Guest guest Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 I was pondering. "Consciousness at rest" does not carry the implication that when the body dies and consciousness "goes to rest" that it will eventually wake up and manifest again? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will eventually wake up and manifest again? > -geo- > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms of consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will eventually wake up and manifest again? > > -geo- > > > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) The abso.... w00t? ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 - douglasmitch1963 Nisargadatta Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM Re: Consciousness at rest Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will > eventually wake up and manifest again? > -geo- > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms of consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion. -doug- The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to be the same. Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What are the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness at rest will awake again? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > douglasmitch1963 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM > Re: Consciousness at rest > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication > > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will > > eventually wake up and manifest again? > > -geo- > > > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms of > consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the > incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion. > -doug- > > The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to be > the same. > Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What are > the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness at > rest will awake again? > -geo- > Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether at rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken, that is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms appearing all the time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality there is neither creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will eventually wake up and manifest again? > -geo- > Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it comes to consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body. The body appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness. Consciousness appears to create new bodies all the time. So consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion are merely concepts that are either helpful or not. If not, then discard the concepts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 - douglasmitch1963 Nisargadatta Sunday, September 06, 2009 11:41 AM Re: Consciousness at rest Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > douglasmitch1963 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM > Re: Consciousness at rest > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication > > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will > > eventually wake up and manifest again? > > -geo- > > > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms > of > consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the > incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion. > -doug- > > The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to > be > the same. > Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What > are > the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness > at > rest will awake again? > -geo- > Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether at rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken, that is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms appearing all the time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality there is neither creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion. -doug- Doug, in this particular case it doesn't really matter if personality is... or not. It is impersonal, of course. The questioning refers to ANY kind of manifestation. Follow: suddenly consciousness at rest stirs and the world is born through the senses - the human senses in our particular case. This human world involves all the past, all of the so called history, time, space. The fact that other kinds of consciousness are arising and dissolving also belong to the history of this one world and will dissolve with it, belongs to the time that is only part of this one world (as all other things in it) that was born with this one body/mind. The question is then....what is the basis for one to say that some world will be manifested at all when this body/consciousness kicks. Again...I am not saying yes or no....but investigating something....perhaps at the bottom... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will eventually wake up and manifest again? > > -geo- > > > Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it comes to consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body. The body appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness. Consciousness appears to create new bodies all the time. So consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion are merely concepts that are either helpful or not. If not, then discard the concepts. > Douglas, Consciousness doesn't create anything. Consciousness is its content, no content -> no consciousness. If new bodies are created then they eventually also might appear as contents of consciousness. If they don't appear then they just dont, whatever the reason might be. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 - douglasmitch1963 Nisargadatta Sunday, September 06, 2009 11:53 AM Re: Consciousness at rest Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will > eventually wake up and manifest again? > -geo- > Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it comes to consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body. The body appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness. Consciousness appears to create new bodies all the time. So consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion are merely concepts that are either helpful or not. If not, then discard the concepts. -doug- I just sent another post related to this. No...I am not mistaking the personal with the non-personal, unless we are giving it different meanings - which is possible. How can one talk of a consciousness when the body disappears? This is not a personal question -to you. I am looking at all this impersonally. You say: consciousness appears to create new bodies all the time. I think it may be so, I don't know....but what makes one to eventually be able to say so? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 - douglasmitch1963 Nisargadatta Sunday, September 06, 2009 12:18 PM Re: Consciousness at rest Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the > > > implication that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " > > > that it will eventually wake up and manifest again? > > > -geo- > > > > > Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it > > comes to consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body. > > The body appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness. > > Consciousness appears to create new bodies all the time. So > > consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion are merely concepts > > that are either helpful or not. If not, then discard the concepts. > > > > > Douglas, > > Consciousness doesn't create anything. Consciousness is its content, no > content -> no consciousness. > > If new bodies are created then they eventually also might appear as > contents of consciousness. If they don't appear then they just dont, > whatever the reason might be. > > Werner > Werner, thanks for your thoughful reply. Although I said that consciousness APPEARS to create new forms all the time. If you read my other posting you will see that I acknowledge that consciousness is neither creating nor destroying anything in reality. It is all an illusion. -doug- All an illusion appearing to whom? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will eventually wake up and manifest again? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it comes to consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body. The body appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness. Consciousness appears to create new bodies all the time. So consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion are merely concepts that are either helpful or not. If not, then discard the concepts. > > > > > > > > > Douglas, > > > > Consciousness doesn't create anything. Consciousness is its content, no content -> no consciousness. > > > > If new bodies are created then they eventually also might appear as contents of consciousness. If they don't appear then they just dont, whatever the reason might be. > > > > Werner > > > Werner, thanks for your thoughful reply. Although I said that consciousness APPEARS to create new forms all the time. If you read my other posting you will see that I acknowledge that consciousness is neither creating nor destroying anything in reality. It is all an illusion. > Forgive me Douglas, I am reading most of your posts and yet it seems I still haven't categorized and memorized you as someone who already thoroughly has demystified consciousness. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will eventually wake up and manifest again? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it comes to consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body. The body appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness. Consciousness appears to create new bodies all the time. So consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion are merely concepts that are either helpful or not. If not, then discard the concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas, > > > > > > Consciousness doesn't create anything. Consciousness is its content, no content -> no consciousness. > > > > > > If new bodies are created then they eventually also might appear as contents of consciousness. If they don't appear then they just dont, whatever the reason might be. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > Werner, thanks for your thoughful reply. Although I said that consciousness APPEARS to create new forms all the time. If you read my other posting you will see that I acknowledge that consciousness is neither creating nor destroying anything in reality. It is all an illusion. > > > > > Forgive me Douglas, > > I am reading most of your posts and yet it seems I still haven't categorized and memorized you as someone who already thoroughly has demystified consciousness. > > Werner > Edg: Oooooo! Oooooo! Me next! Me next! Categorize me. It's going to be such a surprise I'll bet. Sunday morning titillation is what I seek -- come on Werner Von Brahma, rate my ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will eventually wake up and manifest again? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > Geo, here you are mistaking the personal for the impersonal when it comes to consciousness. Consciousness is not the possession of the body. The body appears in consciousness and disappears in consciousness. Consciousness appears to create new bodies all the time. So consciousness at rest and consciousness in motion are merely concepts that are either helpful or not. If not, then discard the concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas, > > > > > > > > Consciousness doesn't create anything. Consciousness is its content, no content -> no consciousness. > > > > > > > > If new bodies are created then they eventually also might appear as contents of consciousness. If they don't appear then they just dont, whatever the reason might be. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > Werner, thanks for your thoughful reply. Although I said that consciousness APPEARS to create new forms all the time. If you read my other posting you will see that I acknowledge that consciousness is neither creating nor destroying anything in reality. It is all an illusion. > > > > > > > > > Forgive me Douglas, > > > > I am reading most of your posts and yet it seems I still haven't categorized and memorized you as someone who already thoroughly has demystified consciousness. > > > > Werner > > > > Edg: Oooooo! Oooooo! Me next! Me next! Categorize me. It's going to be such a surprise I'll bet. Sunday morning titillation is what I seek -- come on Werner Von Brahma, rate my ass. > Hi Edg, Thanks for finally posting a short message instead of your usual miles of text. Ok, to rate your ass, I would say it is full to the brim with miles of texts. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > douglasmitch1963 > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM > > Re: Consciousness at rest > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication > > > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will > > > eventually wake up and manifest again? > > > -geo- > > > > > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms of > > consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the > > incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion. > > -doug- > > > > The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to be > > the same. > > Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What are > > the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness at > > rest will awake again? > > -geo- > > > Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether at rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken, that is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms appearing all the time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality there is neither creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion. > consciousness is personal awareness is impersonal .... to take consciousness for awareness....to mix up both....is of/by illusion .... awareness isn't illusion .... consciousness is necessary to be in/by/within/of illusion ...related to an illusory " somebody " .... " you " ... " me " ....etc... .... awareness is necessary....to wake up... again...and again.... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > douglasmitch1963 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, September 06, 2009 11:41 AM > Re: Consciousness at rest > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > douglasmitch1963 > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM > > Re: Consciousness at rest > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication > > > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will > > > eventually wake up and manifest again? > > > -geo- > > > > > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms > > of > > consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the > > incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion. > > -doug- > > > > The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to > > be > > the same. > > Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What > > are > > the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness > > at > > rest will awake again? > > -geo- > > > Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether > consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether at > rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken, > that is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms appearing > all the time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality there > is neither creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion. > -doug- > > Doug, in this particular case it doesn't really matter if personality is... > or not. It is impersonal, of course. The questioning refers to ANY kind of > manifestation. Follow: suddenly consciousness at rest stirs and the world is > born through the senses - the human senses in our particular case. This > human world involves all the past, all of the so called history, time, > space. The fact that other kinds of consciousness are arising and dissolving > also belong to the history of this one world and will dissolve with it, > belongs to the time that is only part of this one world (as all other things > in it) that was born with this one body/mind. The question is then....what > is the basis for one to say that some world will be manifested at all when > this body/consciousness kicks. Again...I am not saying yes or no....but > investigating something....perhaps at the bottom... > -geo- > Geo, if by body/mind you mean the universe as the impersonal body/mind, then if this body/mind goes to rest there is no knowing whether consciousness will again stir/awaken as a new body/mind (universe). If by body/mind you mean a human person then you are speaking from the personal level and yes consciousness then does APPARENTLY (to the human senses) manifest new body/minds all the time. I hope this clarifies terms used. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM > > > Re: Consciousness at rest > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication > > > > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will > > > > eventually wake up and manifest again? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms of > > > consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the > > > incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion. > > > -doug- > > > > > > The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to be > > > the same. > > > Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What are > > > the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness at > > > rest will awake again? > > > -geo- > > > > > Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether at rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken, that is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms appearing all the time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality there is neither creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion. > > > > > consciousness is personal > > awareness is impersonal > > ... > > to take consciousness for awareness....to mix up both....is of/by illusion > > ... > > awareness isn't illusion > > ... > > consciousness is necessary to be in/by/within/of illusion > ..related to an illusory " somebody " .... " you " ... " me " ....etc... > > ... > > > awareness is necessary....to wake up... > again...and again.... > > > > > Marc I like the way you used the terms above. I admit the reason I like it, is that I tend to use these words similarly. It makes sense to me to differentiate a " consciousness " of the past, that involves contents, that is from a position and has a direction, with " awareness " that is not of the past, has no contents, and has no position or direction. It is funny to me to watch people battling over which words to use, and trying to end the use of certain words they don't like: awareness, self, Jesus, whatever. As if the problem was a certain word being used. Instead, one can read through the words and hear the silent unspoken sound of what is. You can call what is anything you like: consciousness, awareness, self, interdependent co-arising, no-self, being, no-being, nothing, everything. It doesn't matter what you call that which has no name. There have been hundreds of ways to talk about what can't be said, and there will be hundred more. What matters is what some Buddhists call " getting off the wheel. " You don't get off the wheel by removing yourself from it. You get off of it in the midst of its turning, by being it, and therefore simply being aware, now. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 I like the way you used the terms above. I admit the reason I like it, is that I tend to use these words similarly. It makes sense to me to differentiate a " consciousness " of the past, that involves contents, that is from a position and has a direction, with " awareness " that is not of the past, has no contents, and has no position or direction. It is funny to me to watch people battling over which words to use, and trying to end the use of certain words they don't like: awareness, self, Jesus, whatever. As if the problem was a certain word being used. Instead, one can read through the words and hear the silent unspoken sound of what is. You can call what is anything you like: consciousness, awareness, self, interdependent co-arising, no-self, being, no-being, nothing, everything. It doesn't matter what you call that which has no name. There have been hundreds of ways to talk about what can't be said, and there will be hundred more. What matters is what some Buddhists call " getting off the wheel. " You don't get off the wheel by removing yourself from it. You get off of it in the midst of its turning, by being it, and therefore simply being aware, now. - Dan - Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The ego may not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still being veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get out of the manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the perfect reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump off the cliff into the abyss of the Absolute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , Edg <edg wrote: > > > Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The ego may not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still being veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get out of the manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the perfect reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump off the cliff into the abyss of the Absolute. > There's nowhere to get to. No cliff to jump off of, not even an imaginary one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Monday, September 07, 2009 2:53 PM Re: Consciousness at rest Nisargadatta , Edg <edg wrote: > > > Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The ego > may not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still > being veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get out > of the manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the > perfect reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump off > the cliff into the abyss of the Absolute. > There's nowhere to get to. No cliff to jump off of, not even an imaginary one. -t- If I am reading well that is what edg is implying...or trying to..I dunno. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Monday, September 07, 2009 2:53 PM > Re: Consciousness at rest > > > Nisargadatta , Edg <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The ego > > may not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still > > being veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get out > > of the manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the > > perfect reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump off > > the cliff into the abyss of the Absolute. > > > > There's nowhere to get to. > > No cliff to jump off of, not even an imaginary one. > -t- > > If I am reading well that is what edg is implying...or trying to..I dunno. > -geo- Well, " Being " is not trying to get somewhere. It's the end of trying to get somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Monday, September 07, 2009 3:21 PM Re: Consciousness at rest Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Monday, September 07, 2009 2:53 PM > Re: Consciousness at rest > > > Nisargadatta , Edg <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The > > ego > > may not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still > > being veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get > > out > > of the manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the > > perfect reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump > > off > > the cliff into the abyss of the Absolute. > > > > There's nowhere to get to. > > No cliff to jump off of, not even an imaginary one. > -t- > > If I am reading well that is what edg is implying...or trying to..I dunno. > -geo- Well, " Being " is not trying to get somewhere. It's the end of trying to get somewhere. -t- I guess you are right. I thought he was making a sarcastic remark....but... I give up trying to decipher it. :>)) -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 - douglasmitch1963 Nisargadatta Monday, September 07, 2009 11:50 AM Re: Consciousness at rest Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > douglasmitch1963 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, September 06, 2009 11:41 AM > Re: Consciousness at rest > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > douglasmitch1963 > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM > > Re: Consciousness at rest > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the > > > implication > > > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will > > > eventually wake up and manifest again? > > > -geo- > > > > > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new > > forms > > of > > consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is > > the > > incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion. > > -doug- > > > > The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to > > be > > the same. > > Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What > > are > > the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness > > at > > rest will awake again? > > -geo- > > > Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether > consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether > at > rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken, > that is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms > appearing > all the time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality > there > is neither creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion. > -doug- > > Doug, in this particular case it doesn't really matter if personality > is... > or not. It is impersonal, of course. The questioning refers to ANY kind of > manifestation. Follow: suddenly consciousness at rest stirs and the world > is > born through the senses - the human senses in our particular case. This > human world involves all the past, all of the so called history, time, > space. The fact that other kinds of consciousness are arising and > dissolving > also belong to the history of this one world and will dissolve with it, > belongs to the time that is only part of this one world (as all other > things > in it) that was born with this one body/mind. The question is then....what > is the basis for one to say that some world will be manifested at all when > this body/consciousness kicks. Again...I am not saying yes or no....but > investigating something....perhaps at the bottom... > -geo- > Geo, if by body/mind you mean the universe as the impersonal body/mind, then if this body/mind goes to rest there is no knowing whether consciousness will again stir/awaken as a new body/mind (universe). If by body/mind you mean a human person then you are speaking from the personal level and yes consciousness then does APPARENTLY (to the human senses) manifest new body/minds all the time. I hope this clarifies terms used. :-) -doug- I am not sure we can clarify this issue definitely. If we consider that Ramesh was not talking about a personal consciousness, and as you say in that case there is no way to know whether it will awake again...calling it " consciousness at rest " is a bit strange because the word consciousness (among an infinite number of possible names) is still there. So the question stands: is it not implied that it will stir again? And....would consider that possibility be a delusion? Or not... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2009 Report Share Posted September 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , Edg <edg wrote: > > I like the way you used the terms above. I admit the reason I like it, is that I tend to use these words similarly. It makes sense to me to differentiate a " consciousness " of the past, that involves contents, that is from a position and has a direction, with " awareness " that is not of the past, has no contents, and has no position or direction. > > It is funny to me to watch people battling over which words to use, and trying to end the use of certain words they don't like: awareness, self, Jesus, whatever. > > As if the problem was a certain word being used. > > Instead, one can read through the words and hear the silent unspoken sound of what is. > > You can call what is anything you like: consciousness, awareness, self, interdependent co-arising, no-self, being, no-being, nothing, everything. > > It doesn't matter what you call that which has no name. There have been hundreds of ways to talk about what can't be said, and there will be hundred more. > > What matters is what some Buddhists call " getting off the wheel. " > > You don't get off the wheel by removing yourself from it. > > You get off of it in the midst of its turning, by being it, and therefore simply being aware, now. > > - Dan - > > Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The ego may not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still being veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get out of the manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the perfect reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump off the cliff into the abyss of the Absolute. D: You can't jump into it, because there is nothing else. The wheel is just the relativity of manifested phenomena. Nothing is out of place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2009 Report Share Posted September 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Edg <edg@> wrote: > > > > I like the way you used the terms above. I admit the reason I like it, is that I tend to use these words similarly. It makes sense to me to differentiate a " consciousness " of the past, that involves contents, that is from a position and has a direction, with " awareness " that is not of the past, has no contents, and has no position or direction. > > > > It is funny to me to watch people battling over which words to use, and trying to end the use of certain words they don't like: awareness, self, Jesus, whatever. > > > > As if the problem was a certain word being used. > > > > Instead, one can read through the words and hear the silent unspoken sound of what is. > > > > You can call what is anything you like: consciousness, awareness, self, interdependent co-arising, no-self, being, no-being, nothing, everything. > > > > It doesn't matter what you call that which has no name. There have been hundreds of ways to talk about what can't be said, and there will be hundred more. > > > > What matters is what some Buddhists call " getting off the wheel. " > > > > You don't get off the wheel by removing yourself from it. > > > > You get off of it in the midst of its turning, by being it, and therefore simply being aware, now. > > > > - Dan - > > > > Edg: Dan, seems to me that being the wheel is as bad as riding it. The ego may not be present for those who become the wheel, but Identity is still being veiled by Being. Not a sin, but not a non-sin either. Gotta get out of the manifestation business altogether and realize that Being is the perfect reflection -- merely " soul " not unbounded Identity. Gotta jump off the cliff into the abyss of the Absolute. > > > D: You can't jump into it, because there is nothing else. > > The wheel is just the relativity of manifested phenomena. > > Nothing is out of place. > Hummmmmmmmm......... .......perhaps...........in a world of places and things. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2009 Report Share Posted September 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:15 AM > > > > Re: Consciousness at rest > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I was pondering. " Consciousness at rest " does not carry the implication > > > > > that when the body dies and consciousness " goes to rest " that it will > > > > > eventually wake up and manifest again? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > The Absolute (consciousness at rest) is actualizing/manifesting new forms of > > > > consciousness all the time. Although this is not reincarnation. It is the > > > > incarnation of consciousness. This is consciousness in motion. > > > > -doug- > > > > > > > > The way you put it " absolute " and " consciousness at rest " seem indeed to be > > > > the same. > > > > Another interesting question....and I am not denying or accepting. What are > > > > the basis for the " statement " , or what makes one say, that consciousness at > > > > rest will awake again? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > Geo, are you talking on a personal level when you ask about whether consciousness at rest will re-awaken? Consciousness is impersonal whether at rest or in motion. If you wonder if consciousness at rest will reawaken, that is its apparent nature...just observe the new conscious forms appearing all the time. This is the lila of consciousness. Of course in reality there is neither creation nor destruction. It's all an illusion. > > > > > > > > > consciousness is personal > > > > awareness is impersonal > > > > ... > > > > to take consciousness for awareness....to mix up both....is of/by illusion > > > > ... > > > > awareness isn't illusion > > > > ... > > > > consciousness is necessary to be in/by/within/of illusion > > ..related to an illusory " somebody " .... " you " ... " me " ....etc... > > > > ... > > > > > > awareness is necessary....to wake up... > > again...and again.... > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > I like the way you used the terms above. I admit the reason I like it, is that I tend to use these words similarly. It makes sense to me to differentiate a " consciousness " of the past, that involves contents, that is from a position and has a direction, with " awareness " that is not of the past, has no contents, and has no position or direction. > > It is funny to me to watch people battling over which words to use, and trying to end the use of certain words they don't like: awareness, self, Jesus, whatever. > > As if the problem was a certain word being used. > > Instead, one can read through the words and hear the silent unspoken sound of what is. > > You can call what is anything you like: consciousness, awareness, self, interdependent co-arising, no-self, being, no-being, nothing, everything. > > It doesn't matter what you call that which has no name. There have been hundreds of ways to talk about what can't be said, and there will be hundred more. > > What matters is what some Buddhists call " getting off the wheel. " > > You don't get off the wheel by removing yourself from it. > > You get off of it in the midst of its turning, by being it, and therefore simply being aware, now. > > - Dan - > yes, Dan true, it isn't about words.... yes, it's necessary to make the difference between " consciousness " and " awareness " (consciousness at rest)....or whatever the used words in order to talk about it .... " You don't get off the wheel by removing yourself from it. > > You get off of it in the midst of its turning, by being it, and therefore simply being aware, now. " if there weren't this fictions " you " , " me " ..... " we " couldn't talk about awareness, yes to talk about awareness is to talk about our common real Self to talk about awareness is to leave the fictions of " you " , " me " .... " spiritual clown XY " .... " enlightened entity " ....etc.....etc.....in order to Be, now, here peace Marc 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.