there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for real.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> >

> > > > >

> > > > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

" Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating Nisargadatta's

talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always said that all there is is

consciousness. Ramesh would say that consciousness at rest and consciousness in

motion is the Totality. The original state is consciousness at rest. When the

potential energy of consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in

motion. " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to Ramesh.

> > >

> > > P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> > > consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> > > Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> > > so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> > > that the writer wants to give the impression that

> > > consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> > > conscious or not.

> > > >

> > >

> > >True enough. However consciousness at rest implies the potentiality that

is consciousness in motion. Unconsciousness does not maintain that potentiality

of consciousness to actualize its power. All of this is just concepts. So

whatever floats your boat.

>

> P: Yes concepts are not important. What is

> important is when perceiving is enough in

> itself. A perceiving that is complete, not

> seeking a different content, or its own

> perpetuation. Then it brings a sense of

> infinity without duration that is peace itself.

 

D: Well-said. This isn't going anywhere.

 

Thus, it isn't coming from somewhere.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 2:39 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 1:55 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > seing....for

> > > > > > real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > geo

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > > seing....for

> > > > > > > real.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > > seing....for real.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > without awareness:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > > entity).....percieve

> > > > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > with awareness:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Marc

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there

> > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

> > > > > > > entities,

> > > > > > > empty

> > > > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some

> > > > > > > act

> > > > > > > as if

> > > > > > > they

> > > > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Marc

> > > > > >

> > > > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > > > >

> > > > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > > > etc

> > > > > etc

> > > > >

> > > > > ...

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

> > > > > " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

> > > > >Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always

> > > > >said that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that

> > > > >consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality.

> > > > >The

> > > > >original state is consciousness at rest. When the potential energy of

> > > > >consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in motion.

> > > > > " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to

> > > > >Ramesh.

> > > >

> > >

> > > interesting....indeed....such " consciousness at rest " ....as being

> > > " awareness " ....

> > >

> > > also agree with the description of " the original state is consciousness

> > > at

> > > rest "

> > >

> > > and yes....it's not realy necessary to use " awareness " ....when it can be

> > > simply expressed as " consciousness at rest "

> > >

> > > ...

> > >

> > > i don't agree with the conclusion and mentionned definition of the

> > > " Totality " .....

> > >

> > > as far i see...... " totality " is again a concept which arise in a

> > > consciousness which isn't at rest......so, of no reality.

> > >

> > >

> > > thanks for your informations and interesting words

> > >

> > >

> > > Marc

> >

> > No words posted, spoken, read, or taught will ever work to describe what

> > is,

> > or what it is like to know or be what is.

> >

> > Not that it isn't fun to try.

> >

> > Sure, why not, go ahead ...

> >

> > Although it's impossible.

> >

> > Words require time, involve memory, include the assumption that language

> > can

> > convey a meaning from the speaker to someone else...

> > -d-

> >

> > In the other hand..words are also it - what else could they be?

> > -geo-

>

> But look closely at word meanings - they always require something else to

> point to.

>

> When there is nothing else, what happens to word meanings (and any

> meanings)?

>

> - D -

>

> That is what I mean. Suddenly....the words, the speaker, the meaning... are

> it.

> What did I just say.....?

> -geo-

 

 

 

I have no idea.

 

And it doesn't matter.

 

 

Smiles,

 

Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 2:37 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

>

> > >

> > > With awareness there is no imaginary separated entity as a perceiver.

> > > What

> > > perceives is the organism through its senses.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > What perceives that an organism is perceiving through its senses?

> >

> > - D -

> >

> > Yes...that became clear a few minutes after I wrote this :>)

> > -geo-

>

> Cool.

>

> And this " nothing " turns the scenario inside out.

>

> What was outside the organism is its inside.

>

> What was inside the organism is not.

>

> Suddenly, no inside or outside.

>

> And from whence is this perception (which is just this immediate perception

> as it is) being perceived?

>

> Where is the observer?

>

> Nowhere, everywhere, nothing, all - these terms fall to the wayside,

> meaningless.

>

> - D -

>

> I dont go through the inside-outside thing. Suddenly there is no inside at

> all - which is the same as no outside at all...all at the same side

> -geo-

 

 

With no sides, no space.

 

No space, no time.

 

Nothing can be thought, felt, or said.

 

Like an infinitely small point of nothing that everything implodes to, which is

totality.

 

Thus, all is just as it is.

 

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 2:38 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 1:53 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > seing....for

> > > > > > real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > geo

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > > seing....for

> > > > > > > real.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > > seing....for real.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > without awareness:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > > entity).....percieve

> > > > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > with awareness:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Marc

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there

> > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

> > > > > > > entities,

> > > > > > > empty

> > > > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some

> > > > > > > act

> > > > > > > as if

> > > > > > > they

> > > > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Marc

> > > > > >

> > > > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > > > >

> > > > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > > > etc

> > > > > etc

> > > > >

> > > > > ...

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

> > > > > " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

> > > > >Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always

> > > > >said that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that

> > > > >consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality.

> > > > >The

> > > > >original state is consciousness at rest. When the potential energy of

> > > > >consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in motion.

> > > > > " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to

> > > > >Ramesh.

> > > >

> > > >With reagrd to the subject line of this posting, there is neither seer

> > > >nor seen, but there is only seeing happening in the Now.

> >

> > Any attempt at description suffers from the assumption of time, and the

> > assumption of someone able to attach words to a reality.

> >

> > - D -

> >

> > And someone outside of IT to describe it. What a joke...

> > -geo-

>

> Yes, unable to describe its inability to describe its inability to describe

> ...

>

> - D -

>

> But you know....there is an intention involved in words that are not

> separate from what is. That could mean something, no?

> -geo-

 

D: It could mean something in a hallucination.

 

Which is what this world and all the important things in it,

and all the meanings of it ... is.

 

I speak to you in a hallucinatory bubble.

 

So what is said conveys meanings.

 

We type on typewriters that work according to the laws of

this hallucination; so we are happy, chatting away about

nothing.

 

Pop!

 

The bubble is burst.

 

Yet the typing goes on.

 

Some fun, eh?

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> But...waaaaaitaminat.... I am not consciousness!!

> -geo-

 

...... said the ever-imploding nothing

that had no one to say anything to ....

 

 

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > But...waaaaaitaminat.... I am not consciousness!!

> > -geo-

>

> ..... said the ever-imploding nothing

> that had no one to say anything to ....

>

>

>

> - d -

>

 

 

You're not supose to end a sentence with a supposition.

 

 

:-0

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 3:16 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > > > >

> > > > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would

> > > > >say. " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when

> > > > >translating Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that

> > > > >Maharaj always said that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh

> > > > >would say that consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion is

> > > > >the Totality. The original state is consciousness at rest. When the

> > > > >potential energy of consciousness at rest actualizes then it is

> > > > >consciousness in motion. " Awareness " is an unnecessary and

> > > > >confusing concept according to Ramesh.

> > >

> > > P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> > > consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> > > Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> > > so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> > > that the writer wants to give the impression that

> > > consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> > > conscious or not.

> > > >

> > >

> > >True enough. However consciousness at rest implies the potentiality

> > >that is consciousness in motion. Unconsciousness does not maintain that

> > >potentiality of consciousness to actualize its power. All of this is

> > >just concepts. So whatever floats your boat.

>

> P: Yes concepts are not important. What is

> important is when perceiving is enough in

> itself. A perceiving that is complete, not

> seeking a different content, or its own

> perpetuation. Then it brings a sense of

> infinity without duration that is peace itself.

 

D: Well-said. This isn't going anywhere.

 

Thus, it isn't coming from somewhere.

-d-

 

OK, I'll give it a try:

This body/mind/consciousness appeared. The nature of all-this is not

restricted to consciousness.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 3:25 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> But...waaaaaitaminat.... I am not consciousness!!

> -geo-

 

...... said the ever-imploding nothing

that had no one to say anything to ....

 

- d -

 

The nature of all-that-is-or is-not isnot restricted to the nature of

consciousness.

-geo the fading-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> But...waaaaaitaminat.... I am not consciousness!!

> -geo-

 

How long is a minat? :-p (props to Toom for this one ;-).

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 3:24 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 2:38 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 1:53 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > seing....for

> > > > > > real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > geo

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > > seing....for

> > > > > > > real.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > > > > there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > > > > seing....for real.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > without awareness:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > > entity).....percieve

> > > > > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > with awareness:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in

> > > > > > > others

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Marc

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise

> > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

> > > > > > > entities,

> > > > > > > empty

> > > > > > > waves of illusion.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some

> > > > > > > act

> > > > > > > as if

> > > > > > > they

> > > > > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Marc

> > > > > >

> > > > > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of

> > > > > > consciousness.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> > > > >

> > > > > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > > > > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > > > > etc

> > > > > etc

> > > > >

> > > > > ...

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Marc

> > > > >

> > > > >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would

> > > > >say.

> > > > > " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

> > > > >Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj

> > > > >always

> > > > >said that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that

> > > > >consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality.

> > > > >The

> > > > >original state is consciousness at rest. When the potential energy

> > > > >of

> > > > >consciousness at rest actualizes then it is consciousness in

> > > > >motion.

> > > > > " Awareness " is an unnecessary and confusing concept according to

> > > > >Ramesh.

> > > >

> > > >With reagrd to the subject line of this posting, there is neither

> > > >seer

> > > >nor seen, but there is only seeing happening in the Now.

> >

> > Any attempt at description suffers from the assumption of time, and the

> > assumption of someone able to attach words to a reality.

> >

> > - D -

> >

> > And someone outside of IT to describe it. What a joke...

> > -geo-

>

> Yes, unable to describe its inability to describe its inability to

> describe

> ...

>

> - D -

>

> But you know....there is an intention involved in words that are not

> separate from what is. That could mean something, no?

> -geo-

 

D: It could mean something in a hallucination.

 

Which is what this world and all the important things in it,

and all the meanings of it ... is.

 

I speak to you in a hallucinatory bubble.

 

So what is said conveys meanings.

 

We type on typewriters that work according to the laws of

this hallucination; so we are happy, chatting away about

nothing.

 

Pop!

 

The bubble is burst.

 

Yet the typing goes on.

 

Some fun, eh?

 

- Dan -

 

No. Deeper than that. Not intention in the casual sense...

....er...I think I am having speach problems today...

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 4:09 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> > P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> > consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> > Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> > so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> > that the writer wants to give the impression that

> > consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> > conscious or not.

>

> D: If a knower using language isn't there, then there isn't any need

> for a languaged knowing to be provided.

>

> Concerns about getting the terminology correct among

> a community of imparters of teachings start sounding

> pretty funny right about now ...

 

Nisargadatta (correctly, in my view) noted that, as unconsciousness isn't

experienceable, there is no such thing.

 

So, where does that leave " consciousness " , with nothing to contrast it

against?

 

Is there such a thing as consciousness at all?

-t-

 

Consciousness...as apparent...manifested..sensible. In contrast with

non-apparent, non-sensible, non-manifested...but real

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 4:09 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > > P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> > > consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> > > Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> > > so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> > > that the writer wants to give the impression that

> > > consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> > > conscious or not.

> >

> > D: If a knower using language isn't there, then there isn't any need

> > for a languaged knowing to be provided.

> >

> > Concerns about getting the terminology correct among

> > a community of imparters of teachings start sounding

> > pretty funny right about now ...

>

> Nisargadatta (correctly, in my view) noted that, as unconsciousness isn't

> experienceable, there is no such thing.

>

> So, where does that leave " consciousness " , with nothing to contrast it

> against?

>

> Is there such a thing as consciousness at all?

> -t-

>

> Consciousness...as apparent...manifested..sensible.

 

But... with everything in 'ceaseless change', what ever manifested?

 

When nothing 'stands still' long enough to manifest, where is the manifested?

 

" Apparent " is right.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> No. Deeper than that. Not intention in the casual sense...

> ...er...I think I am having speach problems today...

> -geo-

 

The only problem above is " how do other people see me? " And the answer is --

they don't.

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 4:24 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 4:09 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > > P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> > > consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> > > Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> > > so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> > > that the writer wants to give the impression that

> > > consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> > > conscious or not.

> >

> > D: If a knower using language isn't there, then there isn't any need

> > for a languaged knowing to be provided.

> >

> > Concerns about getting the terminology correct among

> > a community of imparters of teachings start sounding

> > pretty funny right about now ...

>

> Nisargadatta (correctly, in my view) noted that, as unconsciousness isn't

> experienceable, there is no such thing.

>

> So, where does that leave " consciousness " , with nothing to contrast it

> against?

>

> Is there such a thing as consciousness at all?

> -t-

>

> Consciousness...as apparent...manifested..sensible.

 

But... with everything in 'ceaseless change', what ever manifested?

 

When nothing 'stands still' long enough to manifest, where is the

manifested?

 

" Apparent " is right.

-t-

 

The changing is the manifest. The unchanging is the only subject -

nonrefernciable, non-understandable, non-thoughtable..is-ness.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 4:34 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> No. Deeper than that. Not intention in the casual sense...

> ...er...I think I am having speach problems today...

> -geo-

 

The only problem above is " how do other people see me? " And the answer is --

they don't.

-t-

 

Dont understand.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

wwoehr

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 10:39 AM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

<douglasmitch1963 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > dennis_travis33

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM

> > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > seing....for

> > > real.

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > geo

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 7:17 AM

> > > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor

> > > > seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dennis_travis33

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM

> > > > there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > > without awareness:

> > > >

> > > > the self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > entity).....percieve

> > > > others of same nature, without knowing about.

> > > >

> > > > with awareness:

> > > >

> > > > the real Self....as an imaginary seperated entity (unreal

> > > > entity).....percieve such nature of " imaginary being " in others

> > > >

> > > > means...percieve him/herSelf within others.

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > > > Without awareness I see other enclosed entities. Otherwise there is

> > > > the

> > > > seeing of organisms/minds thinking as if hey where enclosed

> > > > entities,

> > > > empty

> > > > waves of illusion.

> > > >

> > > > That is how I saw it 10 mints ago. Now I see it like this:

> > > > There is awareness of bodies perceived through this one. Some act as

> > > > if

> > > > they

> > > > had an inner entity.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > >

> > > and again....you talk about consciousness......

> > >

> > > there can never be any " awareness OF.... " ....

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > > All there is is awareness of. There is awareness of consciousness.

> > > -geo-

> > >

> > >

> >

> > ohhhh.....now you come with this popular statements....like:

> >

> > " all there is is consciousness.... "

> > " all there is is awareness of " ....

> > etc

> > etc

> >

> > ...

> >

> >

> > awareness, in spiritual sense....is an empty consciousness

> >

> >

> > Marc

> >

> >The Absolute is " consciousness at rest " as Ramesh Balsekar would say.

> > " Awareness " is a term that Maurice Frydman used when translating

> >Nisargadatta's talks in " I Am That " . Ramesh says that Maharaj always said

> >that all there is is consciousness. Ramesh would say that consciousness

> >at rest and consciousness in motion is the Totality. The original state

> >is consciousness at rest. When the potential energy of consciousness at

> >rest actualizes then it is consciousness in motion. " Awareness " is an

> >unnecessary and confusing concept according to Ramesh.

>

 

Thank you Douglas.

 

But I am afraid this awareness bull will go on and on. Since I am on this

list I stressed the same as you did dozends and dozends of times without any

success.

 

Werner

 

Is it werner? Consciousness at rest? So when the body dies, consciousness

goes to rest....but then it starts moving and living again?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 4:24 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:09 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> > > > consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> > > > Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> > > > so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> > > > that the writer wants to give the impression that

> > > > consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> > > > conscious or not.

> > >

> > > D: If a knower using language isn't there, then there isn't any need

> > > for a languaged knowing to be provided.

> > >

> > > Concerns about getting the terminology correct among

> > > a community of imparters of teachings start sounding

> > > pretty funny right about now ...

> >

> > Nisargadatta (correctly, in my view) noted that, as unconsciousness isn't

> > experienceable, there is no such thing.

> >

> > So, where does that leave " consciousness " , with nothing to contrast it

> > against?

> >

> > Is there such a thing as consciousness at all?

> > -t-

> >

> > Consciousness...as apparent...manifested..sensible.

>

> But... with everything in 'ceaseless change', what ever manifested?

>

> When nothing 'stands still' long enough to manifest, where is the

> manifested?

>

> " Apparent " is right.

> -t-

>

> The changing is the manifest. The unchanging is the only subject -

> nonrefernciable, non-understandable, non-thoughtable..is-ness.

> -geo-

 

I say the manifest is the unmanifest.

 

One can be stuck at " form is form, emptiness is emptiness " , which is duality.

 

.... or not.

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 5:04 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 4:24 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:09 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > P: I agree with Ramesh regarding awareness, but

> > > > consciousness at rest is another useless term.

> > > > Consciousness at rest is the same as unconsciousness,

> > > > so why not call it that? The only reason has to be

> > > > that the writer wants to give the impression that

> > > > consciousness somehow is still there whether we are

> > > > conscious or not.

> > >

> > > D: If a knower using language isn't there, then there isn't any need

> > > for a languaged knowing to be provided.

> > >

> > > Concerns about getting the terminology correct among

> > > a community of imparters of teachings start sounding

> > > pretty funny right about now ...

> >

> > Nisargadatta (correctly, in my view) noted that, as unconsciousness

> > isn't

> > experienceable, there is no such thing.

> >

> > So, where does that leave " consciousness " , with nothing to contrast it

> > against?

> >

> > Is there such a thing as consciousness at all?

> > -t-

> >

> > Consciousness...as apparent...manifested..sensible.

>

> But... with everything in 'ceaseless change', what ever manifested?

>

> When nothing 'stands still' long enough to manifest, where is the

> manifested?

>

> " Apparent " is right.

> -t-

>

> The changing is the manifest. The unchanging is the only subject -

> nonrefernciable, non-understandable, non-thoughtable..is-ness.

> -geo-

 

I say the manifest is the unmanifest.

 

One can be stuck at " form is form, emptiness is emptiness " , which is

duality.

 

.... or not.

-t-

 

the manifest is the unmanifest? Well may be....but the unmanifest is more

then just the manifest, right or left?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 4:34 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > No. Deeper than that. Not intention in the casual sense...

> > ...er...I think I am having speach problems today...

> > -geo-

>

> The only problem above is " how do other people see me? " And the answer is --

> they don't.

> -t-

>

> Dont understand.

> -geo-

 

You still seem to be trying to 'look right' to others... otherwise, why mention

" I think I am having speech problems " .

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 5:15 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 4:34 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > No. Deeper than that. Not intention in the casual sense...

> > ...er...I think I am having speach problems today...

> > -geo-

>

> The only problem above is " how do other people see me? " And the answer

> is --

> they don't.

> -t-

>

> Dont understand.

> -geo-

 

You still seem to be trying to 'look right' to others... otherwise, why

mention " I think I am having speech problems " .

-t-

 

That was just a joke timmy...Whenever you dont understand a joke of mine,

just ask, and I will explain it in all details... :>))

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 5:21 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> the manifest is the unmanifest? Well may be....but the unmanifest is more

> then just the manifest, right or left?

> -geo-

 

If the unmanifest is the unmanifest, how can the unmanifest be either more

than or less than the manifest?

 

It's a misunderstanding of " the manifest " to say it's actually manifest,

actually consisting of " things " (entities) that have manifested, that have

come into existence.

 

Simple awareness is a powerful solvent for this. Talk has no effect at all.

-t-

 

Then stop talking!! Keep repeating how useless is talking and keep doing

it....???

I dont think talk is useless

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 5:15 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:34 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > No. Deeper than that. Not intention in the casual sense...

> > > ...er...I think I am having speach problems today...

> > > -geo-

> >

> > The only problem above is " how do other people see me? " And the answer

> > is --

> > they don't.

> > -t-

> >

> > Dont understand.

> > -geo-

>

> You still seem to be trying to 'look right' to others... otherwise, why

> mention " I think I am having speech problems " .

> -t-

>

> That was just a joke timmy...Whenever you dont understand a joke of mine,

> just ask, and I will explain it in all details... :>))

> -geo-

 

Well, it didn't look like a joke.

 

I guess it's true that 'others' can't see what's in the mind of this reader here

(reading this now), eh? ;-).

 

And... why the " Timmy " ?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Then stop talking!! Keep repeating how useless is talking and keep doing

> it....???

> I dont think talk is useless

> -geo-

 

Ahh so... we're different again. " you " vs. " me " . YOU think talk is useless,

but *I* don't.

 

Let's keep reinforcing that imaginary difference, shall we?

 

Talk has its uses, after all (LOL).

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 5:37 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 5:15 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 4:34 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > No. Deeper than that. Not intention in the casual sense...

> > > ...er...I think I am having speach problems today...

> > > -geo-

> >

> > The only problem above is " how do other people see me? " And the answer

> > is --

> > they don't.

> > -t-

> >

> > Dont understand.

> > -geo-

>

> You still seem to be trying to 'look right' to others... otherwise, why

> mention " I think I am having speech problems " .

> -t-

>

> That was just a joke timmy...Whenever you dont understand a joke of mine,

> just ask, and I will explain it in all details... :>))

> -geo-

 

Well, it didn't look like a joke.

 

I guess it's true that 'others' can't see what's in the mind of this reader

here (reading this now), eh? ;-).

 

And... why the " Timmy " ?

-t-

 

Because as I am you and you are me we are now intimate timmy.

-geovanito-

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 5:38 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Then stop talking!! Keep repeating how useless is talking and keep doing

> it....???

> I dont think talk is useless

> -geo-

 

Ahh so... we're different again. " you " vs. " me " . YOU think talk is useless,

but *I* don't.

 

Let's keep reinforcing that imaginary difference, shall we?

 

Talk has its uses, after all (LOL).

-t-

 

You dont seem to realize that when you start with the you-me thing it is

when you are taking things personally, fell offended. When all is right,

there seems to be agreement, no you-me issue is raised..Everything is the

otherway around than it seems and told.... :>)

-geovanito-