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

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 8:36 PM

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

> > real.

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > 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-

> >

> > Consciousness has a quality associated with it.

> >

> > Totality, nothing: has no quality.

> >

> > You can't find it.

> >

> > You can't discuss it.

> >

> > You can't be it or embody it.

> >

> > You can't get to it by negating things, ideas, selves, or being.

> >

> > Please consider that words themselves will involve distortion of what this

> > is. As will any idea, feeling or experience associated.

> >

> > Because there is no effort involved and no volition, it is said that it is

> > " easy, " " never not available, " never not " so. "

> >

> > Yes, sure.

> >

> > At the same time, it demands everything, consumes everything, as never

> > having been.

> >

> > Thus, although effortless, natural, and easy - it is avoided like the

> > plague.

> >

> > As if avoidance could be possible.

> >

> > At this point of understanding, one does not look to find something out, to

> > understand something better.

> >

> > One looks to be clear on how avoidance is being constructed, as if avoidance

> > could be had.

> >

> > As if a refuge were an option.

> >

> > As if there could be security, a known, an existence to protect, even a

> > knowing or understanding to have.

> >

> > - D -

> >

> > Exactly its lack of quality that makes it " more " then that which has. For

> > not having anything it has all...and so it goes....LOL

> > -geo-

>

> D: For me, it has nothing to do with being more.

>

> There is nothing outside of it for it to be more than.

>

> It doesn't lack anything - that would be a quality, " lacking. "

>

>

> So, it just burns out personhood, self, experiences.

>

> It burns out inquiry, it burns out substance, it burns out

> seeking and having and being.

>

> Buddha called it " cessation. "

>

> He was misunderstood as being nihilistic.

>

> But there is nothing nihilistic about this annihilation, merely

> utter simplicity and stillness, in the midst of all apparent

> activity.

>

> Of course, writing tons of words about it, as we do here, makes

> it seem like there is some substance to it, something to

> say about it, or maybe some person who has experienced and

> known it.

>

> But nothing has been said or known.

>

> It is the burning up of words and ideas, even as they are said

> or sensed.

>

> -- D --

 

Well-said... Nisargadatta had some similar commentary:

 

" The Supreme is the universal solvent, it corrodes every container, it burns

through every obstacle. Without the absolute denial of everything, the tyranny

of things would be absolute. The Supreme is the great harmoniser, the guarantee

of the ultimate and perfect balance -- of life in freedom. It dissolves you, and

thus re-asserts your true being. " -- Nisargadatta, from " I Am That "

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > dan330033

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Friday, September 04, 2009 8:36 PM

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

> > > real.

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > 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-

> > >

> > > Consciousness has a quality associated with it.

> > >

> > > Totality, nothing: has no quality.

> > >

> > > You can't find it.

> > >

> > > You can't discuss it.

> > >

> > > You can't be it or embody it.

> > >

> > > You can't get to it by negating things, ideas, selves, or being.

> > >

> > > Please consider that words themselves will involve distortion of what this

> > > is. As will any idea, feeling or experience associated.

> > >

> > > Because there is no effort involved and no volition, it is said that it is

> > > " easy, " " never not available, " never not " so. "

> > >

> > > Yes, sure.

> > >

> > > At the same time, it demands everything, consumes everything, as never

> > > having been.

> > >

> > > Thus, although effortless, natural, and easy - it is avoided like the

> > > plague.

> > >

> > > As if avoidance could be possible.

> > >

> > > At this point of understanding, one does not look to find something out,

to

> > > understand something better.

> > >

> > > One looks to be clear on how avoidance is being constructed, as if

avoidance

> > > could be had.

> > >

> > > As if a refuge were an option.

> > >

> > > As if there could be security, a known, an existence to protect, even a

> > > knowing or understanding to have.

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> > > Exactly its lack of quality that makes it " more " then that which has. For

> > > not having anything it has all...and so it goes....LOL

> > > -geo-

> >

> > D: For me, it has nothing to do with being more.

> >

> > There is nothing outside of it for it to be more than.

> >

> > It doesn't lack anything - that would be a quality, " lacking. "

> >

> >

> > So, it just burns out personhood, self, experiences.

> >

> > It burns out inquiry, it burns out substance, it burns out

> > seeking and having and being.

> >

> > Buddha called it " cessation. "

> >

> > He was misunderstood as being nihilistic.

> >

> > But there is nothing nihilistic about this annihilation, merely

> > utter simplicity and stillness, in the midst of all apparent

> > activity.

> >

> > Of course, writing tons of words about it, as we do here, makes

> > it seem like there is some substance to it, something to

> > say about it, or maybe some person who has experienced and

> > known it.

> >

> > But nothing has been said or known.

> >

> > It is the burning up of words and ideas, even as they are said

> > or sensed.

> >

> > -- D --

>

> Well-said... Nisargadatta had some similar commentary:

>

> " The Supreme is the universal solvent, it corrodes every container, it burns

through every obstacle. Without the absolute denial of everything, the tyranny

of things would be absolute. The Supreme is the great harmoniser, the guarantee

of the ultimate and perfect balance -- of life in freedom. It dissolves you, and

thus re-asserts your true being. " -- Nisargadatta, from " I Am That "

>

 

 

haha,

 

The Supreme, the Absolute etc - what a nonsense. What a crime to name it and so

creating an appetizer for spiritually hungry day-dreamers.

 

Can the Tao be realized by the word 'Tao' ? Or the 'Supreme' ?

 

What a bull this all is.

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

-

wwoehr

Nisargadatta

Saturday, September 05, 2009 6:51 AM

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

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > dan330033

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Friday, September 04, 2009 8:36 PM

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

> > > seing....for

> > > real.

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > 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-

> > >

> > > Consciousness has a quality associated with it.

> > >

> > > Totality, nothing: has no quality.

> > >

> > > You can't find it.

> > >

> > > You can't discuss it.

> > >

> > > You can't be it or embody it.

> > >

> > > You can't get to it by negating things, ideas, selves, or being.

> > >

> > > Please consider that words themselves will involve distortion of what

> > > this

> > > is. As will any idea, feeling or experience associated.

> > >

> > > Because there is no effort involved and no volition, it is said that

> > > it is

> > > " easy, " " never not available, " never not " so. "

> > >

> > > Yes, sure.

> > >

> > > At the same time, it demands everything, consumes everything, as never

> > > having been.

> > >

> > > Thus, although effortless, natural, and easy - it is avoided like the

> > > plague.

> > >

> > > As if avoidance could be possible.

> > >

> > > At this point of understanding, one does not look to find something

> > > out, to

> > > understand something better.

> > >

> > > One looks to be clear on how avoidance is being constructed, as if

> > > avoidance

> > > could be had.

> > >

> > > As if a refuge were an option.

> > >

> > > As if there could be security, a known, an existence to protect, even

> > > a

> > > knowing or understanding to have.

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> > > Exactly its lack of quality that makes it " more " then that which has.

> > > For

> > > not having anything it has all...and so it goes....LOL

> > > -geo-

> >

> > D: For me, it has nothing to do with being more.

> >

> > There is nothing outside of it for it to be more than.

> >

> > It doesn't lack anything - that would be a quality, " lacking. "

> >

> >

> > So, it just burns out personhood, self, experiences.

> >

> > It burns out inquiry, it burns out substance, it burns out

> > seeking and having and being.

> >

> > Buddha called it " cessation. "

> >

> > He was misunderstood as being nihilistic.

> >

> > But there is nothing nihilistic about this annihilation, merely

> > utter simplicity and stillness, in the midst of all apparent

> > activity.

> >

> > Of course, writing tons of words about it, as we do here, makes

> > it seem like there is some substance to it, something to

> > say about it, or maybe some person who has experienced and

> > known it.

> >

> > But nothing has been said or known.

> >

> > It is the burning up of words and ideas, even as they are said

> > or sensed.

> >

> > -- D --

>

> Well-said... Nisargadatta had some similar commentary:

>

> " The Supreme is the universal solvent, it corrodes every container, it

> burns through every obstacle. Without the absolute denial of everything,

> the tyranny of things would be absolute. The Supreme is the great

> harmoniser, the guarantee of the ultimate and perfect balance -- of life

> in freedom. It dissolves you, and thus re-asserts your true being. " --

> Nisargadatta, from " I Am That "

>

 

haha,

 

The Supreme, the Absolute etc - what a nonsense. What a crime to name it and

so creating an appetizer for spiritually hungry day-dreamers.

 

Can the Tao be realized by the word 'Tao' ? Or the 'Supreme' ?

 

What a bull this all is.

 

Werner

 

But, werner, you approved the term " consciousness at rest " . Have you changed

your mind or forgot?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> wwoehr

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, September 05, 2009 6:51 AM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dan330033

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 8:36 PM

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

> > > > seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > 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-

> > > >

> > > > Consciousness has a quality associated with it.

> > > >

> > > > Totality, nothing: has no quality.

> > > >

> > > > You can't find it.

> > > >

> > > > You can't discuss it.

> > > >

> > > > You can't be it or embody it.

> > > >

> > > > You can't get to it by negating things, ideas, selves, or being.

> > > >

> > > > Please consider that words themselves will involve distortion of what

> > > > this

> > > > is. As will any idea, feeling or experience associated.

> > > >

> > > > Because there is no effort involved and no volition, it is said that

> > > > it is

> > > > " easy, " " never not available, " never not " so. "

> > > >

> > > > Yes, sure.

> > > >

> > > > At the same time, it demands everything, consumes everything, as never

> > > > having been.

> > > >

> > > > Thus, although effortless, natural, and easy - it is avoided like the

> > > > plague.

> > > >

> > > > As if avoidance could be possible.

> > > >

> > > > At this point of understanding, one does not look to find something

> > > > out, to

> > > > understand something better.

> > > >

> > > > One looks to be clear on how avoidance is being constructed, as if

> > > > avoidance

> > > > could be had.

> > > >

> > > > As if a refuge were an option.

> > > >

> > > > As if there could be security, a known, an existence to protect, even

> > > > a

> > > > knowing or understanding to have.

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > > >

> > > > Exactly its lack of quality that makes it " more " then that which has.

> > > > For

> > > > not having anything it has all...and so it goes....LOL

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > D: For me, it has nothing to do with being more.

> > >

> > > There is nothing outside of it for it to be more than.

> > >

> > > It doesn't lack anything - that would be a quality, " lacking. "

> > >

> > >

> > > So, it just burns out personhood, self, experiences.

> > >

> > > It burns out inquiry, it burns out substance, it burns out

> > > seeking and having and being.

> > >

> > > Buddha called it " cessation. "

> > >

> > > He was misunderstood as being nihilistic.

> > >

> > > But there is nothing nihilistic about this annihilation, merely

> > > utter simplicity and stillness, in the midst of all apparent

> > > activity.

> > >

> > > Of course, writing tons of words about it, as we do here, makes

> > > it seem like there is some substance to it, something to

> > > say about it, or maybe some person who has experienced and

> > > known it.

> > >

> > > But nothing has been said or known.

> > >

> > > It is the burning up of words and ideas, even as they are said

> > > or sensed.

> > >

> > > -- D --

> >

> > Well-said... Nisargadatta had some similar commentary:

> >

> > " The Supreme is the universal solvent, it corrodes every container, it

> > burns through every obstacle. Without the absolute denial of everything,

> > the tyranny of things would be absolute. The Supreme is the great

> > harmoniser, the guarantee of the ultimate and perfect balance -- of life

> > in freedom. It dissolves you, and thus re-asserts your true being. " --

> > Nisargadatta, from " I Am That "

> >

>

> haha,

>

> The Supreme, the Absolute etc - what a nonsense. What a crime to name it and

> so creating an appetizer for spiritually hungry day-dreamers.

>

> Can the Tao be realized by the word 'Tao' ? Or the 'Supreme' ?

>

> What a bull this all is.

>

> Werner

>

> But, werner, you approved the term " consciousness at rest " . Have you changed

> your mind or forgot?

> -geo-

>

 

 

I approved nothing, Geo,

 

but I agreed with that awareness stuff Doug mentioned. 'Consciousness at rest'

is a gimmick I never would use.

 

Now, have you understood what I wrote about Niz's 'Supreme' baloney ?

 

I don't think you did.

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

-

wwoehr

Nisargadatta

Saturday, September 05, 2009 11:19 AM

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

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> wwoehr

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, September 05, 2009 6:51 AM

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

> real.

>

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dan330033

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Friday, September 04, 2009 8:36 PM

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

> > > > seing....for

> > > > real.

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > 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-

> > > >

> > > > Consciousness has a quality associated with it.

> > > >

> > > > Totality, nothing: has no quality.

> > > >

> > > > You can't find it.

> > > >

> > > > You can't discuss it.

> > > >

> > > > You can't be it or embody it.

> > > >

> > > > You can't get to it by negating things, ideas, selves, or being.

> > > >

> > > > Please consider that words themselves will involve distortion of

> > > > what

> > > > this

> > > > is. As will any idea, feeling or experience associated.

> > > >

> > > > Because there is no effort involved and no volition, it is said that

> > > > it is

> > > > " easy, " " never not available, " never not " so. "

> > > >

> > > > Yes, sure.

> > > >

> > > > At the same time, it demands everything, consumes everything, as

> > > > never

> > > > having been.

> > > >

> > > > Thus, although effortless, natural, and easy - it is avoided like

> > > > the

> > > > plague.

> > > >

> > > > As if avoidance could be possible.

> > > >

> > > > At this point of understanding, one does not look to find something

> > > > out, to

> > > > understand something better.

> > > >

> > > > One looks to be clear on how avoidance is being constructed, as if

> > > > avoidance

> > > > could be had.

> > > >

> > > > As if a refuge were an option.

> > > >

> > > > As if there could be security, a known, an existence to protect,

> > > > even

> > > > a

> > > > knowing or understanding to have.

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > > >

> > > > Exactly its lack of quality that makes it " more " then that which

> > > > has.

> > > > For

> > > > not having anything it has all...and so it goes....LOL

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > D: For me, it has nothing to do with being more.

> > >

> > > There is nothing outside of it for it to be more than.

> > >

> > > It doesn't lack anything - that would be a quality, " lacking. "

> > >

> > >

> > > So, it just burns out personhood, self, experiences.

> > >

> > > It burns out inquiry, it burns out substance, it burns out

> > > seeking and having and being.

> > >

> > > Buddha called it " cessation. "

> > >

> > > He was misunderstood as being nihilistic.

> > >

> > > But there is nothing nihilistic about this annihilation, merely

> > > utter simplicity and stillness, in the midst of all apparent

> > > activity.

> > >

> > > Of course, writing tons of words about it, as we do here, makes

> > > it seem like there is some substance to it, something to

> > > say about it, or maybe some person who has experienced and

> > > known it.

> > >

> > > But nothing has been said or known.

> > >

> > > It is the burning up of words and ideas, even as they are said

> > > or sensed.

> > >

> > > -- D --

> >

> > Well-said... Nisargadatta had some similar commentary:

> >

> > " The Supreme is the universal solvent, it corrodes every container, it

> > burns through every obstacle. Without the absolute denial of everything,

> > the tyranny of things would be absolute. The Supreme is the great

> > harmoniser, the guarantee of the ultimate and perfect balance -- of life

> > in freedom. It dissolves you, and thus re-asserts your true being. " --

> > Nisargadatta, from " I Am That "

> >

>

> haha,

>

> The Supreme, the Absolute etc - what a nonsense. What a crime to name it

> and

> so creating an appetizer for spiritually hungry day-dreamers.

>

> Can the Tao be realized by the word 'Tao' ? Or the 'Supreme' ?

>

> What a bull this all is.

>

> Werner

>

> But, werner, you approved the term " consciousness at rest " . Have you

> changed

> your mind or forgot?

> -geo-

>

 

I approved nothing, Geo,

 

but I agreed with that awareness stuff Doug mentioned. 'Consciousness at

rest' is a gimmick I never would use.

 

Now, have you understood what I wrote about Niz's 'Supreme' baloney ?

 

I don't think you did.

 

Werner

 

Yes, werner. I understand you. You have embraced a few precepts, a few

concepts (mostly negations) and keep repeating them endlessly.

Thought is used to find the right words in order to point towards something

beyond thoughts. But to you nothing is beyond thought - which is just a

thought you have. A belief.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> >

> >

> > Marc

>

>

> Yes, there isn't any " awareness *of* .... " anything

>

> Nor is there any " explanation *of* ... " anything

>

> Nor is there any " commentary *about* ... " anything

>

>

> Darn!

>

>

> Smiles,

>

> Dan

>

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

>

> >

> > the direct path to real Self....go through yourself...

> >

> > when there isn't any help ....of whatever kind....necessary to reach/be

yourSelf.......except a simple attention to what Is......to the energy flowing

in & out the body.....that's meditation...

> >

> > meditation open the path to awareness

> >

> >

> > Marc

>

> Yes one goes into and through the body.

>

> (and not from an outside position ...)

>

> The energy movement is the attention, is the awareness.

>

> It is all that is.

>

> Meditation is like a door, that once opened and walked through is not needed.

>

> Meditation is just the breaking free from a past that was imagined to have a

hold.

>

> Energy movement is stillness is what it is - requires and involves no

meditation, no thought, no intentionality.

>

 

 

yes

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> 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...

>

 

 

tell this to this famous people....like " Ramesh " , " Nis " , " Krishnamurti " ,

" Maurice F. " ....etc etc

 

they would have great fun...reading your words and words and words.....

 

lol

 

 

Marc