Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:06 PM > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:51 PM > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:18 PM > > > Re: Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > wwoehr > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Geo, > > > > > > > > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop > > > > for > > > > a > > > > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the > > > > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is > > > this > > > looking not from the past and so meningless? > > > > > > See? When you say that all is consciousness, that statement is the past, > > > memory.....so has no value, is meaningless. > > > -geo- > > > > Yes. > > > > Also true of your statement: " that statement is the past, memory ... so > > has > > no value, is meaningless. " > > > > Also true of this statement being made in my post. > > > > What do you make of this statement: > > > > " This statement is meaningless. " > > > > Does it have meaning? > > > > Does it lack meaning? > > > > - D - > > > > You are thinking. Seeing is not thought.. Seeing is not consciosness. > > -geo- > > Seeing is not your statements. > > Seeing is not me or you. > > Seeing is not the word seeing. > > There is neither seeing nor is there any lack of seeing. > > Is and is not have no application. > > Yes or no don't apply. > > - D - > > Yes, but it is not correct to say that one is just clowning - as werner > suggested - until silence is crying. Usually clowning does not lead to > silence. > -geo- > I've always been frightened of clowns.........and I don't know why Maybe because a clown shot my dad. :-0 toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:13 PM > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > wwoehr > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:27 AM > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the > > > > > present, to > > > > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How > > > > > can you > > > > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your > > > > > memories, > > > > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your > > > > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the > > > > > past. The > > > > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " > > > > > I > > > > > will > > > > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if > > > > > you > > > > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the > > > > > conditioning, > > > > > all the > > > > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if > > > > > you > > > > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer > > > > > as one > > > > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible > > > > > to > > > > > live not > > > > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living > > > > > in a > > > > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time. > > > > > > > > > > (Saanen, 1966) > > > > > > > > > > > > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, > > > > hence > > > > NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the > > > > NOW, including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of > > > > consciousness as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. > > > > NOW > > > > is not the past, rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. > > > > This > > > > is basic Advaita as i understand it. > > > > > > > > > > Douglas, > > > > > > Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of > > > consciousness between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem to > > > hear a bang 'now' then in reality it already has passed and was gone. > > > > > > Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the > > > instrument of consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in any > > > case the past. > > > > > > Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an idea > > > and > > > nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time? > > > -geo- > > > > Change/time is merely a construction of this consciousness that you say is > > of the past. > > > > It is a logical contradiction for you to say that consciousness requires > > time and only knows in terms of the past, and then say that there is some > > kind of actual event, such as " change " that is truly present. > > > > Whatever construction you've made about " change " is the result of the very > > consciousness that you're saying is of the past. > > > > In other words, there is no logically valid way for you to posit anything > > like " real change existing in the present " or " the nature of that which > > acknowledges change/time. " > > > > All such constructions must necessarily themselves be " of the past, " simply > > because they are " arising in and through consciousness. " > > > > Once you've concluded that consciousness is of the past, there is no way to > > posit anything at all about the present. > > > > Indeed whatever idea or feeling one has about " the present, " is the past, is > > it not? > > > > - Dan - > > > > This is something for immediate seeing.. Change is not something you > > conclude, something you compare with. There it is...the bubble of changes, > > of time, of limitedness. Change is not the opposite of changelessness. The > > same ridlle of objective-subjective. No way to " explain " this. > > Now....of course I am not saying that the world, consciousness, does not > > participate in this perception. And yes...memory is part of the world, of > > life. > > -geo- > > The more clear this is, the more one is forced into silence. > > One can no longer conclude that terms like " meaning " or " lacking meaning " have any relevance. > > One speaks, but the speaking is a human version of a bird singing or a frog croaking. > > The silence is all. > > - D - > Why can't you be silent Dan but have to babble and babble and sending innumerous posts filled with your nondual nonsense ? Ok, to be more correct, nonduality is a nice philosophy which is wonderfully suited to make you the center of attention in discussions at cocktail parties, especilly when there are attractive young wommen around. But in daily life the practicability of nonduality will tend towards zero. It is of no worth. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:23 PM Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:06 PM > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:51 PM > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:18 PM > > > Re: Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the > > > Past > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > wwoehr > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Geo, > > > > > > > > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better > > > > stop > > > > for > > > > a > > > > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, > > > > the > > > > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is > > > this > > > looking not from the past and so meningless? > > > > > > See? When you say that all is consciousness, that statement is the > > > past, > > > memory.....so has no value, is meaningless. > > > -geo- > > > > Yes. > > > > Also true of your statement: " that statement is the past, memory ... so > > has > > no value, is meaningless. " > > > > Also true of this statement being made in my post. > > > > What do you make of this statement: > > > > " This statement is meaningless. " > > > > Does it have meaning? > > > > Does it lack meaning? > > > > - D - > > > > You are thinking. Seeing is not thought.. Seeing is not consciosness. > > -geo- > > Seeing is not your statements. > > Seeing is not me or you. > > Seeing is not the word seeing. > > There is neither seeing nor is there any lack of seeing. > > Is and is not have no application. > > Yes or no don't apply. > > - D - > > Yes, but it is not correct to say that one is just clowning - as werner > suggested - until silence is crying. Usually clowning does not lead to > silence. > -geo- > I've always been frightened of clowns.........and I don't know why Maybe because a clown shot my dad. :-0 toombaru Really? In my case I have to take care of my reputation. I have constructed this immage that costed me lots of effort and sweat and I will not admit that someone, specially one comming from the past, try to....concuspate it.......MMMMmmmffffff LOL LOL LOL -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 10/9/2009 06:55:56 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 - wwoehr Nisargadatta Thursday, September 10, 2009 6:57 AM Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:13 PM > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > wwoehr > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:27 AM > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the > > > > > present, to > > > > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? > > > > > How > > > > > can you > > > > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your > > > > > memories, > > > > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, > > > > > your > > > > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is > > > > > the > > > > > past. The > > > > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to > > > > > say, " > > > > > I > > > > > will > > > > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but > > > > > if > > > > > you > > > > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the > > > > > conditioning, > > > > > all the > > > > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - > > > > > if > > > > > you > > > > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no > > > > > observer > > > > > as one > > > > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it > > > > > possible > > > > > to > > > > > live not > > > > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are > > > > > living > > > > > in a > > > > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time. > > > > > > > > > > (Saanen, 1966) > > > > > > > > > > > > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, > > > > hence > > > > NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in > > > > the > > > > NOW, including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of > > > > consciousness as K would say...that thinking is happening in the > > > > NOW. > > > > NOW > > > > is not the past, rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. > > > > This > > > > is basic Advaita as i understand it. > > > > > > > > > > Douglas, > > > > > > Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of > > > consciousness between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem > > > to > > > hear a bang 'now' then in reality it already has passed and was gone. > > > > > > Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the > > > instrument of consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in > > > any > > > case the past. > > > > > > Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an > > > idea > > > and > > > nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time? > > > -geo- > > > > Change/time is merely a construction of this consciousness that you say > > is > > of the past. > > > > It is a logical contradiction for you to say that consciousness requires > > time and only knows in terms of the past, and then say that there is > > some > > kind of actual event, such as " change " that is truly present. > > > > Whatever construction you've made about " change " is the result of the > > very > > consciousness that you're saying is of the past. > > > > In other words, there is no logically valid way for you to posit > > anything > > like " real change existing in the present " or " the nature of that which > > acknowledges change/time. " > > > > All such constructions must necessarily themselves be " of the past, " > > simply > > because they are " arising in and through consciousness. " > > > > Once you've concluded that consciousness is of the past, there is no way > > to > > posit anything at all about the present. > > > > Indeed whatever idea or feeling one has about " the present, " is the > > past, is > > it not? > > > > - Dan - > > > > This is something for immediate seeing.. Change is not something you > > conclude, something you compare with. There it is...the bubble of > > changes, > > of time, of limitedness. Change is not the opposite of changelessness. > > The > > same ridlle of objective-subjective. No way to " explain " this. > > Now....of course I am not saying that the world, consciousness, does not > > participate in this perception. And yes...memory is part of the world, > > of > > life. > > -geo- > > The more clear this is, the more one is forced into silence. > > One can no longer conclude that terms like " meaning " or " lacking meaning " > have any relevance. > > One speaks, but the speaking is a human version of a bird singing or a > frog croaking. > > The silence is all. > > - D - > Why can't you be silent Dan but have to babble and babble and sending innumerous posts filled with your nondual nonsense ? Ok, to be more correct, nonduality is a nice philosophy which is wonderfully suited to make you the center of attention in discussions at cocktail parties, especilly when there are attractive young wommen around. But in daily life the practicability of nonduality will tend towards zero. It is of no worth. Werner You are really nuts, werner - a litlle more then I thought so. Is not the observer and observed the same then? Where is the duality? -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 10/9/2009 07:03:00 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > The more clear this is, the more one is forced into silence. > > One can no longer conclude that terms like " meaning " or " lacking meaning " have any relevance. > > One speaks, but the speaking is a human version of a bird singing or > a frog croaking. That's precisely what speaking is, no? A 'more complex' version of a bird singing, a frog croaking, a loon crying in the forest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > wwoehr > Nisargadatta > Thursday, September 10, 2009 6:57 AM > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > The more clear this is, the more one is forced into silence. > > > > One can no longer conclude that terms like " meaning " or " lacking meaning " > > have any relevance. > > > > One speaks, but the speaking is a human version of a bird singing or a > > frog croaking. > > > > The silence is all. > > > > - D - > > > > Why can't you be silent Dan but have to babble and babble and sending > innumerous posts filled with your nondual nonsense ? > > Ok, to be more correct, nonduality is a nice philosophy which is wonderfully > suited to make you the center of attention in discussions at cocktail > parties, especilly when there are attractive young wommen around. > > But in daily life the practicability of nonduality will tend towards zero. > It is of no worth. > > Werner > > You are really nuts, werner - a litlle more then I thought so. Is not the > observer and observed the same then? Where is the duality? > -geo- > Geo, Could you please explain what do you mean with 'you are nuts' ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > Why can't you be silent Dan but have to babble and babble and sending innumerous posts filled with your nondual nonsense ? > > Ok, to be more correct, nonduality is a nice philosophy which is wonderfully suited to make you the center of attention in discussions at cocktail parties, especilly when there are attractive young wommen around. > > But in daily life the practicability of nonduality will tend towards zero. It is of no worth. > > Werner Anyone who believes that, and yet keeps talking on nondual lists, is being contradictory. The common sense would be to leave the nondual lists. Nonduality is correctly talked about on nondual forums, and Werner, it is " incorrect " to say nonduality is out of place on a nondual forum like this one. In fact, complaining about " nondual talk " on nondual forums, is off-topic. Obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > > What knowledge dan? What is the nature of knowledge you are referring to? Is > > there need for knowledge for a seeing that already is? What is it that says > > " this or that is knowledge, the past " ? More knowledge? Existence is > > knowledge to what extent? > > -geo- > > > All questions stop. > > They can't be had here. > > Not in or from this total stillness. > > Definitions, explanations, using words to show something or get > something ... all of that dries up and like dust is done with. > > - D - Obviously, none of this talk touches or makes a dent on the " emotional attachment " that is responsible for the " conceptual storm " Toom mentioned. Only awareness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 - wwoehr Nisargadatta Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:37 AM Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > wwoehr > Nisargadatta > Thursday, September 10, 2009 6:57 AM > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > The more clear this is, the more one is forced into silence. > > > > One can no longer conclude that terms like " meaning " or " lacking > > meaning " > > have any relevance. > > > > One speaks, but the speaking is a human version of a bird singing or a > > frog croaking. > > > > The silence is all. > > > > - D - > > > > Why can't you be silent Dan but have to babble and babble and sending > innumerous posts filled with your nondual nonsense ? > > Ok, to be more correct, nonduality is a nice philosophy which is > wonderfully > suited to make you the center of attention in discussions at cocktail > parties, especilly when there are attractive young wommen around. > > But in daily life the practicability of nonduality will tend towards zero. > It is of no worth. > > Werner > > You are really nuts, werner - a litlle more then I thought so. Is not the > observer and observed the same then? Where is the duality? > -geo- > Geo, Could you please explain what do you mean with 'you are nuts' ? Werner Yes. You say " nondual nonsense " ...which means that nonduality is a non-fact, in other words duality is the fact. You also say that observer and observed are the same - which should mean nonduality. So you are nuts. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 10/9/2009 09:13:17 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:16 AM Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > > What knowledge dan? What is the nature of knowledge you are referring > > to? Is > > there need for knowledge for a seeing that already is? What is it that > > says > > " this or that is knowledge, the past " ? More knowledge? Existence is > > knowledge to what extent? > > -geo- > > > All questions stop. > > They can't be had here. > > Not in or from this total stillness. > > Definitions, explanations, using words to show something or get > something ... all of that dries up and like dust is done with. > > - D - Obviously, none of this talk touches or makes a dent on the " emotional attachment " that is responsible for the " conceptual storm " Toom mentioned. Only awareness. -t- Which can not be named, pointed or referred. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 10/9/2009 09:22:14 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:16 AM > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > What knowledge dan? What is the nature of knowledge you are referring > > > to? Is > > > there need for knowledge for a seeing that already is? What is it that > > > says > > > " this or that is knowledge, the past " ? More knowledge? Existence is > > > knowledge to what extent? > > > -geo- > > > > > > All questions stop. > > > > They can't be had here. > > > > Not in or from this total stillness. > > > > Definitions, explanations, using words to show something or get > > something ... all of that dries up and like dust is done with. > > > > - D - > > Obviously, none of this talk touches or makes a dent on the " emotional > attachment " that is responsible for the " conceptual storm " Toom mentioned. > > Only awareness. > -t- > > Which can not be named, pointed or referred. > -geo- Correct. One turns off the computer and sits quietly, " just for now " . Or does it with the computer on, " just for now " . Turns out everything we do is " just for now " . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the present, to > > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How can you > > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your memories, > > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your > > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the past. The > > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I will > > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you > > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning, all the > > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you > > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer as one > > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to live not > > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living in a > > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time. > > > > > > (Saanen, 1966) > > > > > > > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, hence NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the NOW, including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of consciousness as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW is not the past, rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This is basic Advaita as i understand it. > > > > > Douglas, > > Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of consciousness between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem to hear a bang 'now' then in reality it already has passed and was gone. > > Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the instrument of consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in any case the past. > > Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an idea and nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true. > > Werner > Werner, please cite your neuroscience references so that i may investigate and come to a conclusion. But isn't the idea of a brain being " present " to measure the arising of consciousness a bit contradictory? If the brain is in the present moment when measurements are being taken regarding the arising of consciousness of a stimulus, then there is an assumed present is there not? Or do the experiments happen in the past also and therefore have no meaningful reality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Why can't you be silent Dan but have to babble and babble and sending innumerous posts filled with your nondual nonsense ? > > > > Ok, to be more correct, nonduality is a nice philosophy which is wonderfully suited to make you the center of attention in discussions at cocktail parties, especilly when there are attractive young wommen around. > > > > But in daily life the practicability of nonduality will tend towards zero. It is of no worth. > > > > Werner > > Anyone who believes that, and yet keeps talking on nondual lists, is being contradictory. > > The common sense would be to leave the nondual lists. Nonduality is correctly talked about on nondual forums, and Werner, it is " incorrect " to say nonduality is out of place on a nondual forum like this one. > > In fact, complaining about " nondual talk " on nondual forums, is off-topic. Obviously. > Yes, that's right, Tim, And thats why I am on a Maharaj list and not on a nonduality list. If you categorize Nis as a nondual teacher was not his fault. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > Yes, that's right, Tim, > > And thats why I am on a Maharaj list and not on a nonduality list. > > If you categorize Nis as a nondual teacher was not his fault. > > Werner In my view, Dan is not saying anything different than Nis. Whether reading all of his books (some many times over) qualifies me to say that or not, is up to the reader. I don't care either way. The reader is all alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the present, to > > > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How can you > > > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your memories, > > > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your > > > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the past. The > > > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I will > > > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you > > > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning, all the > > > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you > > > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer as one > > > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to live not > > > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living in a > > > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time. > > > > > > > > (Saanen, 1966) > > > > > > > > > > > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, hence NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the NOW, including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of consciousness as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW is not the past, rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This is basic Advaita as i understand it. > > > > > > > > > Douglas, > > > > Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of consciousness between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem to hear a bang 'now' then in reality it already has passed and was gone. > > > > Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the instrument of consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in any case the past. > > > > Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an idea and nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true. > > > > Werner > > > Werner, please cite your neuroscience references so that i may investigate and come to a conclusion. If your question was meant seriously then just Google neuroscience, neurology, consciousness and neuroscience, etc. Also Google Benjamin Libet. > But isn't the idea of a brain being " present " to measure the arising of consciousness a bit contradictory? Neuroscience has nothing to do with nonduality. If you confuse them in your head then you are just confusing apples with oranges. > If the brain is in the present moment when measurements are being taken regarding the arising of consciousness of a stimulus, then there is an assumed present is there not? When neuroscience is measuring brain currents it doesn't use nondual philosophy but magneto resonance tomographs. > Or do the experiments happen in the past also and therefore have no meaningful reality? You are proud of your logic and having read some nondual stuff aren't you ? But neuro-logic is different from Doug-logic . Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > snipped>>>> > > Neuroscience has nothing to do with nonduality. If you confuse them in your head then you are just confusing apples with oranges. I beg to differ with you, Werner Either everything has to do with nonduality, or nothing has to do with nonduality, be it neuroscience or not. Fruit is fruit, dividing it into apples and oranges has nothing to do with neuroscience or nonduality. It's all about fruit. Now, if we're talking about the fruit of our labors, then... > > > > If the brain is in the present moment when measurements are being taken regarding the arising of consciousness of a stimulus, then there is an assumed present is there not? > > > When neuroscience is measuring brain currents it doesn't use nondual philosophy but magneto resonance tomographs. Yes. And? > > > > Or do the experiments happen in the past also and therefore have no meaningful reality? > > > You are proud of your logic and having read some nondual stuff aren't you ? But neuro-logic is different from Doug-logic . > > Werner > Only in your mind, Werner. Only in your mind. That's the only place any differentiation takes place. How do I know, because we all use the same mind.... conscious-awareness, the content of which is you and is me. ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, that's right, Tim, > > > > And thats why I am on a Maharaj list and not on a nonduality list. > > > > If you categorize Nis as a nondual teacher was not his fault. > > > > Werner > > In my view, Dan is not saying anything different than Nis. > > Whether reading all of his books (some many times over) qualifies me to say that or not, is up to the reader. I don't care either way. The reader is all alone. > Ok Tim, thats fine with me. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:06 PM > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:51 PM > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:18 PM > > > Re: Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > wwoehr > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Geo, > > > > > > > > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop > > > > for > > > > a > > > > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the > > > > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is > > > this > > > looking not from the past and so meningless? > > > > > > See? When you say that all is consciousness, that statement is the past, > > > memory.....so has no value, is meaningless. > > > -geo- > > > > Yes. > > > > Also true of your statement: " that statement is the past, memory ... so > > has > > no value, is meaningless. " > > > > Also true of this statement being made in my post. > > > > What do you make of this statement: > > > > " This statement is meaningless. " > > > > Does it have meaning? > > > > Does it lack meaning? > > > > - D - > > > > You are thinking. Seeing is not thought.. Seeing is not consciosness. > > -geo- > > Seeing is not your statements. > > Seeing is not me or you. > > Seeing is not the word seeing. > > There is neither seeing nor is there any lack of seeing. > > Is and is not have no application. > > Yes or no don't apply. > > - D - > > Yes, but it is not correct to say that one is just clowning - as werner > suggested - until silence is crying. Usually clowning does not lead to > silence. > -geo- Hi Geo - Nothing leads to silence. Silence is. Everything " else " dissolves and dies its natural death. As there is nothing else. There is only the dying into/as this stillness. To think there is anything else, is a kind of self-distraction and avoidance. Of course, dialogues on this list can be used as distraction, but so can just about anything. Being clear, distractions lose their power to offer any distraction. One is aware that there is no such thing as a distraction or an impediment, that the attempt at self-distraction is contradictory and unreal. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:06 PM > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:51 PM > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > geo > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:18 PM > > > > Re: Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > wwoehr > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM > > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Geo, > > > > > > > > > > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop > > > > > for > > > > > a > > > > > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the > > > > > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ? > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is > > > > this > > > > looking not from the past and so meningless? > > > > > > > > See? When you say that all is consciousness, that statement is the past, > > > > memory.....so has no value, is meaningless. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Also true of your statement: " that statement is the past, memory ... so > > > has > > > no value, is meaningless. " > > > > > > Also true of this statement being made in my post. > > > > > > What do you make of this statement: > > > > > > " This statement is meaningless. " > > > > > > Does it have meaning? > > > > > > Does it lack meaning? > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > You are thinking. Seeing is not thought.. Seeing is not consciosness. > > > -geo- > > > > Seeing is not your statements. > > > > Seeing is not me or you. > > > > Seeing is not the word seeing. > > > > There is neither seeing nor is there any lack of seeing. > > > > Is and is not have no application. > > > > Yes or no don't apply. > > > > - D - > > > > Yes, but it is not correct to say that one is just clowning - as werner > > suggested - until silence is crying. Usually clowning does not lead to > > silence. > > -geo- > > > Hi Geo - > > Nothing leads to silence. > > Silence is. > > Everything " else " dissolves and dies its natural death. > > As there is nothing else. > > There is only the dying into/as this stillness. > > To think there is anything else, is a kind of self-distraction and avoidance. > > Of course, dialogues on this list can be used as distraction, but so can just about anything. > > Being clear, distractions lose their power to offer any distraction. > > One is aware that there is no such thing as a distraction or an impediment, that the attempt at self-distraction is contradictory and unreal. > > - D - Words arise as waves, sort of fluctuate for a while and fade away back into the silent ocean from where they came from. The werner affair is just a joke. -geo- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fix123br " <inandor wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:06 PM > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:51 PM > > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > geo > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:18 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > wwoehr > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM > > > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Geo, > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop > > > > > > for > > > > > > a > > > > > > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the > > > > > > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ? > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is > > > > > this > > > > > looking not from the past and so meningless? > > > > > > > > > > See? When you say that all is consciousness, that statement is the past, > > > > > memory.....so has no value, is meaningless. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Also true of your statement: " that statement is the past, memory ... so > > > > has > > > > no value, is meaningless. " > > > > > > > > Also true of this statement being made in my post. > > > > > > > > What do you make of this statement: > > > > > > > > " This statement is meaningless. " > > > > > > > > Does it have meaning? > > > > > > > > Does it lack meaning? > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > You are thinking. Seeing is not thought.. Seeing is not consciosness. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Seeing is not your statements. > > > > > > Seeing is not me or you. > > > > > > Seeing is not the word seeing. > > > > > > There is neither seeing nor is there any lack of seeing. > > > > > > Is and is not have no application. > > > > > > Yes or no don't apply. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Yes, but it is not correct to say that one is just clowning - as werner > > > suggested - until silence is crying. Usually clowning does not lead to > > > silence. > > > -geo- > > > > > > Hi Geo - > > > > Nothing leads to silence. > > > > Silence is. > > > > Everything " else " dissolves and dies its natural death. > > > > As there is nothing else. > > > > There is only the dying into/as this stillness. > > > > To think there is anything else, is a kind of self-distraction and avoidance. > > > > Of course, dialogues on this list can be used as distraction, but so can just about anything. > > > > Being clear, distractions lose their power to offer any distraction. > > > > One is aware that there is no such thing as a distraction or an impediment, that the attempt at self-distraction is contradictory and unreal. > > > > - D - > > Words arise as waves, sort of fluctuate for a while and fade away back into the silent ocean from where they came from. > Words are verbal and are created in the brain for eventual verbal communication. The metaphor of an Ocean is just poetic crap. You also could have written that words arise in Cinderella's belly and disappear there again. > The werner affair is just a joke. Soso, Geo the gossiper is feeling lonely. Werner > -geo- > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fix123br " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:06 PM > > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:51 PM > > > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > geo > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:18 PM > > > > > > Re: Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > wwoehr > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM > > > > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Geo, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the > > > > > > > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is > > > > > > this > > > > > > looking not from the past and so meningless? > > > > > > > > > > > > See? When you say that all is consciousness, that statement is the past, > > > > > > memory.....so has no value, is meaningless. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > Also true of your statement: " that statement is the past, memory ... so > > > > > has > > > > > no value, is meaningless. " > > > > > > > > > > Also true of this statement being made in my post. > > > > > > > > > > What do you make of this statement: > > > > > > > > > > " This statement is meaningless. " > > > > > > > > > > Does it have meaning? > > > > > > > > > > Does it lack meaning? > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > You are thinking. Seeing is not thought.. Seeing is not consciosness. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Seeing is not your statements. > > > > > > > > Seeing is not me or you. > > > > > > > > Seeing is not the word seeing. > > > > > > > > There is neither seeing nor is there any lack of seeing. > > > > > > > > Is and is not have no application. > > > > > > > > Yes or no don't apply. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > Yes, but it is not correct to say that one is just clowning - as werner > > > > suggested - until silence is crying. Usually clowning does not lead to > > > > silence. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > Hi Geo - > > > > > > Nothing leads to silence. > > > > > > Silence is. > > > > > > Everything " else " dissolves and dies its natural death. > > > > > > As there is nothing else. > > > > > > There is only the dying into/as this stillness. > > > > > > To think there is anything else, is a kind of self-distraction and avoidance. > > > > > > Of course, dialogues on this list can be used as distraction, but so can just about anything. > > > > > > Being clear, distractions lose their power to offer any distraction. > > > P: Good to see that posting has not lost its entertaining value for you. What other reason would you have to post? You don't think people are getting enlightened by your song and dance, do you? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Why can't you be silent Dan but have to babble and babble and sending innumerous posts filled with your nondual nonsense ? > > Ok, to be more correct, nonduality is a nice philosophy which is wonderfully suited to make you the center of attention in discussions at cocktail parties, especilly when there are attractive young wommen around. > > But in daily life the practicability of nonduality will tend towards zero. It is of no worth. > > Werner Hi Werner - Is that how it seems to you? No kidding? Well, thanks for sharing. Excuse me, but there's a very attractive young woman asking me to explain nonduality to her. As soon as I have a chance, though, I'll fill you in further about how you can use nonduality to predict the weather, the economic crisis, and the coming world war. I hope you can manage on your own until then, in spite of knowing nonduality only as a ploy to talk to women at parties. By the way, please let me know when you hear about any good nonduality parties with pretty young women. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > The more clear this is, the more one is forced into silence. > > > > One can no longer conclude that terms like " meaning " or " lacking meaning " have any relevance. > > > > One speaks, but the speaking is a human version of a bird singing or > a frog croaking. > > That's precisely what speaking is, no? > > A 'more complex' version of a bird singing, a frog croaking, a loon crying in the forest. Yes. Unfortunately, loons capable of wielding atomic weapons, wiping out rain forests and species of animals, and populating in ways that don't fit with the resources available. But, loons nonetheless (and some monkeys and badgers as well). - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > What knowledge dan? What is the nature of knowledge you are referring to? Is > > > there need for knowledge for a seeing that already is? What is it that says > > > " this or that is knowledge, the past " ? More knowledge? Existence is > > > knowledge to what extent? > > > -geo- > > > > > > All questions stop. > > > > They can't be had here. > > > > Not in or from this total stillness. > > > > Definitions, explanations, using words to show something or get > > something ... all of that dries up and like dust is done with. > > > > - D - > > Obviously, none of this talk touches or makes a dent on the " emotional attachment " that is responsible for the " conceptual storm " Toom mentioned. > > Only awareness. D: From my experience, I'd say that words can play a role to some extent in understanding what doesn't work, and not looking where looking won't help. But yes, one who is " thrown back " only to present being and awareness has the happen because it can't be helped. It is timing, not someone else's words. It is not caused by something or someone from outside. As we've noted here before, it is a crisis. I guess you could say it is a crisis for the sense of a directional being (being towards the future, being that anticipates the future, being that involves a sense of control). Also being that is directed from inside reacting to outside. That directional being and awareness is imbedded culturally, and through language and memory use (to project a future and imagine a personal past). Unless there is a significant crisis to the sense of directed being, I'm not sure how so-called centerless awareness/being would be appreciable. What's interesting as I'm writing this is noticing the extent of the deepening crisis " in the world " - which implies simultaneously a time when " awakening " may be available concomittently. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fix123br " <inandor wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:06 PM > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:51 PM > > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > geo > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:18 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > wwoehr > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM > > > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Geo, > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop > > > > > > for > > > > > > a > > > > > > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the > > > > > > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ? > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is > > > > > this > > > > > looking not from the past and so meningless? > > > > > > > > > > See? When you say that all is consciousness, that statement is the past, > > > > > memory.....so has no value, is meaningless. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Also true of your statement: " that statement is the past, memory ... so > > > > has > > > > no value, is meaningless. " > > > > > > > > Also true of this statement being made in my post. > > > > > > > > What do you make of this statement: > > > > > > > > " This statement is meaningless. " > > > > > > > > Does it have meaning? > > > > > > > > Does it lack meaning? > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > You are thinking. Seeing is not thought.. Seeing is not consciosness. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Seeing is not your statements. > > > > > > Seeing is not me or you. > > > > > > Seeing is not the word seeing. > > > > > > There is neither seeing nor is there any lack of seeing. > > > > > > Is and is not have no application. > > > > > > Yes or no don't apply. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Yes, but it is not correct to say that one is just clowning - as werner > > > suggested - until silence is crying. Usually clowning does not lead to > > > silence. > > > -geo- > > > > > > Hi Geo - > > > > Nothing leads to silence. > > > > Silence is. > > > > Everything " else " dissolves and dies its natural death. > > > > As there is nothing else. > > > > There is only the dying into/as this stillness. > > > > To think there is anything else, is a kind of self-distraction and avoidance. > > > > Of course, dialogues on this list can be used as distraction, but so can just about anything. > > > > Being clear, distractions lose their power to offer any distraction. > > > > One is aware that there is no such thing as a distraction or an impediment, that the attempt at self-distraction is contradictory and unreal. > > > > - D - > > Words arise as waves, sort of fluctuate for a while and fade away back into the silent ocean from where they came from. > > The werner affair is just a joke. > -geo- Yes, Werner's fun to have around. Enjoying all the " manifestations " of consciousness, in its infinite variations, - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.