > > > > > It seems odd to me that you cited a talk by Krishnamurti wherein he made the point that awareness transcends memory, and now you attempt to refute that very point that you cited in that talk. You asked me to read through the text of the talk. Now you attempt to refute the point that K made. (However, you haven't refuted it, imho.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > All the decoratiion you added like 'transcendet of time and knowledge' is just like decorating a dead cow. > > > > > > > > To you, perhaps. To me, it is the closest approximation I can make to the truth, by using words, when I understand that this truth is not of words (nor of memory). > > > > > > > > > > Memory simply " materializes " along with every aspect of your experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Dan, > > > > > > > > > > Experience is q rather a complex activity of the neuronal network associating and comparing new sensory input with past data already stored in memory. The result is called 'experience'. > > > > > > > > Again, you can only make these designations and definitions by referring to memory. > > > > > > > > Apparently, you are associating awareness with the activity of neurons and memory. Apparently, you hold to a definition of yourself in a way that depends on memory and knowledge. > > > > > > > > Have you noticed awareness with no memory active? It is so, although your words claim that it cannot be, and claim that only when memory and neuronal activity is there awareness. You also seem to assume that only when there is individual consciousness is there awareness. > > > > > > > > Again, it seems odd to me that you cited a K talk, and insisted on the importance of reading it through, when the very point he made was concerning " this immensity " that is " not of time. " This " nothingness " (as he referred to it in another point in that dialogue). > > > > > > > > Apparently, you view all of your experience as generated by neurons. However, you neglect to notice that the only reason you have seen neurons or heard about neurons, is through your experience. *Trying to make a part of your experience (neurons and ideas you've heard about neurons) responsible for producing all of your experience, is a contradiction.* These assertions are self-contradictory, I'm not sure if you've noticed that. > > > > > > > > I understand how emotionally involved the attempt to explain experience and awareness can be, and attempting to dissuade someone from such an attempt is unlikely, if they are invested in it. I understand that there is no ultimate explanation for awareness. Because experience arises from, with, and through awareness, there ultimately is no explanation for experience either. There are aspects of experience that are attributable to neuronal activity, to be sure. Yet the totality of what experience is, cannot be explained that way. > > > > > > > > Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " or " nothingness " - and that is all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiencer and experience are not-two. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is the same. > > > > > > > > As this is so, *the experiencer isn't able to define the experience nor how experience is " made " or from what it is made.* The experiencer is the experience and the experiencing. > > > > > > > > > > Thus, memory can't track " what is. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, as already written before 'what is' is the result of neuronal activities. > > > > > > > > The truth of this matter is the very " isness, " the very " nothing " itself - no activity involved, nothing producing it - beyond words and definitions. > > > > > > > > Here, one is. > > > > > > > > No memory, no neuronal activity is defining what this is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And " what is " doesn't have any concern to prevent memory functions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would it? Concerns, motives, acting to prevent something from happening -- all of these activities are associated with memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, just consider conditioned responses. > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > And the conditioned responder has no way of knowing the unconditioned and unconditional. > > > > > > > > *The conditioned responder, and his sense of self and existence, and his world of experiences based on memory, cannot touch or know this unconditional truth.* > > > > > > > > Thus, it is only the dropping away of the conditioned responder, his sense of self, his consciousness anchored in memory and past experiences, that " opens " this truth as it is. > > > > > > > > Nothing is really opened, but the dropping away of the attempt at an individual center for knowledge and experience gives that sense of an opening. > > > > > > > > It simply is as is - neither opening or closing, neither being nor not being. > > > > > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > > > > oh.. > > > > > > so.. > > > > > > it's just asing as it's asing and ising as it's ising.. > > > > > > and that clears'er all up. > > > > > > yup. > > > > > > sure thing. > > > > > > you go ahead and believe that. > > > > > > that's just believing as it's believing.. > > > > > > and that's just thating as it thating. > > > > > > i mean that is so fucking profound as it's profounding that it's.. > > > > > > it's ..it's..it's.. > > > > > > it's funnier than anything you could have said. > > > > > > saying that it's just saying as it's saying.. > > > > > > neither opening nor closing nor both nor neither nor anything. > > > > > > yeah that's it! > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Tao Te Ching: > > > > Chapter 16: > > > > Empty your mind of all thoughts. > > Let your heart be at peace. > > Watch the turmoil of beings, > > but contemplate their return. > > > > Each separate being in the universe > > returns to the common source. > > Returning to the source is serenity. > > > > If you don't realize the source, > > you stumble in confusion and sorrow. > > When you realize where you come from, > > you naturally become tolerant, > > disinterested, amused, > > kindhearted as a grandmother, > > dignified as a king. > > Immersed in the wonder of the Tao, > > you can deal with whatever life brings you, > > and when death comes, you are ready. > > > > Chapter 41: > > > > When a superior man hears of the Tao, > > he immediately begins to embody it. > > When an average man hears of the Tao, > > he half believes it, half doubts it. > > When a foolish man hears of the Tao, > > he laughs out loud. > > If he didn't laugh, > > it wouldn't be the Tao. > > > you think you're a superior man? > > a..ah..ahhhaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa haa haharghhhhhhhh!!!!!! > > that's the most bullshit you've come up with yet danny. > > oh my god! > > you're a sheep son. > > if you didn't quote this crap you'd not be the dumb ass you are. > > ROFLMAO! > > .b b.b. of course you are, bobby. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > > > > > > > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > > > > > > > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > > > > > > > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > > > > > > > > myth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > > > > > > > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > > > > > > > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > > > > > > > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > > > > > > > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > > > > > > > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > > > > > > > > form. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness transcendent of time and knowledge isn't defined by memory, but doesn't prevent the " use " of memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness is a neuronal activity. Awareness or consciousness is memory. When memory neuros are lit then it is called awareness, when these nurons are inactive then just they represent memory. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner - > > > > > > > > > > Awareness is not the same as consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > Awareness allows you to define yourself as conscious at some times and not conscious at other times. > > > > > > > > > > When you are in deep sleep, you are not conscious, but awareness is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who am I, prior to the conception of my body-mind by my parents? ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One only knows how to define memory, memory neurons, activity of neurons, by using memory. > > > > > > > > > > Yet, one is aware of memory. > > > > > > > > > > Memory is not producing awareness. > > > > > > > > > > Awareness transcends memory. > > > > > > > > > > It seems odd to me that you cited a talk by Krishnamurti wherein he made the point that awareness transcends memory, and now you attempt to refute that very point that you cited in that talk. You asked me to read through the text of the talk. Now you attempt to refute the point that K made. (However, you haven't refuted it, imho.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All the decoratiion you added like 'transcendet of time and knowledge' is just like decorating a dead cow. > > > > > > > > > > To you, perhaps. To me, it is the closest approximation I can make to the truth, by using words, when I understand that this truth is not of words (nor of memory). > > > > > > > > > > > > Memory simply " materializes " along with every aspect of your experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > Experience is q rather a complex activity of the neuronal network associating and comparing new sensory input with past data already stored in memory. The result is called 'experience'. > > > > > > > > > > Again, you can only make these designations and definitions by referring to memory. > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, you are associating awareness with the activity of neurons and memory. Apparently, you hold to a definition of yourself in a way that depends on memory and knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > Have you noticed awareness with no memory active? It is so, although your words claim that it cannot be, and claim that only when memory and neuronal activity is there awareness. You also seem to assume that only when there is individual consciousness is there awareness. > > > > > > > > > > Again, it seems odd to me that you cited a K talk, and insisted on the importance of reading it through, when the very point he made was concerning " this immensity " that is " not of time. " This " nothingness " (as he referred to it in another point in that dialogue). > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, you view all of your experience as generated by neurons. However, you neglect to notice that the only reason you have seen neurons or heard about neurons, is through your experience. *Trying to make a part of your experience (neurons and ideas you've heard about neurons) responsible for producing all of your experience, is a contradiction.* These assertions are self-contradictory, I'm not sure if you've noticed that. > > > > > > > > > > I understand how emotionally involved the attempt to explain experience and awareness can be, and attempting to dissuade someone from such an attempt is unlikely, if they are invested in it. I understand that there is no ultimate explanation for awareness. Because experience arises from, with, and through awareness, there ultimately is no explanation for experience either. There are aspects of experience that are attributable to neuronal activity, to be sure. Yet the totality of what experience is, cannot be explained that way. > > > > > > > > > > Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " or " nothingness " - and that is all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiencer and experience are not-two. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is the same. > > > > > > > > > > As this is so, *the experiencer isn't able to define the experience nor how experience is " made " or from what it is made.* The experiencer is the experience and the experiencing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, memory can't track " what is. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, as already written before 'what is' is the result of neuronal activities. > > > > > > > > > > The truth of this matter is the very " isness, " the very " nothing " itself - no activity involved, nothing producing it - beyond words and definitions. > > > > > > > > > > Here, one is. > > > > > > > > > > No memory, no neuronal activity is defining what this is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And " what is " doesn't have any concern to prevent memory functions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would it? Concerns, motives, acting to prevent something from happening -- all of these activities are associated with memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, just consider conditioned responses. > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > And the conditioned responder has no way of knowing the unconditioned and unconditional. > > > > > > > > > > *The conditioned responder, and his sense of self and existence, and his world of experiences based on memory, cannot touch or know this unconditional truth.* > > > > > > > > > > Thus, it is only the dropping away of the conditioned responder, his sense of self, his consciousness anchored in memory and past experiences, that " opens " this truth as it is. > > > > > > > > > > Nothing is really opened, but the dropping away of the attempt at an individual center for knowledge and experience gives that sense of an opening. > > > > > > > > > > It simply is as is - neither opening or closing, neither being nor not being. > > > > > > > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > > > > > > > oh.. > > > > > > > > so.. > > > > > > > > it's just asing as it's asing and ising as it's ising.. > > > > > > > > and that clears'er all up. > > > > > > > > yup. > > > > > > > > sure thing. > > > > > > > > you go ahead and believe that. > > > > > > > > that's just believing as it's believing.. > > > > > > > > and that's just thating as it thating. > > > > > > > > i mean that is so fucking profound as it's profounding that it's.. > > > > > > > > it's ..it's..it's.. > > > > > > > > it's funnier than anything you could have said. > > > > > > > > saying that it's just saying as it's saying.. > > > > > > > > neither opening nor closing nor both nor neither nor anything. > > > > > > > > yeah that's it! > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Tao Te Ching: > > > > > > Chapter 16: > > > > > > Empty your mind of all thoughts. > > > Let your heart be at peace. > > > Watch the turmoil of beings, > > > but contemplate their return. > > > > > > Each separate being in the universe > > > returns to the common source. > > > Returning to the source is serenity. > > > > > > If you don't realize the source, > > > you stumble in confusion and sorrow. > > > When you realize where you come from, > > > you naturally become tolerant, > > > disinterested, amused, > > > kindhearted as a grandmother, > > > dignified as a king. > > > Immersed in the wonder of the Tao, > > > you can deal with whatever life brings you, > > > and when death comes, you are ready. > > > > > > Chapter 41: > > > > > > When a superior man hears of the Tao, > > > he immediately begins to embody it. > > > When an average man hears of the Tao, > > > he half believes it, half doubts it. > > > When a foolish man hears of the Tao, > > > he laughs out loud. > > > If he didn't laugh, > > > it wouldn't be the Tao. > > > > > > you think you're a superior man? > > > > a..ah..ahhhaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa haa haharghhhhhhhh!!!!!! > > > > that's the most bullshit you've come up with yet danny. > > > > oh my god! > > > > you're a sheep son. > > > > if you didn't quote this crap you'd not be the dumb ass you are. > > > > ROFLMAO! > > > > .b b.b. > > of course you are, bobby. > > - d - And consider this part of the post that you left out in your response: Chapter 16: " Empty your mind of all thoughts. Let your heart be at peace. Watch the turmoil of beings, but contemplate their return. Each separate being in the universe returns to the common source. Returning to the source is serenity. If you don't realize the source, you stumble in confusion and sorrow. When you realize where you come from, you naturally become tolerant, disinterested, amused, kindhearted as a grandmother, dignified as a king. Immersed in the wonder of the Tao, you can deal with whatever life brings you, and when death comes, you are ready. " No other to attack, put down, and aim barbs at. No other to bring down to size. No motive for personalized negative speech aimed at getting a rise out of someone else. Natural acceptance, openness. No basis for judgment, condemnation, bitterness aimed at others. Empathy that arises causelessly. Wonder that arises spontaneously. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > > > > > > > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > > > > > > > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > > > > > > > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > > > > > > > > myth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > > > > > > > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > > > > > > > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > > > > > > > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > > > > > > > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > > > > > > > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > > > > > > > > form. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness transcendent of time and knowledge isn't defined by memory, but doesn't prevent the " use " of memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness is a neuronal activity. Awareness or consciousness is memory. When memory neuros are lit then it is called awareness, when these nurons are inactive then just they represent memory. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner - > > > > > > > > > > Awareness is not the same as consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > Awareness allows you to define yourself as conscious at some times and not conscious at other times. > > > > > > > > > > When you are in deep sleep, you are not conscious, but awareness is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who am I, prior to the conception of my body-mind by my parents? ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One only knows how to define memory, memory neurons, activity of neurons, by using memory. > > > > > > > > > > Yet, one is aware of memory. > > > > > > > > > > Memory is not producing awareness. > > > > > > > > > > Awareness transcends memory. > > > > > > > > > > It seems odd to me that you cited a talk by Krishnamurti wherein he made the point that awareness transcends memory, and now you attempt to refute that very point that you cited in that talk. You asked me to read through the text of the talk. Now you attempt to refute the point that K made. (However, you haven't refuted it, imho.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All the decoratiion you added like 'transcendet of time and knowledge' is just like decorating a dead cow. > > > > > > > > > > To you, perhaps. To me, it is the closest approximation I can make to the truth, by using words, when I understand that this truth is not of words (nor of memory). > > > > > > > > > > > > Memory simply " materializes " along with every aspect of your experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > Experience is q rather a complex activity of the neuronal network associating and comparing new sensory input with past data already stored in memory. The result is called 'experience'. > > > > > > > > > > Again, you can only make these designations and definitions by referring to memory. > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, you are associating awareness with the activity of neurons and memory. Apparently, you hold to a definition of yourself in a way that depends on memory and knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > Have you noticed awareness with no memory active? It is so, although your words claim that it cannot be, and claim that only when memory and neuronal activity is there awareness. You also seem to assume that only when there is individual consciousness is there awareness. > > > > > > > > > > Again, it seems odd to me that you cited a K talk, and insisted on the importance of reading it through, when the very point he made was concerning " this immensity " that is " not of time. " This " nothingness " (as he referred to it in another point in that dialogue). > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, you view all of your experience as generated by neurons. However, you neglect to notice that the only reason you have seen neurons or heard about neurons, is through your experience. *Trying to make a part of your experience (neurons and ideas you've heard about neurons) responsible for producing all of your experience, is a contradiction.* These assertions are self-contradictory, I'm not sure if you've noticed that. > > > > > > > > > > I understand how emotionally involved the attempt to explain experience and awareness can be, and attempting to dissuade someone from such an attempt is unlikely, if they are invested in it. I understand that there is no ultimate explanation for awareness. Because experience arises from, with, and through awareness, there ultimately is no explanation for experience either. There are aspects of experience that are attributable to neuronal activity, to be sure. Yet the totality of what experience is, cannot be explained that way. > > > > > > > > > > Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " or " nothingness " - and that is all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiencer and experience are not-two. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is the same. > > > > > > > > > > As this is so, *the experiencer isn't able to define the experience nor how experience is " made " or from what it is made.* The experiencer is the experience and the experiencing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, memory can't track " what is. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, as already written before 'what is' is the result of neuronal activities. > > > > > > > > > > The truth of this matter is the very " isness, " the very " nothing " itself - no activity involved, nothing producing it - beyond words and definitions. > > > > > > > > > > Here, one is. > > > > > > > > > > No memory, no neuronal activity is defining what this is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And " what is " doesn't have any concern to prevent memory functions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would it? Concerns, motives, acting to prevent something from happening -- all of these activities are associated with memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, just consider conditioned responses. > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > And the conditioned responder has no way of knowing the unconditioned and unconditional. > > > > > > > > > > *The conditioned responder, and his sense of self and existence, and his world of experiences based on memory, cannot touch or know this unconditional truth.* > > > > > > > > > > Thus, it is only the dropping away of the conditioned responder, his sense of self, his consciousness anchored in memory and past experiences, that " opens " this truth as it is. > > > > > > > > > > Nothing is really opened, but the dropping away of the attempt at an individual center for knowledge and experience gives that sense of an opening. > > > > > > > > > > It simply is as is - neither opening or closing, neither being nor not being. > > > > > > > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > > > > > > > oh.. > > > > > > > > so.. > > > > > > > > it's just asing as it's asing and ising as it's ising.. > > > > > > > > and that clears'er all up. > > > > > > > > yup. > > > > > > > > sure thing. > > > > > > > > you go ahead and believe that. > > > > > > > > that's just believing as it's believing.. > > > > > > > > and that's just thating as it thating. > > > > > > > > i mean that is so fucking profound as it's profounding that it's.. > > > > > > > > it's ..it's..it's.. > > > > > > > > it's funnier than anything you could have said. > > > > > > > > saying that it's just saying as it's saying.. > > > > > > > > neither opening nor closing nor both nor neither nor anything. > > > > > > > > yeah that's it! > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Tao Te Ching: > > > > > > Chapter 16: > > > > > > Empty your mind of all thoughts. > > > Let your heart be at peace. > > > Watch the turmoil of beings, > > > but contemplate their return. > > > > > > Each separate being in the universe > > > returns to the common source. > > > Returning to the source is serenity. > > > > > > If you don't realize the source, > > > you stumble in confusion and sorrow. > > > When you realize where you come from, > > > you naturally become tolerant, > > > disinterested, amused, > > > kindhearted as a grandmother, > > > dignified as a king. > > > Immersed in the wonder of the Tao, > > > you can deal with whatever life brings you, > > > and when death comes, you are ready. > > > > > > Chapter 41: > > > > > > When a superior man hears of the Tao, > > > he immediately begins to embody it. > > > When an average man hears of the Tao, > > > he half believes it, half doubts it. > > > When a foolish man hears of the Tao, > > > he laughs out loud. > > > If he didn't laugh, > > > it wouldn't be the Tao. > > > > > > you think you're a superior man? > > > > a..ah..ahhhaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa haa haharghhhhhhhh!!!!!! > > > > that's the most bullshit you've come up with yet danny. > > > > oh my god! > > > > you're a sheep son. > > > > if you didn't quote this crap you'd not be the dumb ass you are. > > > > ROFLMAO! > > > > .b b.b. > > of course you are, bobby. > > - d - that's the best that a " superior man " has to offer eh danny? in fact daniel it takes an inferior mind to discriminate.. and to make a distinction between superior and inferior. it doesn't take a man at all. it takes a smarmy pipsqueak son. and you danny are the epitome of just that. though i'm amused... and should be diabused of the notion that you are superior. reading your garbage makes it clear that you're just killing time. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reality is a story we tell ourselves to > > > > > > > > > > sleep well, a story to make sense of our days. > > > > > > > > > > All knowledge, even the most mundane or the > > > > > > > > > > most scientific is only fiction, poetry and > > > > > > > > > > myth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Practical knowhow (our manipulation of > > > > > > > > > > the world) creates the illusion that our concepts > > > > > > > > > > are truth, but it's only make belief knowledge, > > > > > > > > > > modal fictionalism, and mythopoesis. Beneath the > > > > > > > > > > artistry of ideation the unknown remains untouched, > > > > > > > > > > not colored by meaning, reason, goal, or intelligeble > > > > > > > > > > form. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete, I can't see that the known is a myth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without knowing how to, you couldn't use your computer and type your posts and you couldn't recall my name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The known is memory and the unknown is philosophers' darling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness transcendent of time and knowledge isn't defined by memory, but doesn't prevent the " use " of memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness is a neuronal activity. Awareness or consciousness is memory. When memory neuros are lit then it is called awareness, when these nurons are inactive then just they represent memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner - > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness is not the same as consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness allows you to define yourself as conscious at some times and not conscious at other times. > > > > > > > > > > > > When you are in deep sleep, you are not conscious, but awareness is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who am I, prior to the conception of my body-mind by my parents? ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One only knows how to define memory, memory neurons, activity of neurons, by using memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet, one is aware of memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > Memory is not producing awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness transcends memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems odd to me that you cited a talk by Krishnamurti wherein he made the point that awareness transcends memory, and now you attempt to refute that very point that you cited in that talk. You asked me to read through the text of the talk. Now you attempt to refute the point that K made. (However, you haven't refuted it, imho.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All the decoratiion you added like 'transcendet of time and knowledge' is just like decorating a dead cow. > > > > > > > > > > > > To you, perhaps. To me, it is the closest approximation I can make to the truth, by using words, when I understand that this truth is not of words (nor of memory). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Memory simply " materializes " along with every aspect of your experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experience is q rather a complex activity of the neuronal network associating and comparing new sensory input with past data already stored in memory. The result is called 'experience'. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, you can only make these designations and definitions by referring to memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, you are associating awareness with the activity of neurons and memory. Apparently, you hold to a definition of yourself in a way that depends on memory and knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you noticed awareness with no memory active? It is so, although your words claim that it cannot be, and claim that only when memory and neuronal activity is there awareness. You also seem to assume that only when there is individual consciousness is there awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, it seems odd to me that you cited a K talk, and insisted on the importance of reading it through, when the very point he made was concerning " this immensity " that is " not of time. " This " nothingness " (as he referred to it in another point in that dialogue). > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, you view all of your experience as generated by neurons. However, you neglect to notice that the only reason you have seen neurons or heard about neurons, is through your experience. *Trying to make a part of your experience (neurons and ideas you've heard about neurons) responsible for producing all of your experience, is a contradiction.* These assertions are self-contradictory, I'm not sure if you've noticed that. > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand how emotionally involved the attempt to explain experience and awareness can be, and attempting to dissuade someone from such an attempt is unlikely, if they are invested in it. I understand that there is no ultimate explanation for awareness. Because experience arises from, with, and through awareness, there ultimately is no explanation for experience either. There are aspects of experience that are attributable to neuronal activity, to be sure. Yet the totality of what experience is, cannot be explained that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " or " nothingness " - and that is all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiencer and experience are not-two. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > As this is so, *the experiencer isn't able to define the experience nor how experience is " made " or from what it is made.* The experiencer is the experience and the experiencing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, memory can't track " what is. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, as already written before 'what is' is the result of neuronal activities. > > > > > > > > > > > > The truth of this matter is the very " isness, " the very " nothing " itself - no activity involved, nothing producing it - beyond words and definitions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here, one is. > > > > > > > > > > > > No memory, no neuronal activity is defining what this is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And " what is " doesn't have any concern to prevent memory functions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would it? Concerns, motives, acting to prevent something from happening -- all of these activities are associated with memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, just consider conditioned responses. > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > And the conditioned responder has no way of knowing the unconditioned and unconditional. > > > > > > > > > > > > *The conditioned responder, and his sense of self and existence, and his world of experiences based on memory, cannot touch or know this unconditional truth.* > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, it is only the dropping away of the conditioned responder, his sense of self, his consciousness anchored in memory and past experiences, that " opens " this truth as it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing is really opened, but the dropping away of the attempt at an individual center for knowledge and experience gives that sense of an opening. > > > > > > > > > > > > It simply is as is - neither opening or closing, neither being nor not being. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh.. > > > > > > > > > > so.. > > > > > > > > > > it's just asing as it's asing and ising as it's ising.. > > > > > > > > > > and that clears'er all up. > > > > > > > > > > yup. > > > > > > > > > > sure thing. > > > > > > > > > > you go ahead and believe that. > > > > > > > > > > that's just believing as it's believing.. > > > > > > > > > > and that's just thating as it thating. > > > > > > > > > > i mean that is so fucking profound as it's profounding that it's.. > > > > > > > > > > it's ..it's..it's.. > > > > > > > > > > it's funnier than anything you could have said. > > > > > > > > > > saying that it's just saying as it's saying.. > > > > > > > > > > neither opening nor closing nor both nor neither nor anything. > > > > > > > > > > yeah that's it! > > > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Tao Te Ching: > > > > > > > > Chapter 16: > > > > > > > > Empty your mind of all thoughts. > > > > Let your heart be at peace. > > > > Watch the turmoil of beings, > > > > but contemplate their return. > > > > > > > > Each separate being in the universe > > > > returns to the common source. > > > > Returning to the source is serenity. > > > > > > > > If you don't realize the source, > > > > you stumble in confusion and sorrow. > > > > When you realize where you come from, > > > > you naturally become tolerant, > > > > disinterested, amused, > > > > kindhearted as a grandmother, > > > > dignified as a king. > > > > Immersed in the wonder of the Tao, > > > > you can deal with whatever life brings you, > > > > and when death comes, you are ready. > > > > > > > > Chapter 41: > > > > > > > > When a superior man hears of the Tao, > > > > he immediately begins to embody it. > > > > When an average man hears of the Tao, > > > > he half believes it, half doubts it. > > > > When a foolish man hears of the Tao, > > > > he laughs out loud. > > > > If he didn't laugh, > > > > it wouldn't be the Tao. > > > > > > > > > you think you're a superior man? > > > > > > a..ah..ahhhaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa haa haharghhhhhhhh!!!!!! > > > > > > that's the most bullshit you've come up with yet danny. > > > > > > oh my god! > > > > > > you're a sheep son. > > > > > > if you didn't quote this crap you'd not be the dumb ass you are. > > > > > > ROFLMAO! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > of course you are, bobby. > > > > - d - > > And consider this part of the post that you left out in your response: > > Chapter 16: > > " Empty your mind of all thoughts. > Let your heart be at peace. > Watch the turmoil of beings, > but contemplate their return. > > Each separate being in the universe > returns to the common source. > Returning to the source is serenity. > > If you don't realize the source, > you stumble in confusion and sorrow. > When you realize where you come from, > you naturally become tolerant, > disinterested, amused, > kindhearted as a grandmother, > dignified as a king. > Immersed in the wonder of the Tao, > you can deal with whatever life brings you, > and when death comes, you are ready. " > > No other to attack, put down, and aim barbs at. > > No other to bring down to size. > > No motive for personalized negative speech aimed at getting a rise out of someone else. > > Natural acceptance, openness. > > No basis for judgment, condemnation, bitterness aimed at others. > > Empathy that arises causelessly. > > Wonder that arises spontaneously. > > - D - i left nothing out of my post danny. every bit of that bullshit was re-posted with my reply. consider this: you're trying to lecture and pontificate. you're a bullshitter and phony. if you really have " crossed over " .. if you were really one with Tao.. if you really had the first fucking clue.. you'd throw away your verses and life-jackets. you are still very much at sea and in need of shallow approval. you quote and act as if your holy and enlightened. you danny are an asshole and idiot just like everyman. when there is no you defending a position..ANY position.. when there is no need to try and sound " enlightened " .. when you are truly dead and gone.. there won't be need of your pretentious bullshit. then you can say " fuck you shithead " .. and it won't cause offense or alarm... or even funnier and more stupid.. tepid and holier-than-thou forgiveness.. it will be all part of the fun of knowing that it's not important. until then dan oh " superior man " .. go ahead and stay cutesy talking about " no man " .. it fails to impress but it is funnier than hell. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " > or " nothingness " - and that is all. Thanks, Dan... the above really says it all. Peace... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > No other to attack, put down, and aim barbs at. > > No other to bring down to size. > > No motive for personalized negative speech aimed at getting a rise out of someone else. > > Natural acceptance, openness. > > No basis for judgment, condemnation, bitterness aimed at others. > > Empathy that arises causelessly. > > Wonder that arises spontaneously. > > - D - Yup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " > > or " nothingness " - and that is all. > > Thanks, Dan... the above really says it all. > > Peace... all the above says says is " it " . :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > No other to attack, put down, and aim barbs at. > > > > No other to bring down to size. > > > > No motive for personalized negative speech aimed at getting a rise out of someone else. > > > > Natural acceptance, openness. > > > > No basis for judgment, condemnation, bitterness aimed at others. > > > > Empathy that arises causelessly. > > > > Wonder that arises spontaneously. > > > > - D - > > Yup. suuuuuuuure. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " > > or " nothingness " - and that is all. > > Thanks, Dan... the above really says it all. > > Peace... Peace, Tim. You have heard. Not me and what I say. You simply have heard. Your responses are coherent. Not with an agenda. My impression. And thanks to you. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Either the attempt to manufacture and hold on to explanations burns out and ceases, or the attempt continues. If it burns out, awareness simply is. And transcends any sense of being defined or observed, and therefore is " nothing. " There is nothing that is causing things to be as they are. One rests in and as causeless " isness " > > > or " nothingness " - and that is all. > > > > Thanks, Dan... the above really says it all. > > > > Peace... > > Peace, Tim. > > You have heard. > > Not me and what I say. > > You simply have heard. > > Your responses are coherent. > > Not with an agenda. > > My impression. Thanks, Dan... wasn't looking for 'your impression', but looks like I got it ;-). Our impressions of 'others' are ever-subject to change, as is everything. Thus, they are useless. Peace... 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.