Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:38 PM > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > toombaru2006 > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:12 PM > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > toombaru2006 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:59 AM > > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:46 AM > > > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:56 AM > > > > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You didn't know it then, but it's > > > > > > > > > known now that consciousness can't happen > > > > > > > > > without the frontal lobes of the brain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is known because there are people > > > > > > > > > who due to trauma have lost the wiring > > > > > > > > > between the vision centers and the front > > > > > > > > > lobes. This people are not conscious of > > > > > > > > > seeing, but can catch an object if one > > > > > > > > > is thrown to them. If asked to describe > > > > > > > > > the object they just caught, they have > > > > > > > > > to feel it with their fingers as blind > > > > > > > > > people do. They never bump into things, > > > > > > > > > but do not know what kind of object they > > > > > > > > > avoided. They just say they just felt like > > > > > > > > > having to sidestep without knowing why. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So get updated, and don't talk about > > > > > > > > > consciousness as being an entity, it's just > > > > > > > > > a moment to moment activity. No entities > > > > > > > > > inhabit the brain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think little robot cars with tiny > > > > > > > > > cameras and a small computers are conscious > > > > > > > > > when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness > > > > > > > > > anyway? Anyone has a good definition? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Pete, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This strange effect that factual blind people nevertheless can > > > > > > > > catch > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > ball, move their head quickly to the side when hitting with > > > > > > > > one's > > > > > > > > fist > > > > > > > > towards their head or can walk through a room without bumping > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > furniture, let me ponder why the hell is there consciousness > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > survival is possible without needing it ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only satisfying answer I found was that consciousness is > > > > > > > > needed > > > > > > > > for communication. Consciousness is a social function. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The world we share and commuicate is the world of > > > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > share the world presented by consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is a survival program. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It evolved simply because it helps the physical organism survive > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > reproduce. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not a thing any more than sight is a thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the human species......it evolved to the point where it > > > > > > > objectifies > > > > > > > its perceptions and thereby creates a pseudo-reality from which > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > few > > > > > > > try to escape. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still to philosophical, Toomb, > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we meet that way: > > > > > > > > > > > > Consicousness is part of the organisms's survival pack > > > > > > crystallized > > > > > > int > > > > > > the last billion years. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am hesitationg to call consciousness a survival strategy because > > > > > > then > > > > > > who is the strategist ? > > > > > > > > > > Who is the strategist behind the peacock's tail or the hummingbird's > > > > > beak? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can just deal here with ideas and concepts but they are fun > > > > > > enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ideas and concepts are all we can deal with. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Unless its all one big deal > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind mashes all of its labels together and calls the stack " One " . > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > OK..then show me the stuff thats outohere. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Anything that doesn't have a name. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > I see...so anything that has no name is not here but over there? > > > Where...in > > > that other universe? > > > -geo- > > > > > > > It is the naturalness of which Nisargadatta speaks. > > It it the trackless space....the area outside the city.... of Jan Cox. > > It is the simple, unadorned awareness into which your were born.... > > > > It is on the flip side of here and now. > > > > toombaru > > > > And you call that " anything that doesn't have a name " ? Anything? > > -geo- > > > > Words can take you the the edge of words. > > From there on....... > > well.......... > > .............. > > toombaru > > > > > What? All this round trip for what then?? > Roll the third one. > ====== > Ideas and concepts are all we can deal with. > toombaru > Unless its all one big deal > -geo- > The mind mashes all of its labels together and calls the stack " One " . > toombaru > ==== > -geo- > There is no purpose. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, consciousness is all about survival. > > > > Therefore, consciousness is a repository of suffering, of trauma. > > > > > > > > Survival involves contending with trauma. > > > > Thus, the program evolves a controller of trauma and the experienced trauma. > > > > Perceived separation is required by the program, along with its ability to organize perception as time and space. > > > > > > > > The drama of survival is understood as such, not from within the program, but from/as that which has no existence in the program. > > > > The program is time. > > > > The timeless is the understanding. > > > > > > Being that, it is understood. > > > > > > The timeless cannot be named, because names refer to perceived things and qualities within the program. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > So who ya gonna call? > > > :-0 > > > > toombaru Ghostbusters. Nanu nanu, - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:52 PM > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:15 AM > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim. > > > > > > I don't know what I mean by this. > > > > > > - D - > > > > I've noticed that when talking with you, the notion of 'rarity' seems to > > come up fairly commonly. > > > > I don't know why. > > -tim- > > > > Because most of the time statements referr to a wiew that is personal - > > very > > rarely seeing is completely impersonal. > > -geo- > > Very rare to be timelessly aware amidst time. > > Time doesn't exist, but is observed. > > Time is snowing. > > Particles of time are falling all around - glistening as they pass through > empty, aware, timeless space. > > The selves and worlds contained in time dissolving in this vast emptiness. > > - D - > > It is difficult to see time as just another thing in consciousness. > -geo- That's because time isn't in consciousness. It is the structuring of consciousness. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > You didn't know it then, but it's > > > known now that consciousness can't happen > > > without the frontal lobes of the brain. > > > > > > This is known because there are people > > > who due to trauma have lost the wiring > > > between the vision centers and the front > > > lobes. This people are not conscious of > > > seeing, but can catch an object if one > > > is thrown to them. If asked to describe > > > the object they just caught, they have > > > to feel it with their fingers as blind > > > people do. They never bump into things, > > > but do not know what kind of object they > > > avoided. They just say they just felt like > > > having to sidestep without knowing why. > > > > > > So get updated, and don't talk about > > > consciousness as being an entity, it's just > > > a moment to moment activity. No entities > > > inhabit the brain. > > > > > > Do you think little robot cars with tiny > > > cameras and a small computers are conscious > > > when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness > > > anyway? Anyone has a good definition? > > > > > > Pete > > > > Edg: This kind of research points to consciousness being omnipresent throughout the body even if the ego, a mere object of consciousness, is not privy to how the clockworks are managing to run things such that one can catch a ball that cannot be seen. To me this is a very revealing experiment that shows that consciousness is beyond the ego's purview, and that integrating this fact can help an ego to " de-puff " its opinion of itself. It shows that maybe just maybe consciousness is the " doer, " but certainly it's not the ego -- it helps the ego to see that it is an object of consciousness -- not consciousness itself. From that realization, one can begin to try to see if there is a difference between consciousness and awareness -- a far more subtle distinction. P: Concepts have a value hierarchy. There are sine qua non concepts in any conceptual hierarchy. For example, a monarch is a sine qua non concept in a monarchical system. Consciousness, and Awareness seem to be sine qua non concepts for most nondualists. Are they for you? It's natural that people defend their SQN concepts fiercely because without them their belief card house would collapse. When reading what I wrote, you seem to have interpret it in a way that supports your SQN concept. To me, it's clear the experiment seems to prove that consciousness is local and momentary. You on the other hand, overlooked the fact that the blind person is not conscious in any way of the object, and when asked why he made a sidestep, answers that he just felt like doing it. You seem to claim the sidestep was itself consciousness, even if that means redefining consciousness as not needing to convey any information. This looks like confabulation on your part. Maybe, you will profit by inquiring into your investment in making consciousness a SQN concept. Nis tried to prompt those who seem ready to let go of their attachment to consciousness, and awareness by saying things like: " Consciousness is but a passing illness " , and " The Absolute is not aware of itself. " > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You didn't know it then, but it's > > > > known now that consciousness can't happen > > > > without the frontal lobes of the brain. > > > > > > > > This is known because there are people > > > > who due to trauma have lost the wiring > > > > between the vision centers and the front > > > > lobes. This people are not conscious of > > > > seeing, but can catch an object if one > > > > is thrown to them. If asked to describe > > > > the object they just caught, they have > > > > to feel it with their fingers as blind > > > > people do. They never bump into things, > > > > but do not know what kind of object they > > > > avoided. They just say they just felt like > > > > having to sidestep without knowing why. > > > > > > > > So get updated, and don't talk about > > > > consciousness as being an entity, it's just > > > > a moment to moment activity. No entities > > > > inhabit the brain. > > > > > > > > Do you think little robot cars with tiny > > > > cameras and a small computers are conscious > > > > when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness > > > > anyway? Anyone has a good definition? > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > Edg: This kind of research points to consciousness being omnipresent throughout the body even if the ego, a mere object of consciousness, is not privy to how the clockworks are managing to run things such that one can catch a ball that cannot be seen. To me this is a very revealing experiment that shows that consciousness is beyond the ego's purview, and that integrating this fact can help an ego to " de-puff " its opinion of itself. It shows that maybe just maybe consciousness is the " doer, " but certainly it's not the ego -- it helps the ego to see that it is an object of consciousness -- not consciousness itself. From that realization, one can begin to try to see if there is a difference between consciousness and awareness -- a far more subtle distinction. > > P: Concepts have a value hierarchy. There are sine qua > non concepts in any conceptual hierarchy. For example, > a monarch is a sine qua non concept in a monarchical > system. Consciousness, and Awareness seem to be sine qua > non concepts for most nondualists. Are they for you? It's > natural that people defend their SQN concepts fiercely > because without them their belief card house would > collapse. > > When reading what I wrote, you seem to have interpret it > in a way that supports your SQN concept. To me, it's > clear the experiment seems to prove that consciousness > is local and momentary. You on the other hand, overlooked > the fact that the blind person is not conscious in any > way of the object, and when asked why he made a sidestep, > answers that he just felt like doing it. You seem to > claim the sidestep was itself consciousness, even if > that means redefining consciousness as not needing to > convey any information. This looks like confabulation > on your part. Maybe, you will profit by inquiring into > your investment in making consciousness a SQN concept. > > Nis tried to prompt those who seem ready to let go > of their attachment to consciousness, and awareness > by saying things like: " Consciousness is but a > passing illness " , and " The Absolute is not aware of > itself. " And reality prompted those who seemed ready to let go of their attachment to Nisargadatta, by having him die. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 > > > > P: Concepts have a value hierarchy. There are sine qua > > non concepts in any conceptual hierarchy. For example, > > a monarch is a sine qua non concept in a monarchical > > system. Consciousness, and Awareness seem to be sine qua > > non concepts for most nondualists. Are they for you? It's > > natural that people defend their SQN concepts fiercely > > because without them their belief card house would > > collapse. > > > > When reading what I wrote, you seem to have interpret it > > in a way that supports your SQN concept. To me, it's > > clear the experiment seems to prove that consciousness > > is local and momentary. You on the other hand, overlooked > > the fact that the blind person is not conscious in any > > way of the object, and when asked why he made a sidestep, > > answers that he just felt like doing it. You seem to > > claim the sidestep was itself consciousness, even if > > that means redefining consciousness as not needing to > > convey any information. This looks like confabulation > > on your part. Maybe, you will profit by inquiring into > > your investment in making consciousness a SQN concept. > > > > Nis tried to prompt those who seem ready to let go > > of their attachment to consciousness, and awareness > > by saying things like: " Consciousness is but a > > passing illness " , and " The Absolute is not aware of > > itself. " > > > And reality prompted those who seemed ready to let go of their attachment to Nisargadatta, by having him die. > > - D - P: Haha! Yes, Reality! What a spoiler of fun! Imagine trying to keep a hard on, if your mother was watching you screw your wife, and was commenting on your your performance. LOL > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > > > > P: Concepts have a value hierarchy. There are sine qua > > > non concepts in any conceptual hierarchy. For example, > > > a monarch is a sine qua non concept in a monarchical > > > system. Consciousness, and Awareness seem to be sine qua > > > non concepts for most nondualists. Are they for you? It's > > > natural that people defend their SQN concepts fiercely > > > because without them their belief card house would > > > collapse. > > > > > > When reading what I wrote, you seem to have interpret it > > > in a way that supports your SQN concept. To me, it's > > > clear the experiment seems to prove that consciousness > > > is local and momentary. You on the other hand, overlooked > > > the fact that the blind person is not conscious in any > > > way of the object, and when asked why he made a sidestep, > > > answers that he just felt like doing it. You seem to > > > claim the sidestep was itself consciousness, even if > > > that means redefining consciousness as not needing to > > > convey any information. This looks like confabulation > > > on your part. Maybe, you will profit by inquiring into > > > your investment in making consciousness a SQN concept. > > > > > > Nis tried to prompt those who seem ready to let go > > > of their attachment to consciousness, and awareness > > > by saying things like: " Consciousness is but a > > > passing illness " , and " The Absolute is not aware of > > > itself. " > > > > > > And reality prompted those who seemed ready to let go of their attachment to Nisargadatta, by having him die. > > > > - D - > > P: Haha! Yes, Reality! What a spoiler of fun! > Imagine trying to keep a hard on, if your mother > was watching you screw your wife, and was commenting > on your your performance. LOL D: Haha! Yes, Imagination! What a spoiler of fun! You can always try imagining a sock to place in her mouth, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Concepts have a value hierarchy. There are sine qua > > > > non concepts in any conceptual hierarchy. For example, > > > > a monarch is a sine qua non concept in a monarchical > > > > system. Consciousness, and Awareness seem to be sine qua > > > > non concepts for most nondualists. Are they for you? It's > > > > natural that people defend their SQN concepts fiercely > > > > because without them their belief card house would > > > > collapse. > > > > > > > > When reading what I wrote, you seem to have interpret it > > > > in a way that supports your SQN concept. To me, it's > > > > clear the experiment seems to prove that consciousness > > > > is local and momentary. You on the other hand, overlooked > > > > the fact that the blind person is not conscious in any > > > > way of the object, and when asked why he made a sidestep, > > > > answers that he just felt like doing it. You seem to > > > > claim the sidestep was itself consciousness, even if > > > > that means redefining consciousness as not needing to > > > > convey any information. This looks like confabulation > > > > on your part. Maybe, you will profit by inquiring into > > > > your investment in making consciousness a SQN concept. > > > > > > > > Nis tried to prompt those who seem ready to let go > > > > of their attachment to consciousness, and awareness > > > > by saying things like: " Consciousness is but a > > > > passing illness " , and " The Absolute is not aware of > > > > itself. " > > > > > > > > > And reality prompted those who seemed ready to let go of their attachment to Nisargadatta, by having him die. > > > > > > - D - > > > > P: Haha! Yes, Reality! What a spoiler of fun! > > Imagine trying to keep a hard on, if your mother > > was watching you screw your wife, and was commenting > > on your your performance. LOL > > D: Haha! Yes, Imagination! What a spoiler of fun! > > You can always try imagining a sock to place in her mouth, though. P: You got it all wrong. Imagination is the sock we place in reality's mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 " The Absolute is not aware of > itself. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete And the little chorus stands up in the back row........waves its little arms.....and sings almost in unison: " And.......and.....that's why God made us! " toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Concepts have a value hierarchy. There are sine qua > > > > > non concepts in any conceptual hierarchy. For example, > > > > > a monarch is a sine qua non concept in a monarchical > > > > > system. Consciousness, and Awareness seem to be sine qua > > > > > non concepts for most nondualists. Are they for you? It's > > > > > natural that people defend their SQN concepts fiercely > > > > > because without them their belief card house would > > > > > collapse. > > > > > > > > > > When reading what I wrote, you seem to have interpret it > > > > > in a way that supports your SQN concept. To me, it's > > > > > clear the experiment seems to prove that consciousness > > > > > is local and momentary. You on the other hand, overlooked > > > > > the fact that the blind person is not conscious in any > > > > > way of the object, and when asked why he made a sidestep, > > > > > answers that he just felt like doing it. You seem to > > > > > claim the sidestep was itself consciousness, even if > > > > > that means redefining consciousness as not needing to > > > > > convey any information. This looks like confabulation > > > > > on your part. Maybe, you will profit by inquiring into > > > > > your investment in making consciousness a SQN concept. > > > > > > > > > > Nis tried to prompt those who seem ready to let go > > > > > of their attachment to consciousness, and awareness > > > > > by saying things like: " Consciousness is but a > > > > > passing illness " , and " The Absolute is not aware of > > > > > itself. " > > > > > > > > > > > > And reality prompted those who seemed ready to let go of their attachment to Nisargadatta, by having him die. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > P: Haha! Yes, Reality! What a spoiler of fun! > > > Imagine trying to keep a hard on, if your mother > > > was watching you screw your wife, and was commenting > > > on your your performance. LOL > > > > D: Haha! Yes, Imagination! What a spoiler of fun! > > > > You can always try imagining a sock to place in her mouth, though. > > P: You got it all wrong. Imagination is the sock > we place in reality's mouth. > I see a bummmmmmper sticker. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Concepts have a value hierarchy. There are sine qua > > > > > non concepts in any conceptual hierarchy. For example, > > > > > a monarch is a sine qua non concept in a monarchical > > > > > system. Consciousness, and Awareness seem to be sine qua > > > > > non concepts for most nondualists. Are they for you? It's > > > > > natural that people defend their SQN concepts fiercely > > > > > because without them their belief card house would > > > > > collapse. > > > > > > > > > > When reading what I wrote, you seem to have interpret it > > > > > in a way that supports your SQN concept. To me, it's > > > > > clear the experiment seems to prove that consciousness > > > > > is local and momentary. You on the other hand, overlooked > > > > > the fact that the blind person is not conscious in any > > > > > way of the object, and when asked why he made a sidestep, > > > > > answers that he just felt like doing it. You seem to > > > > > claim the sidestep was itself consciousness, even if > > > > > that means redefining consciousness as not needing to > > > > > convey any information. This looks like confabulation > > > > > on your part. Maybe, you will profit by inquiring into > > > > > your investment in making consciousness a SQN concept. > > > > > > > > > > Nis tried to prompt those who seem ready to let go > > > > > of their attachment to consciousness, and awareness > > > > > by saying things like: " Consciousness is but a > > > > > passing illness " , and " The Absolute is not aware of > > > > > itself. " > > > > > > > > > > > > And reality prompted those who seemed ready to let go of their attachment to Nisargadatta, by having him die. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > P: Haha! Yes, Reality! What a spoiler of fun! > > > Imagine trying to keep a hard on, if your mother > > > was watching you screw your wife, and was commenting > > > on your your performance. LOL > > > > D: Haha! Yes, Imagination! What a spoiler of fun! > > > > You can always try imagining a sock to place in her mouth, though. > > P: You got it all wrong. Imagination is the sock > we place in reality's mouth. D: That's not what your mother told me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:15 AM > > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim. > > > > > > > > I don't know what I mean by this. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > I've noticed that when talking with you, the notion of 'rarity' seems to > > > come up fairly commonly. > > > > > > I don't know why. > > > -tim- > > > > > > Because most of the time statements referr to a wiew that is personal - very > > > rarely seeing is completely impersonal. > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > A cat cannot see the world through a dogs eyes. > > > > A person cannot see anything impersonally. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > A person doesn't see anything. > > Never has, never will. > > - D - > true .... let's hope that such words came from the impersonal ... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Tim G. > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:15 AM > > > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what I mean by this. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > I've noticed that when talking with you, the notion of 'rarity' seems to > > > > come up fairly commonly. > > > > > > > > I don't know why. > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > Because most of the time statements referr to a wiew that is personal - very > > > > rarely seeing is completely impersonal. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A cat cannot see the world through a dogs eyes. > > > > > > A person cannot see anything impersonally. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > A person doesn't see anything. > > > > Never has, never will. > > > > - D - > > > > > true > > ... > > let's hope that such words came from the impersonal ... > > > Marc Hi Marc - There is no word spoken that does not come from the impersonal. The impersonal constructs all the personalities. There isn't any choice involved in any of that. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > Tim G. > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:15 AM > > > > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what I mean by this. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > I've noticed that when talking with you, the notion of 'rarity' seems to > > > > > come up fairly commonly. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know why. > > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > > > Because most of the time statements referr to a wiew that is personal - very > > > > > rarely seeing is completely impersonal. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A cat cannot see the world through a dogs eyes. > > > > > > > > A person cannot see anything impersonally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > A person doesn't see anything. > > > > > > Never has, never will. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > true > > > > ... > > > > let's hope that such words came from the impersonal ... > > > > > > Marc > > > Hi Marc - > > > There is no word spoken that does not come from the impersonal. > > The impersonal constructs all the personalities. > > There isn't any choice involved in any of that. > > > - D - > hahaha......that's too easy.... to declare....just like that.... " hey, there is no personal " and... " hey, there is no ego " .... and also... " hey nobody is trapped into any imaginary identity " ...etc... too easy...too easy..... ..... The " impersonal " doesn't " consruct " any personalities for real... .... this " you " imaginary world and identity construct all the time many many things....within this imaginary bubble...... bubbles have indeed no choices....than to act/react on their own bubble.... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > hahaha......that's too easy.... > > to declare....just like that.... " hey, there is no personal " > > and... " hey, there is no ego " .... > > and also... " hey nobody is trapped into any imaginary identity " ...etc... > > too easy...too easy..... > > .... There is something wrong with ease... isn't there. One must strive, struggle, attempt to get from " here " to " there " . In order to maintain " myself " , that is necessary. So yes... way too easy. Not a single word even involved. Dead Silence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > Tim G. > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:15 AM > > > > > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what I mean by this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > I've noticed that when talking with you, the notion of 'rarity' seems to > > > > > > come up fairly commonly. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know why. > > > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > > > > > Because most of the time statements referr to a wiew that is personal - very > > > > > > rarely seeing is completely impersonal. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A cat cannot see the world through a dogs eyes. > > > > > > > > > > A person cannot see anything impersonally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person doesn't see anything. > > > > > > > > Never has, never will. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > true > > > > > > ... > > > > > > let's hope that such words came from the impersonal ... > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Hi Marc - > > > > > > There is no word spoken that does not come from the impersonal. > > > > The impersonal constructs all the personalities. > > > > There isn't any choice involved in any of that. > > > > > > - D - > > > > hahaha......that's too easy.... > > to declare....just like that.... " hey, there is no personal " > > and... " hey, there is no ego " .... > > and also... " hey nobody is trapped into any imaginary identity " ...etc... > > too easy...too easy..... > > .... > > The " impersonal " doesn't " consruct " any personalities for real... > > ... > > this " you " imaginary world and identity construct all the time many many things....within this imaginary bubble...... > > bubbles have indeed no choices....than to act/react on their own bubble.... > > > Marc Yes. It's simply a matter of observing the bubble of the imagined for what it is. Simple awareness automatically ends any attachment to fiction, that is, it ends ignore-ance. Convoluted awareness, the attempt to split awareness, is investment in falsehood. This splitting requires separating self from other, interalizing other as self, projecting self as other, imagining a world of real things and events based on personal memories. Ignore-ance is a distortion and self-contradiction that has to end if it is seen for what it is, if one aware is not investing in pretense, wanting to believe, that it could be something else. " When I was a child I saw as a child. When I was a man, I put away childish things. " In other words, I gave up on make believe. I couldn't invest in fiction. I understood " I " and the fictional world of " I " for what it is (a bubble of imagined events). This moment of being aware is freedom itself. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > hahaha......that's too easy.... > > > > to declare....just like that.... " hey, there is no personal " > > > > and... " hey, there is no ego " .... > > > > and also... " hey nobody is trapped into any imaginary identity " ...etc... > > > > too easy...too easy..... > > > > .... > > There is something wrong with ease... isn't there. > > One must strive, struggle, attempt to get from " here " to " there " . > > In order to maintain " myself " , that is necessary. > > So yes... way too easy. > > Not a single word even involved. > > Dead Silence. Indeed. Effortless being. Effortlessly aware. Ideas of " effort " or " no effort involved " have no place here. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > Tim G. > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:15 AM > > > > > > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what I mean by this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've noticed that when talking with you, the notion of 'rarity' seems to > > > > > > > come up fairly commonly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know why. > > > > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because most of the time statements referr to a wiew that is personal - very > > > > > > > rarely seeing is completely impersonal. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A cat cannot see the world through a dogs eyes. > > > > > > > > > > > > A person cannot see anything impersonally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person doesn't see anything. > > > > > > > > > > Never has, never will. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > true > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > let's hope that such words came from the impersonal ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > Hi Marc - > > > > > > > > > There is no word spoken that does not come from the impersonal. > > > > > > The impersonal constructs all the personalities. > > > > > > There isn't any choice involved in any of that. > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > hahaha......that's too easy.... > > > > to declare....just like that.... " hey, there is no personal " > > > > and... " hey, there is no ego " .... > > > > and also... " hey nobody is trapped into any imaginary identity " ...etc... > > > > too easy...too easy..... > > > > .... > > > > The " impersonal " doesn't " consruct " any personalities for real... > > > > ... > > > > this " you " imaginary world and identity construct all the time many many things....within this imaginary bubble...... > > > > bubbles have indeed no choices....than to act/react on their own bubble.... > > > > > > Marc > > Yes. > > It's simply a matter of observing the bubble of the imagined for what it is. > > Simple awareness automatically ends any attachment to fiction, that is, it ends ignore-ance. > > Convoluted awareness, the attempt to split awareness, is investment in falsehood. This splitting requires separating self from other, interalizing other as self, projecting self as other, imagining a world of real things and events based on personal memories. > > Ignore-ance is a distortion and self-contradiction that has to end if it is seen for what it is, if one aware is not investing in pretense, wanting to believe, that it could be something else. > > " When I was a child I saw as a child. When I was a man, I put away childish things. " > > In other words, I gave up on make believe. I couldn't invest in fiction. I understood " I " and the fictional world of " I " for what it is (a bubble of imagined events). > > This moment of being aware is freedom itself. > > - D - > yes anyway....there is no choice about to loose ignorance.... it take some time some want to loose it here & now.... but it just don't work this way.... ..... no need to get a PHD for such process of loosing ignorance... ..... the only need is a body, mind and intellect system...working nicely....healthy....peacefully..... that's all... .... no costs no costs..... .... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > yes > > anyway....there is no choice about to loose ignorance.... As Dan says.. it chooses you, and undoes you. Or not. > it take some time No, it does not take time. It takes timelessness. > some want to loose it here & now.... > > but it just don't work this way.... That's exactly how it works. It is lost here and now, or is not lost at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > yes > > > > anyway....there is no choice about to loose ignorance.... > > As Dan says.. it chooses you, and undoes you. > > Or not. > > > it take some time > > No, it does not take time. > > It takes timelessness. > > > some want to loose it here & now.... > > > > but it just don't work this way.... > > That's exactly how it works. > > It is lost here and now, or is not lost at all. > meaningsless this popular non-dual words of fiction " Tim " .... ..... if it works for you....here & now.....thats fine. if you think that it works on same way with others too....that's illusion/ignorance. ..... all this your " timelessness " , " here & now " , and other bullshit..... enjoy IT....for real, Tim... or don't enjoy IT....for real. .... up to you... .... there is nothing else for real Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > yes > > > > > > anyway....there is no choice about to loose ignorance.... > > > > As Dan says.. it chooses you, and undoes you. > > > > Or not. > > > > > it take some time > > > > No, it does not take time. > > > > It takes timelessness. > > > > > some want to loose it here & now.... > > > > > > but it just don't work this way.... > > > > That's exactly how it works. > > > > It is lost here and now, or is not lost at all. > > > > > meaningsless this popular non-dual words of fiction " Tim " .... > > .... > > if it works for you....here & now.....thats fine. > > if you think that it works on same way with others too....that's illusion/ignorance. > > .... > > all this your " timelessness " , " here & now " , and other bullshit..... > > enjoy IT....for real, Tim... > > or don't enjoy IT....for real. > > ... > > up to you... > > ... > > there is nothing else for real > > > > Marc I'm neither enjoying, nor pushing away. These words, they just emanate. And the words addressed above to " Tim " , are really to Marc. " Enjoy, or don't " . If they're bullshit, why does Marc read? Well, he loves bullshit, it seems. Does he want more? It can keep on coming, forever, or can stop any time he's tired of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > yes > > > > > > > > anyway....there is no choice about to loose ignorance.... > > > > > > As Dan says.. it chooses you, and undoes you. > > > > > > Or not. > > > > > > > it take some time > > > > > > No, it does not take time. > > > > > > It takes timelessness. > > > > > > > some want to loose it here & now.... > > > > > > > > but it just don't work this way.... > > > > > > That's exactly how it works. > > > > > > It is lost here and now, or is not lost at all. > > > > > > > > > meaningsless this popular non-dual words of fiction " Tim " .... > > > > .... > > > > if it works for you....here & now.....thats fine. > > > > if you think that it works on same way with others too....that's illusion/ignorance. > > > > .... > > > > all this your " timelessness " , " here & now " , and other bullshit..... > > > > enjoy IT....for real, Tim... > > > > or don't enjoy IT....for real. > > > > ... > > > > up to you... > > > > ... > > > > there is nothing else for real > > > > > > > > Marc > > I'm neither enjoying, nor pushing away. > > These words, they just emanate. > > And the words addressed above to " Tim " , are really to Marc. > > " Enjoy, or don't " . > > If they're bullshit, why does Marc read? > > Well, he loves bullshit, it seems. > > Does he want more? > > It can keep on coming, forever, or can stop any time he's tired of it. > no no no, Tim....enough!....lol i don't need this your spiritual stories, concepts and believes....realy not. and i hope for you too....that you don't need to read my words! have a break, if you can! Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > no no no, Tim....enough!....lol > > i don't need this your spiritual stories, concepts and > believes....realy not. Why tell me? Don't read them. But you do need them, or you wouldn't read them? If you don't need them, don't complain... just stop reading. > and i hope for you too....that you don't need to read my words! > > I like reading. I like what is happening now. It can't be any other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > no no no, Tim....enough!....lol > > > > i don't need this your spiritual stories, concepts and > > believes....realy not. > > Why tell me? > > Don't read them. > > But you do need them, or you wouldn't read them? > > If you don't need them, don't complain... just stop reading. > > > and i hope for you too....that you don't need to read my words! > > > > > > I like reading. I like what is happening now. It can't be any other way. > i will have a break Now.... just because i don't need any of this your fantastic words.... ..... don't read, anyway most of this endless posts of complete non-sense....... i'm not interested in all this discussions going on in here... .... it is you who simply can't stop bubbling... .... other people already told you... but you don't care... .... please stop reading and answering my posts....thanks... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > no no no, Tim....enough!....lol > > > > > > i don't need this your spiritual stories, concepts and > > > believes....realy not. > > > > Why tell me? > > > > Don't read them. > > > > But you do need them, or you wouldn't read them? > > > > If you don't need them, don't complain... just stop reading. > > > > > and i hope for you too....that you don't need to read my words! > > > > > > > > > > I like reading. I like what is happening now. It can't be any other way. > > > > > i will have a break Now.... > > just because i don't need any of this your fantastic words.... " Good " fantastic, or " bad " fantastic? Phantasmagorical. " What is " speaks from the profound depersonalization and de-realization that is 'the natural state', located nowhere, at no particular time in history, having no name or form or definition. Having no fear of this. For, this is what is. > > don't read, anyway most of this endless posts of complete non- > sense....... > > i'm not interested in all this discussions going on in here... Sure, I am. I'm reading now, aren't I? > it is you who simply can't stop bubbling... It is me, indeed, me the reader, who can't stop interpreting... me likes, apparently ;-). > other people already told you... > > but you don't care... There are no other people. > please stop reading and answering my posts....thanks... > > > Marc I'd rather to both read, and answer. Please to stop reading my answers, and then there will be no complaints. Otherwise -- you can send the police after me, if you want... if that is preferable to " just skipping it over " ;-). Sound the sirens.... a tsunami must be coming... LOL. 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.