Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Agreed that there is no center anywhere. But one person acts and feels and > > > lives as if he had it and the other understood the illusion and lives > > > differently. > > > The one that understood sees the others confusion and may help him - just > > > like your guru did to you. > > > -geo- > > > > He didn't really do that. I say so because folks like to hear that kind of stuff, because they are then willing to give a little attention instead of arguing and fighting. > > > > What happened here was that I was dying of substance abuse. I was spending 24-hour stretches in front of the computer, using stimulants and doing the same meaningless, repeated activities. > > > > My personal horizons dissolved, disappeared. I didn't care about anything anymore, not even the drug. > > > > And everything got very simple, very easy somehow. > > > > The drugs were given up in mid 2008. They had served their purpose. They killed me. > > > > Is Geo happy now? ;-). > > > > peace... > > > so the cheap 9% solution is a better way to go huh? > > or were you lying about that. > > or are you lying now? > > do you know which is the case? > > .b b.b. Didn't say I don't swig a brewski from time to time. Something wrong with that? Any sissies around here? ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Agreed that there is no center anywhere. But one person acts and feels and > > > > lives as if he had it and the other understood the illusion and lives > > > > differently. > > > > The one that understood sees the others confusion and may help him - just > > > > like your guru did to you. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > He didn't really do that. I say so because folks like to hear that kind of stuff, because they are then willing to give a little attention instead of arguing and fighting. > > > > > > What happened here was that I was dying of substance abuse. I was spending 24-hour stretches in front of the computer, using stimulants and doing the same meaningless, repeated activities. > > > > > > My personal horizons dissolved, disappeared. I didn't care about anything anymore, not even the drug. > > > > > > And everything got very simple, very easy somehow. > > > > > > The drugs were given up in mid 2008. They had served their purpose. They killed me. > > > > > > Is Geo happy now? ;-). > > > > > > peace... > > > > > > so the cheap 9% solution is a better way to go huh? > > > > or were you lying about that. > > > > or are you lying now? > > > > do you know which is the case? > > > > .b b.b. > > Didn't say I don't swig a brewski from time to time. Something wrong with that? Any sissies around here? ;-). nothing is either right or wrong. alcohol is a drug. one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs.. know to the species. check it out... don't believe me. i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again. thanks for the admission. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > nothing is either right or wrong. > > alcohol is a drug. > > one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs.. So what? Life is a drug. It kills ya. Big . " complex and addictive and debilitating " ...blahblah nonsense. Some folks like to be indoctrinated by society. Do what ya like. Life happens once. There are no rules. > i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again. > > thanks for the admission. Nobody admitted to anything, but lots of folks imagine 'admissions' from imaginary persons they've never met, and probably never will. Nor do they want to, only to imagine them so they can draw a pretend line around themselves and have a pretend center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Agreed that there is no center anywhere. But one person acts and feels and > > > > > lives as if he had it and the other understood the illusion and lives > > > > > differently. > > > > > The one that understood sees the others confusion and may help him - just > > > > > like your guru did to you. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > He didn't really do that. I say so because folks like to hear that kind of stuff, because they are then willing to give a little attention instead of arguing and fighting. > > > > > > > > What happened here was that I was dying of substance abuse. I was spending 24-hour stretches in front of the computer, using stimulants and doing the same meaningless, repeated activities. > > > > > > > > My personal horizons dissolved, disappeared. I didn't care about anything anymore, not even the drug. > > > > > > > > And everything got very simple, very easy somehow. > > > > > > > > The drugs were given up in mid 2008. They had served their purpose. They killed me. > > > > > > > > Is Geo happy now? ;-). > > > > > > > > peace... > > > > > > > > > so the cheap 9% solution is a better way to go huh? > > > > > > or were you lying about that. > > > > > > or are you lying now? > > > > > > do you know which is the case? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Didn't say I don't swig a brewski from time to time. Something wrong with that? Any sissies around here? ;-). > > > nothing is either right or wrong. > > alcohol is a drug. > > one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs.. > > know to the species. > > check it out... don't believe me. > > i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again. > > thanks for the admission. > > .b b.b. > The mind is a drug... and a pharmaceutical company... Remember the commercial of the egg frying? " This is your mind on drugs. " ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > nothing is either right or wrong. > > > > alcohol is a drug. > > > > one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs.. > > So what? Life is a drug. It kills ya. Big . > > " complex and addictive and debilitating " ...blahblah nonsense. Some folks like to be indoctrinated by society. > > Do what ya like. Life happens once. There are no rules. > > > i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again. > > > > thanks for the admission. > > Nobody admitted to anything, but lots of folks imagine 'admissions' from imaginary persons they've never met, and probably never will. Nor do they want to, only to imagine them so they can draw a pretend line around themselves and have a pretend center. i understand your defensiveness. it's called denial. everyone is familiar with it.. and does it themselves or has an addicted friend or relative.. who utilize it to defend their right to be addicted. usually..in severe cases such as yours.. not only is the addiction denied.. but the addicted self is denied as well.. and it's destructive behavior is falsely considered.. an extention of everyone else. " Everyone does it " is the usual refrain. and as you think you see yourself in everyone.. you give perfect display of this typical self defense mechanism. drink up! i don't care. but don't try to bullshit me like you're doing with yourself. talk is even cheaper than the rotgut you're in love with. enjoy timmy. tough love son. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 --- In Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 cut and pasted: Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " Edg: The above is soooooo clearly stated. As a writer, I don't think this knowledge can be compacted by me into fewer words without being, say, my being Shakespeare reincarnated. To put it into fewer words would probably require the reader to be jiggy with the knowledge beforehand in order to recognize it in a more abstract form. As it stands now, the above, if a newbie found it in a floating bottle while beached on a desert island and if that was all the " scripture " he had to be guided by, there'd be little room for doubts or questions. It is a most excellent blob of words. An instruction manual. Yet, here at the equivalent an ashram run entirely by Hell's Angels, we can find those who paradoxically present themselves as knowers of REALITY who -- get this -- are comfortable with crushing egos conceptually like each one was but a kernel of popcorn gulped in the dark of Plato's Cave while the film The Wild Bunch was seen as flickering shadows of themselves on the wall. Turn around, turn around you hogtied starers at the absences caused by your own bodies now casting shadows on a wall that should be ALL WHITE LIGHT. Face the light, face the light -- or at least get out of the way and let the cave be fully lit. I studied Nisargadatta and Ramana for years -- hours per day -- YEAH, HOURS PER DAY -- years and hours of marking up their books with yellow highlighter and writing about the concepts. Writing, writing, writing. And, no one here could find any mistakes in what I've written -- even my early attempts, but I was, again, YEARS into study before the above quote was understood by me. Oh, I'm a spiritual short bus kinda guy, but finally something clicked -- call it a peace that descended upon my intellect when all the pieces suddenly formed an image. I challenge all you good hearted folks here to dump the mockery, trash the haughtiness, toss the sneering glares, and for once here, ONCE, one fucking time, I'd like to see all of you try to translate Nisargadatta's quote into your own words in order to justify wearing those tee shirts you all are so proud of that say, " I am that. " Try translating Nisargadatta's quote. If you can't, why, you're nothing but a city slicker in a spotlessly clean ten gallon hat on your first horsey ride at a dude ranch. Look, I'm not trying to crush the pretenders to Nisargadatta's throne. That's a way to Rome too, fake it, pretend it, strut upon the stage you brief candles, have your funzies, but call it -- the translation task -- a merit badge that must be earned before one is allowed to make a fire at Cub Scout camp. Can you get the badge? I can hear it now -- a chorus of " We don't need no stinking badges. " So many here think they've got it down cold, but the above quote goes through their nervous systems like a Pachinko ball -- all rattling and bingy-bongingness without any sense of destiny. Okay, I'll translate the quote to start off the contest that only I can expect the likes of me to enter. Here goes: Nisargadatta: Firstly, I bow to the entirety that the word, Nisargadatta, is symbolizing. May purity be found all around as I bow again and again with images of bouquets handed to him, incense lit to him, fruit and purifying water given to him, and a seat in my heart offered to him. May my flowing tears never stop as I sing of him. I bow. I bow. I bow. " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is born, is time-bound. --- " This " obviously must be an object of consciousness. A pointer. Something examined like a fractal being entered. --- " consciousness " gives a name to " this " --- " which depends on the food body which is born " Consciousness is shown to be relative, dependent, illusory, ephemeral, having a starting point (and thus an ending point -- and " ending " means utter annihilation.) And " food body " points to the earthy milch kind physicality of consciousness' embodiment. A food body must necessarily be a processing plant that ceases functioning if the raw commodities stop coming to the plant. Stop eating, and you'll stop consciousness-ing. If consciousness ends, there cannot be any objects of consciousness: thoughts. All objects of consciousness are thoughts -- mental processing parsed -- all of them -- every one of them -- symbols all. Each a shadow on a cave wall; each one shaped by the hands of bound prisoners held up between the source of the light and the wall to cast the shadows. --- " is time-bound. " The body occupies space, obviously, so time is also brought into the mix for completion's sake in this jargon of modern physics era. Space/time is something " of the body. " Without the body, there is no space/time in which the thought " space/time " can be presented. If the factory is not given food commodities, space/time cannot be born. Space/time has no independent existence of brain processing -- if the brain dies, the universe dies -- " universe " is ALL CONCEPTS. That which does not cease when the brain dies for lack of food is THAT -- and " it " is beyond space/time. THAT, if sought, cannot be embodied in any sort of " found it-ness " -- that is, cannot be framed as consciousness; however, consciousness, if present, can entertain an endless flowing of concepts that are each and all " parts " of the infinity that can be found in consciousness' larder/pantry of food spawned concepts. Each a peer of the other concepts. A peer. Each a product of food processing. If you wake from a dream and say to me, " in my dream I sat on a chair, " I will ask you, " So, which was more real: the chair or the dream body that sat in it? " Obviously, each dream construct is a peer of the other -- each an object of consciousness, each without a higher order of realness to be haughty about towards the other. Each a creation of Mother Consciousness, each a cherished child. --- " That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, " Before food is processed and consciousness born, THAT which is symbolized by concepts in consciousness IS. Not " is " as a concept " is, " but IS. IS as THAT -- the potency of which is magnificently beyond conceptuality/consciousness such that " existing " is too small a concept to fully symbolize THAT. Existence is less than half the story of THAT -- which embraces every iota of non-existingness too -- and more: even the resolutions of paradox reside in the potency of THAT -- logic itself cannot throttle THAT. THAT, the Absolute, is never affected by the flowing symbols of consciousness. No matter if the brain is Brahma's, even His consciousness cannot grasp THAT fully. If Brahma dies, THAT is not even sent an intra-office memo about His passing. THAT is beyond space-time, so anything borne of food processing cannot be THAT. Thus all thoughts are false in that they are grossly incomplete and merely dumb, blunt, fuzzy pointers. --- " and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the Absolute. " Note the word, " when. " " When " underlines that consciousness is time bound always/all-times. Now note that consciousness can " be " without " being something. " That is: consciousness can be empty of concepts while yet retaining the quality " awareness. " That's known as samadhi. Then, take it another step: the quality of consciousness -- awareness -- is now seen as a functionality, and this " awareness " can be present or absent. When this relative " awareness " of consciousness resides as a potency -- unexpressed -- unseen -- of the Absolute, it can be said that consciousness is unconscious. When consciousness becomes conscious, the relative functionality, awareness, is born. One can call the Absolute, " Fred, " or " consciousness, " and both " names " will be partially correct. If you take a stick and point it anywhere, you are pointing at everything just exactly as a fish can point anywhere and be bulleye perfect in directing one to water. Any statement's opposite is as true as anything else can be. Saying " Hitler was a nice guy " is as true to say as, " God is love. " The dream chair is as real as the dream body sitting in it. Each points to the potency of the Absolute. Like the side of a barn, throw anything in its general direction and you'll hit it. And you can hit that barn every time for all of time and never know the barn, the whole barn and nothing but the barn. The map can never be the territory. 50,000 blind scientists cannot grasp elephantness no matter how many " test samples " they take. Deep sleep is a state of consciousness in which relative awareness is absent while AWARENESS, the Absolute, is undiminished, untouched and able to even be the witness of consciousness lacking awareness. Deep sleep is an experience, a state of consciousness in which nothingness is the sole object. --- " We are nothing but this consciousness. " We are not objects of consciousness but, rather, the whole of consciousness itself, all four of its states. Amness, pure being, pure consciousness is unsullied by any parsing of OM. This is the true basis of our isness, the simplest state of our being manifest. Our " I am-ness " is the home of all qualities. Any object of consciousness is yet another " example of me. " Any object of consciousness is yet another piece of my everythingness that springs from the potential of amness. This is the primal ego, the first act of identification, the first delusion falsely validated. As a divine tool, we are unable to manifest nothings and must perforce only juggle somethings, yet the divine attempts the impossible: symbolizing the Absolute with a palette that only has half the colors needed. We are one-armed jugglers of half truths. --- " My apparent dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. Only by surrendering to my being less than everything and to my less than being every non-thing, only by stepping out of my divinity's potency, can I say " I am. " Brahma steps down from purity by manifesting all the ways that purity can be partial. This tautologicality is the best that can be presented as " knowledge. " --- " It is this sentience which enables me to perceive you. " This falsity, this illusion of mind, this space-time bound " me-ness " must be boot-strapped into a semblance of sentience such that -- if I am assumed to exist, then all others can be assumed to exist also, and in that assumptioning, conversation becomes possible. In order for the Absolute to be symbolized more perfectly, imperfection itself is created for completion's sake, so that the Grand Ventriloquist is able to have two dummies talking to each other about the Ventriloquist who's lips never move. There they are sitting in the lap of the Absolute and being the voices of a silent person. Gotta laugh at that, eh? --- " This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " Here I declare that amness is merely a manifestation from THAT, and that I know it to be an image of myself instead of MY ACTUAL SELF. If consciousness never was, if consciousness never could be, if no person ever existed, yet would the Absolute be the only reality. It is that beyondness that is itself without having to manifest a partiality to symbolize it. When I use the word, " before, " I'm underlining that language forces one to assume that space-time is real in order for the illusion of a conversation to be compelling. I surrender to the unreal's axioms in order to invalidate them. A thorn to remove a thorn. There's my attempt. Yours would be studied by me like a PhD scoring someone's responses to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Let's have your best shot. I'm braced. I'm ready. I'm willing. Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > nothing is either right or wrong. > > > > > > > > alcohol is a drug. > > > > > > > > one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs.. > > > > > > So what? Life is a drug. It kills ya. Big . > > > > > > " complex and addictive and debilitating " ...blahblah nonsense. Some folks like to be indoctrinated by society. > > > > > > Do what ya like. Life happens once. There are no rules. > > > > > > > i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again. > > > > > > > > thanks for the admission. > > > > > > Nobody admitted to anything, but lots of folks imagine 'admissions' from imaginary persons they've never met, and probably never will. Nor do they want to, only to imagine them so they can draw a pretend line around themselves and have a pretend center. > > > > > > i understand your defensiveness. > > > > it's called denial. > > > > everyone is familiar with it.. > > Now, nod yer head and say " keep coming back, it works " . > > Never mind statistics show that something like 2% of all attendees 'remain clean'. > > The ultimate cure for 'life addiction' is death. > > And the body don't even have to die. sure timmy. you see this as the way it is for you. and so it is. too bad. dream on. it's comfy there isn't it. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Re: Prior to consciousness > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 cut and pasted: > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " Edg: The above is soooooo clearly stated. As a writer, I don't think this knowledge can be compacted by me into fewer words without being, say, my being Shakespeare reincarnated. To put it into fewer words would probably require the reader to be jiggy with the knowledge beforehand in order to recognize it in a more abstract form. As it stands now, the above, if a newbie found it in a floating bottle while beached on a desert island and if that was all the " scripture " he had to be guided by, there'd be little room for doubts or questions. It is a most excellent blob of words. An instruction manual. Yet, here at the equivalent an ashram run entirely by Hell's Angels, we can find those who paradoxically present themselves as knowers of REALITY who -- get this -- are comfortable with crushing egos conceptually like each one was but a kernel of popcorn gulped in the dark of Plato's Cave while the film The Wild Bunch was seen as flickering shadows of themselves on the wall. Turn around, turn around you hogtied starers at the absences caused by your own bodies now casting shadows on a wall that should be ALL WHITE LIGHT. Face the light, face the light -- or at least get out of the way and let the cave be fully lit. I studied Nisargadatta and Ramana for years -- hours per day -- YEAH, HOURS PER DAY -- years and hours of marking up their books with yellow highlighter and writing about the concepts. Writing, writing, writing. And, no one here could find any mistakes in what I've written -- even my early attempts, but I was, again, YEARS into study before the above quote was understood by me. Oh, I'm a spiritual short bus kinda guy, but finally something clicked -- call it a peace that descended upon my intellect when all the pieces suddenly formed an image. I challenge all you good hearted folks here to dump the mockery, trash the haughtiness, toss the sneering glares, and for once here, ONCE, one fucking time, I'd like to see all of you try to translate Nisargadatta's quote into your own words in order to justify wearing those tee shirts you all are so proud of that say, " I am that. " Try translating Nisargadatta's quote. If you can't, why, you're nothing but a city slicker in a spotlessly clean ten gallon hat on your first horsey ride at a dude ranch. Look, I'm not trying to crush the pretenders to Nisargadatta's throne. That's a way to Rome too, fake it, pretend it, strut upon the stage you brief candles, have your funzies, but call it -- the translation task -- a merit badge that must be earned before one is allowed to make a fire at Cub Scout camp. Can you get the badge? I can hear it now -- a chorus of " We don't need no stinking badges. " So many here think they've got it down cold, but the above quote goes through their nervous systems like a Pachinko ball -- all rattling and bingy-bongingness without any sense of destiny. Okay, I'll translate the quote to start off the contest that only I can expect the likes of me to enter. Here goes: Nisargadatta: Firstly, I bow to the entirety that the word, Nisargadatta, is symbolizing. May purity be found all around as I bow again and again with images of bouquets handed to him, incense lit to him, fruit and purifying water given to him, and a seat in my heart offered to him. May my flowing tears never stop as I sing of him. I bow. I bow. I bow. " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is born, is time-bound. --- " This " obviously must be an object of consciousness. A pointer. Something examined like a fractal being entered. --- " consciousness " gives a name to " this " --- " which depends on the food body which is born " Consciousness is shown to be relative, dependent, illusory, ephemeral, having a starting point (and thus an ending point -- and " ending " means utter annihilation.) And " food body " points to the earthy milch kind physicality of consciousness' embodiment. A food body must necessarily be a processing plant that ceases functioning if the raw commodities stop coming to the plant. Stop eating, and you'll stop consciousness-ing. If consciousness ends, there cannot be any objects of consciousness: thoughts. All objects of consciousness are thoughts -- mental processing parsed -- all of them -- every one of them -- symbols all. Each a shadow on a cave wall; each one shaped by the hands of bound prisoners held up between the source of the light and the wall to cast the shadows. --- " is time-bound. " The body occupies space, obviously, so time is also brought into the mix for completion's sake in this jargon of modern physics era. Space/time is something " of the body. " Without the body, there is no space/time in which the thought " space/time " can be presented. If the factory is not given food commodities, space/time cannot be born. Space/time has no independent existence of brain processing -- if the brain dies, the universe dies -- " universe " is ALL CONCEPTS. That which does not cease when the brain dies for lack of food is THAT -- and " it " is beyond space/time. THAT, if sought, cannot be embodied in any sort of " found it-ness " -- that is, cannot be framed as consciousness; however, consciousness, if present, can entertain an endless flowing of concepts that are each and all " parts " of the infinity that can be found in consciousness' larder/pantry of food spawned concepts. Each a peer of the other concepts. A peer. Each a product of food processing. If you wake from a dream and say to me, " in my dream I sat on a chair, " I will ask you, " So, which was more real: the chair or the dream body that sat in it? " Obviously, each dream construct is a peer of the other -- each an object of consciousness, each without a higher order of realness to be haughty about towards the other. Each a creation of Mother Consciousness, each a cherished child. --- " That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, " Before food is processed and consciousness born, THAT which is symbolized by concepts in consciousness IS. Not " is " as a concept " is, " but IS. IS as THAT -- the potency of which is magnificently beyond conceptuality/consciousness such that " existing " is too small a concept to fully symbolize THAT. Existence is less than half the story of THAT -- which embraces every iota of non-existingness too -- and more: even the resolutions of paradox reside in the potency of THAT -- logic itself cannot throttle THAT. THAT, the Absolute, is never affected by the flowing symbols of consciousness. No matter if the brain is Brahma's, even His consciousness cannot grasp THAT fully. If Brahma dies, THAT is not even sent an intra-office memo about His passing. THAT is beyond space-time, so anything borne of food processing cannot be THAT. Thus all thoughts are false in that they are grossly incomplete and merely dumb, blunt, fuzzy pointers. --- " and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the Absolute. " Note the word, " when. " " When " underlines that consciousness is time bound always/all-times. Now note that consciousness can " be " without " being something. " That is: consciousness can be empty of concepts while yet retaining the quality " awareness. " That's known as samadhi. Then, take it another step: the quality of consciousness -- awareness -- is now seen as a functionality, and this " awareness " can be present or absent. When this relative " awareness " of consciousness resides as a potency -- unexpressed -- unseen -- of the Absolute, it can be said that consciousness is unconscious. When consciousness becomes conscious, the relative functionality, awareness, is born. One can call the Absolute, " Fred, " or " consciousness, " and both " names " will be partially correct. If you take a stick and point it anywhere, you are pointing at everything just exactly as a fish can point anywhere and be bulleye perfect in directing one to water. Any statement's opposite is as true as anything else can be. Saying " Hitler was a nice guy " is as true to say as, " God is love. " The dream chair is as real as the dream body sitting in it. Each points to the potency of the Absolute. Like the side of a barn, throw anything in its general direction and you'll hit it. And you can hit that barn every time for all of time and never know the barn, the whole barn and nothing but the barn. The map can never be the territory. 50,000 blind scientists cannot grasp elephantness no matter how many " test samples " they take. Deep sleep is a state of consciousness in which relative awareness is absent while AWARENESS, the Absolute, is undiminished, untouched and able to even be the witness of consciousness lacking awareness. Deep sleep is an experience, a state of consciousness in which nothingness is the sole object. --- " We are nothing but this consciousness. " We are not objects of consciousness but, rather, the whole of consciousness itself, all four of its states. Amness, pure being, pure consciousness is unsullied by any parsing of OM. This is the true basis of our isness, the simplest state of our being manifest. Our " I am-ness " is the home of all qualities. Any object of consciousness is yet another " example of me. " Any object of consciousness is yet another piece of my everythingness that springs from the potential of amness. This is the primal ego, the first act of identification, the first delusion falsely validated. As a divine tool, we are unable to manifest nothings and must perforce only juggle somethings, yet the divine attempts the impossible: symbolizing the Absolute with a palette that only has half the colors needed. We are one-armed jugglers of half truths. --- " My apparent dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. Only by surrendering to my being less than everything and to my less than being every non-thing, only by stepping out of my divinity's potency, can I say " I am. " Brahma steps down from purity by manifesting all the ways that purity can be partial. This tautologicality is the best that can be presented as " knowledge. " --- " It is this sentience which enables me to perceive you. " This falsity, this illusion of mind, this space-time bound " me-ness " must be boot-strapped into a semblance of sentience such that -- if I am assumed to exist, then all others can be assumed to exist also, and in that assumptioning, conversation becomes possible. In order for the Absolute to be symbolized more perfectly, imperfection itself is created for completion's sake, so that the Grand Ventriloquist is able to have two dummies talking to each other about the Ventriloquist who's lips never move. There they are sitting in the lap of the Absolute and being the voices of a silent person. Gotta laugh at that, eh? --- " This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " Here I declare that amness is merely a manifestation from THAT, and that I know it to be an image of myself instead of MY ACTUAL SELF. If consciousness never was, if consciousness never could be, if no person ever existed, yet would the Absolute be the only reality. It is that beyondness that is itself without having to manifest a partiality to symbolize it. When I use the word, " before, " I'm underlining that language forces one to assume that space-time is real in order for the illusion of a conversation to be compelling. I surrender to the unreal's axioms in order to invalidate them. A thorn to remove a thorn. There's my attempt. Yours would be studied by me like a PhD scoring someone's responses to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Let's have your best shot. I'm braced. I'm ready. I'm willing. Edg isn't that special. i'm happy for you. i think. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:27 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Yes...nis is all and the man in front of him thinks he is limited to a > body > and nis speaks about the confusion. But you say nis needs the illusion of > a > center himself in order to recognise a man in front of him as having such > illusion. Makes sense? > -geo- Nis. didn't see a man in front of him. He saw himself in front of him, and himself behind him, and himself within him. The other was himself, the words heard from the other were himself, and the words uttered in response were himself. With only 'himself', no periphery, thus no center. -tim- So nis saw himself as identified with his own body and told himself so!!! OK tim. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:49 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > nothing is either right or wrong. > > alcohol is a drug. > > one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs.. So what? Life is a drug. It kills ya. Big . " complex and addictive and debilitating " ...blahblah nonsense. Some folks like to be indoctrinated by society. Do what ya like. Life happens once. There are no rules. > i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again. > > thanks for the admission. Nobody admitted to anything, but lots of folks imagine 'admissions' from imaginary persons they've never met, and probably never will. Nor do they want to, only to imagine them so they can draw a pretend line around themselves and have a pretend center. -tim- You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per your own words. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:59 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > nothing is either right or wrong. > > > > alcohol is a drug. > > > > one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs.. > > So what? Life is a drug. It kills ya. Big . > > " complex and addictive and debilitating " ...blahblah nonsense. Some folks > like to be indoctrinated by society. > > Do what ya like. Life happens once. There are no rules. > > > i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again. > > > > thanks for the admission. > > Nobody admitted to anything, but lots of folks imagine 'admissions' from > imaginary persons they've never met, and probably never will. Nor do they > want to, only to imagine them so they can draw a pretend line around > themselves and have a pretend center. i understand your defensiveness. it's called denial. everyone is familiar with it.. and does it themselves or has an addicted friend or relative.. who utilize it to defend their right to be addicted. usually..in severe cases such as yours.. not only is the addiction denied.. but the addicted self is denied as well.. and it's destructive behavior is falsely considered.. an extention of everyone else. " Everyone does it " is the usual refrain. and as you think you see yourself in everyone.. you give perfect display of this typical self defense mechanism. drink up! i don't care. but don't try to bullshit me like you're doing with yourself. talk is even cheaper than the rotgut you're in love with. enjoy timmy. tough love son. ..b b.b. And...what about grass? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > With only 'himself', no periphery, thus no center. > -tim- > > So nis saw himself as identified with his own body and told himself > so!!! OK > tim. > -geo- Isn't it Geo taking Tim to mean " the body " when he says " himself " , and then saying " OK, Tim " after he takes his own imagination to be reality? ;-). The body is not oneself. This was never suggested, anywhere, but Geo immediately jumped to the conclusion. Do such conclusions bind anyone but the imaginer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per > your > own words. > -geo- Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:59 PM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > nothing is either right or wrong. > > > > > > alcohol is a drug. > > > > > > one of the most complex and addictive and debilitating drugs.. > > > > So what? Life is a drug. It kills ya. Big . > > > > " complex and addictive and debilitating " ...blahblah nonsense. Some folks > > like to be indoctrinated by society. > > > > Do what ya like. Life happens once. There are no rules. > > > > > i was just confirming that you were bullshitting again. > > > > > > thanks for the admission. > > > > Nobody admitted to anything, but lots of folks imagine 'admissions' from > > imaginary persons they've never met, and probably never will. Nor do they > > want to, only to imagine them so they can draw a pretend line around > > themselves and have a pretend center. > > i understand your defensiveness. > > it's called denial. > > everyone is familiar with it.. > > and does it themselves or has an addicted friend or relative.. > > who utilize it to defend their right to be addicted. > > usually..in severe cases such as yours.. > > not only is the addiction denied.. > > but the addicted self is denied as well.. > > and it's destructive behavior is falsely considered.. > > an extention of everyone else. > > " Everyone does it " is the usual refrain. > > and as you think you see yourself in everyone.. > > you give perfect display of this typical self defense mechanism. > > drink up! > > i don't care. > > but don't try to bullshit me like you're doing with yourself. > > talk is even cheaper than the rotgut you're in love with. > > enjoy timmy. > > tough love son. > > .b b.b. > > And...what about grass? > -geo- i mow it. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:23 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per > > your > own words. > -geo- Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self? -geo- You mean you are a tape-recorder? So that you can say it without a self? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:23 PM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per > > > your > > own words. > > -geo- > > Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self? > -geo- > > You mean you are a tape-recorder? So that you can say it without a > self? > -geo- Everything is said without a self. What Geo says is said without a self, too. The words " I " and " you " just arise, now, from nowhere, and get posted. Just like a tape recorder spitting back words, yes. Has Geo ever planned on having a particular thought, and then carried his plans out? ;-). He's a dictation machine, spitting out words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per > your > > own words. > > -geo- > > Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self? it can only say anything if: a self invented it and manufactured it. someone recorded something on the tape that it decodes. it says nothing whatsoever about nor to the inventor nor recorder. only a self could do that. every now and then.. like " every now and then " having a brewski eh? even though it's all HERE and NOW.. if all those 9%ers were goin' down the ol' hatch NOW.. WOW! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > So you are not your body. So no self. So you can not say geo is > making > imagination as reallity (a per tims words) > -geo- The self is not a body. Never has been. The self is a sense as if there is " me " here, this sense appearing as the notion that one is a body, or is in a body. This is very obvious, as folks talk all the time about " the soul " , and life after death, being a 'ghost'. So forget about the body. It's only an anchor for the sense of 'me', it is not itself the 'me'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per > your > > > own words. > > > -geo- > > > > Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self? > > > it can only say anything if: > > a self invented it and manufactured it. I'm not interested in arguing about this, or anything. Not interested in one-upping someone. Or rather, you're not interested. You being (who I imagine as) Tim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > So you are not your body. So no self. So you can not say geo is > > making > > imagination as reallity (a per tims words) > > -geo- > > The self is not a body. Never has been. > > The self is a sense as if there is " me " here, this sense appearing as the notion that one is a body, or is in a body. > > This is very obvious, as folks talk all the time about " the soul " , and life after death, being a 'ghost'. > > So forget about the body. It's only an anchor for the sense of 'me', it is not itself the 'me'. who is? there is no self. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per > your > > > > own words. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self? > > > > > > it can only say anything if: > > > > a self invented it and manufactured it. > > I'm not interested in arguing about this, or anything. Not interested in one-upping someone. > > Or rather, you're not interested. You being (who I imagine as) Tim. i really don't care what you're interested in or not. do you need to run out because you ran out? s'okay by me. get a few health bars with those brew refills. good advice. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:30 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:23 PM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > You can say that only if you yourself have a pretend center - as per > > > your > > own words. > > -geo- > > Can a tape recorder only 'say' something if it has a self? > -geo- > > You mean you are a tape-recorder? So that you can say it without a > self? > -geo- Everything is said without a self. What Geo says is said without a self, too. The words " I " and " you " just arise, now, from nowhere, and get posted. Just like a tape recorder spitting back words, yes. Has Geo ever planned on having a particular thought, and then carried his plans out? ;-). He's a dictation machine, spitting out words. -geo- Has awareness anything to do with words? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " Thanks for posting this. Nice quote. If you follow this scenario carefully as depicted, the observer (a sentient entity) and the observed (the consciousness of the body sustained by food) is the same. The observer is the observed. There is no space apart. If there is no distance apart, there is no way for a " true definition " to be made. Therefore, this so-called consciousness can't define what it really is. The attempt to define results in a body-consciousness and an assumed location for the awareness (associated with and as the consciousness). But that never really happened, was assumed by never actually could be defined. So, there is, indeed, simply " this awareness " being, without ever knowing itself (as an object or as something named). There is an attempt to define, an intent to exist, an intent to know forms and be formed ... but never an actuality to it. " This consciousness appeared " ... But did it really? If the appearance and the one it appears to has no distance apart, has something appeared, has something happened? Happening and not-happening are the same. Awareness and that which happens to awareness are the same. Being and non-being are one. Hence the teaching offered by Nisargadatta somewhere else: I am neither existence nor non-existence. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " > > > > > I am, therefore no need to think that I am. Neither " am " nor " am not. " Neither " I " nor something else, other than " I. " -- Dan -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > Werner Woehr > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is > > > > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, > > > > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is > > > > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have > > > > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing as > > > > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > How can somebody be a word? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, if he is stupid enough, he can. 'At the beginning there was the WORD'. > > > > > > Btw, the I-structure is not words but memories, conditioned > > > reflexes and responses amd manifests in reactions and emotions. But > when this I-structure is expressing itself and communicating with > > > other I-structures it is using words. And some very stupid people > > > who had put there noses a bit into Advaita books eventually will > > > state such a nonsense like 'how can somebody be a word ?. > > > > No need for insults, Word-ner ;-). No need to put folks down in order to talk with them. > > > > In fact, as far as 'normal conversing' (very far from what typically happens on this list) goes, calling someone " stupid " will end the conversation immediately. But, of course, one knows this already, and is taking advantage of the mailing list format in order to be purposely separative. > > > > That's OK... it's understood here that Word-ner feels a very strong need to separate himself from 'others' -- to say " I am ME, and you are YOU " . " I am smart and YOU are stupid " . Etc. > > > > It's all good. > > > > > > Hey, my 2 cents, we've all been down the *Stupid Road*... if we hadn't we certainly wouldn't be talking about nothing all the time. > > lol. > > ~A That's assuming there is any time involved. - D - 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.