Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Re: Practicing Nisargadatta's teaching Nisargadatta , " Douglas " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence of being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. That won't work Douglas, because very soon you will forget it and your mind is occupied with other stuff like chasing girls etc. (I am not joking) > What confounds " me " is how am " I " not the body-mind if thane vehicle for knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and depends on the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also dissolves into the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the " Absolute " . This is just an idea, nice as mental entertainment, but it is of no practical value. > " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the body-mind. I also don't understand that because consciousness is all there is. > Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in duality. It is not manifestation which occurs in duality. It is the categorizing thought which creates duality. > This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with form. If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness as well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I Am " and negate the body-mind. I also don't understand that and thefore I suggest to kick it into the dust bin - and off it goes > Wouldn't both have to be negated simultaneously? Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with either, correct? There is no 'Universal Consciousness'. That is just bull. Forget that crap. > So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? No one knows what Niz has meant with the 'Absolute'. And so one better kicks it too into the dust bin. > This skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where have " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? There is nothing to understand, Douglas... it is all just speculation. Werner > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Re: Practicing Nisargadatta's teaching > > > > Nisargadatta , " Douglas " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence of > being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. > > > That won't work Douglas, because very soon you will forget it and your mind is occupied with other stuff like chasing girls etc. (I am not joking) > > > > What confounds " me " is how am " I " not the body-mind if thane vehicle for > knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and depends on > the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also dissolves into > the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the " Absolute " . > > > This is just an idea, nice as mental entertainment, but it is of no practical value. > > > > " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the body-mind. > > > I also don't understand that because consciousness is all there is. > > > > Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in duality. > > > It is not manifestation which occurs in duality. It is the categorizing thought which creates duality. > > > > This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with form. If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness as well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I Am " and negate the body-mind. > > > I also don't understand that and thefore I suggest to kick it into the dust bin - and off it goes > > > > Wouldn't both have to be negated simultaneously? Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with either, correct? > > > There is no 'Universal Consciousness'. That is just bull. Forget that crap. > > > > So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? > > > No one knows what Niz has meant with the 'Absolute'. And so one better kicks it too into the dust bin. > > > > This skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where have " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? > > > There is nothing to understand, Douglas... it is all just speculation. > > Werner > > > > > >Werner, you're right about categorizing thought being that which divides maifestation into duality. However, the rest of your response wasn't helpful. Thanks anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Douglas " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence of being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. What confounds " me " is how am " I " not the body-mind if the vehicle for knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and depends on the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also dissolves into the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the " Absolute " . " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the body-mind. Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in duality. This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with form. If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness as well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I Am " and negate the body-mind. Wouldn't both have to be negated simultaneously? Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with either, correct? So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? This skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where have " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? > >I would like to hear Dan's response...come out, come out wherever you are! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Douglas " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Re: Practicing Nisargadatta's teaching > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Douglas " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence of > > being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. > > > > > > That won't work Douglas, because very soon you will forget it and your mind is occupied with other stuff like chasing girls etc. (I am not joking) > > > > > > > What confounds " me " is how am " I " not the body-mind if thane vehicle for > > knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and depends on > > the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also dissolves into > > the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the " Absolute " . > > > > > > This is just an idea, nice as mental entertainment, but it is of no practical value. > > > > > > > " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the body-mind. > > > > > > I also don't understand that because consciousness is all there is. > > > > > > > Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in duality. > > > > > > It is not manifestation which occurs in duality. It is the categorizing thought which creates duality. > > > > > > > This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with form. If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness as well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I Am " and negate the body-mind. > > > > > > I also don't understand that and thefore I suggest to kick it into the dust bin - and off it goes > > > > > > > Wouldn't both have to be negated simultaneously? Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with either, correct? > > > > > > There is no 'Universal Consciousness'. That is just bull. Forget that crap. > > > > > > > So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? > > > > > > No one knows what Niz has meant with the 'Absolute'. And so one better kicks it too into the dust bin. > > > > > > > This skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where have " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? > > > > > > There is nothing to understand, Douglas... it is all just speculation. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > >Werner, you're right about categorizing thought being that which divides maifestation into duality. However, the rest of your response wasn't helpful. Thanks anyway! > Sorry, that I disappointed you, Douglas. You can search or wait for some more answers but they just will fill you mind with more mental nonsense. I was NOT making jokes of you. What I wrote I really seriously meant. You see, we all hope through mental understanding the door to bliss and enlightenment opens, but it never will. The only you can do is what N is has done: Several hours a day focus on and observe the 'I am', and doing that for several years. You hope to find an easy way without that much work by using your intellect but that won't work. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 - Douglas Nisargadatta Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:29 AM Practicing Nisargadatta's teaching Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence of being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. What confounds " me " is how am " I " not the body-mind if the vehicle for knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and depends on the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also dissolves into the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the " Absolute " . " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the body-mind. Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in duality. This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with form. If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness as well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I Am " and negate the body-mind. Wouldn't both have to be negated simultaneously? Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with either, correct? So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? This skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where have " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? -douglas- Hi Douglas. I think I can help you understand this thing, and I ws going to write something in detail when I saw your post asking for dan to express his point of view. So...I am not sure whether you are interested in what geo might have to say.... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 - Douglas Nisargadatta Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:29 AM Practicing Nisargadatta's teaching Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence of being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. What confounds " me " is how am " I " not the body-mind if the vehicle for knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and depends on the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also dissolves into the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the " Absolute " . " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the body-mind. Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in duality. This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with form. If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness as well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I Am " and negate the body-mind. Wouldn't both have to be negated simultaneously? Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with either, correct? So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? This skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where have " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? -doug- Nis considers three " levels " of being. The first is identification with the body, which is none other then living with the sense of some inner observer (the organism). This is the level of 99,9999999% of humanity lives. The next level (according to nis) can be understood when you consider the senses. At this point one should say I AM ALL. You can get to this level in the following way: Are your eyes separate from you? Of course not, for anything that is sensed in any way is you otherwise you would not sense it. The same with your ears, skin, your thoughts, your emotions and feelings. Now...I ask: are the objects of perception separate or different from the sense organs that are you? No. The vision of a bird flying is a movement of the retina of YOUR eyes. One could say that the sense objects are senses in movement. So now I can say that I am all and all is me because all perceptions are through the senses. At this point there is freedom from identification with the body. See it. Although one is able to say that I am all...and this " all " is perceived through the senses, there is no more the centered inner separate observer that is indicative of identification with the body. One must meditate deeply and contemplate this stage of being.......then there is the next level....if there is interest... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Douglas > Nisargadatta > Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:29 AM > Practicing Nisargadatta's teaching > > > > Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence of > being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. What confounds " me " > is how am " I " not the body-mind if the vehicle for > knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and depends > on the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also dissolves > into the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the " Absolute " . > " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the > body-mind. Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in duality. > This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with form. > If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness as > well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I Am " > and negate the body-mind. Wouldn't both have to be negated simultaneously? > Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as > disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with either, > correct? So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? This > skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as > Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where have > " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? > -doug- > > Nis considers three " levels " of being. The first is identification with the > body, which is none other then living with the sense of some inner observer > (the organism). This is the level of 99,9999999% of humanity lives. The next > level (according to nis) can be understood when you consider the senses. At > this point one should say I AM ALL. You can get to this level in the > following way: Are your eyes separate from you? Of course not, for anything > that is sensed in any way is you otherwise you would not sense it. The same > with your ears, skin, your thoughts, your emotions and feelings. Now...I > ask: are the objects of perception separate or different from the sense > organs that are you? No. The vision of a bird flying is a movement of the > retina of YOUR eyes. One could say that the sense objects are senses in > movement. So now I can say that I am all and all is me because all > perceptions are through the senses. At this point there is freedom from > identification with the body. See it. Although one is able to say that I am > all...and this " all " is perceived through the senses, there is no more the > centered inner separate observer that is indicative of identification with > the body. One must meditate deeply and contemplate this stage of > being.......then there is the next level....if there is interest... > -geo- > >Please continue Geo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Douglas " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Douglas > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:29 AM > > Practicing Nisargadatta's teaching > > > > > > > > Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence of > > being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. What confounds " me " > > is how am " I " not the body-mind if the vehicle for > > knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and depends > > on the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also dissolves > > into the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the " Absolute " . > > " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the > > body-mind. Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in duality. > > This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with form. > > If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness as > > well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I Am " > > and negate the body-mind. Wouldn't both have to be negated simultaneously? > > Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as > > disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with either, > > correct? So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? This > > skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as > > Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where have > > " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? > > -doug- > > > > Nis considers three " levels " of being. The first is identification with the > > body, which is none other then living with the sense of some inner observer > > (the organism). This is the level of 99,9999999% of humanity lives. The next > > level (according to nis) can be understood when you consider the senses. At > > this point one should say I AM ALL. You can get to this level in the > > following way: Are your eyes separate from you? Of course not, for anything > > that is sensed in any way is you otherwise you would not sense it. The same > > with your ears, skin, your thoughts, your emotions and feelings. Now...I > > ask: are the objects of perception separate or different from the sense > > organs that are you? No. The vision of a bird flying is a movement of the > > retina of YOUR eyes. One could say that the sense objects are senses in > > movement. So now I can say that I am all and all is me because all > > perceptions are through the senses. At this point there is freedom from > > identification with the body. See it. Although one is able to say that I am > > all...and this " all " is perceived through the senses, there is no more the > > centered inner separate observer that is indicative of identification with > > the body. One must meditate deeply and contemplate this stage of > > being.......then there is the next level....if there is interest... > > -geo- > > > >Please continue Geo. > Also Geo, how in the world did you glean this understanding from Nis' teachings? Perhaps it would help me if you could provide some reference quotations from Nis to help me understand. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence of > > being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. What confounds " me " > > is how am " I " not the body-mind if the vehicle for > > knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and > > depends > > on the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also > > dissolves > > into the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the " Absolute " . > > " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the > > body-mind. Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in > > duality. > > This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with > > form. > > If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness as > > well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I Am " > > and negate the body-mind. Wouldn't both have to be negated simultaneously? > > Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as > > disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with either, > > correct? So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? This > > skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as > > Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where > > have > > " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? > > -doug- > > > > Nis considers three " levels " of being. The first is identification with > > the > > body, which is none other then living with the sense of some inner > > observer > > (the organism). This is the level of 99,9999999% of humanity lives. The > > next > > level (according to nis) can be understood when you consider the senses. > > At > > this point one should say I AM ALL. You can get to this level in the > > following way: Are your eyes separate from you? Of course not, for > > anything > > that is sensed in any way is you otherwise you would not sense it. The > > same > > with your ears, skin, your thoughts, your emotions and feelings. Now...I > > ask: are the objects of perception separate or different from the sense > > organs that are you? No. The vision of a bird flying is a movement of the > > retina of YOUR eyes. One could say that the sense objects are senses in > > movement. So now I can say that I am all and all is me because all > > perceptions are through the senses. At this point there is freedom from > > identification with the body. See it. Although one is able to say that I > > am > > all...and this " all " is perceived through the senses, there is no more the > > centered inner separate observer that is indicative of identification with > > the body. One must meditate deeply and contemplate this stage of > > being.......then there is the next level....if there is interest... > > -geo- > > > >Please continue Geo. > -d- > > So I am all and all is me without a shadow of doubt. I have understood and > transcended the center, the identification with the body and am able to say > " there is no division " , or " all is consciousness " , or " I am the world, the > world is me " . But at this point there is still the I AM. There is no way to > talk about the next without meditation in the truest sense of the world - > otherwise it may become an issue for intellectual dispute. One must ask: > " what is the nature of THIS " , or " what is the nature of the I " , of > existence - (being one as all this, of course). There is a ground that is > impossible to be pointed at, indicated in any way, referred to. Something > very close and unmovable, timeless, dimensionless - the potentiality of > all..........etc............(sssshhh....quiet werner) LOL > -geo- > Geo, I must raise the same question that Pete raised in the above posting on the problem with perception. What is the difference between a perception and an hallucination? Surely there is a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Douglas " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence of > > > being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. What confounds " me " > > > is how am " I " not the body-mind if the vehicle for > > > knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and > > > depends > > > on the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also > > > dissolves > > > into the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the " Absolute " . > > > " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the > > > body-mind. Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in > > > duality. > > > This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with > > > form. > > > If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness as > > > well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I Am " > > > and negate the body-mind. Wouldn't both have to be negated simultaneously? > > > Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as > > > disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with either, > > > correct? So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? This > > > skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as > > > Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where > > > have > > > " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? > > > -doug- > > > > > > Nis considers three " levels " of being. The first is identification with > > > the > > > body, which is none other then living with the sense of some inner > > > observer > > > (the organism). This is the level of 99,9999999% of humanity lives. The > > > next > > > level (according to nis) can be understood when you consider the senses. > > > At > > > this point one should say I AM ALL. You can get to this level in the > > > following way: Are your eyes separate from you? Of course not, for > > > anything > > > that is sensed in any way is you otherwise you would not sense it. The > > > same > > > with your ears, skin, your thoughts, your emotions and feelings. Now...I > > > ask: are the objects of perception separate or different from the sense > > > organs that are you? No. The vision of a bird flying is a movement of the > > > retina of YOUR eyes. One could say that the sense objects are senses in > > > movement. So now I can say that I am all and all is me because all > > > perceptions are through the senses. At this point there is freedom from > > > identification with the body. See it. Although one is able to say that I > > > am > > > all...and this " all " is perceived through the senses, there is no more the > > > centered inner separate observer that is indicative of identification with > > > the body. One must meditate deeply and contemplate this stage of > > > being.......then there is the next level....if there is interest... > > > -geo- > > > > > >Please continue Geo. > > -d- > > > > So I am all and all is me without a shadow of doubt. I have understood and > > transcended the center, the identification with the body and am able to say > > " there is no division " , or " all is consciousness " , or " I am the world, the > > world is me " . But at this point there is still the I AM. There is no way to > > talk about the next without meditation in the truest sense of the world - > > otherwise it may become an issue for intellectual dispute. One must ask: > > " what is the nature of THIS " , or " what is the nature of the I " , of > > existence - (being one as all this, of course). There is a ground that is > > impossible to be pointed at, indicated in any way, referred to. Something > > very close and unmovable, timeless, dimensionless - the potentiality of > > all..........etc............(sssshhh....quiet werner) LOL > > -geo- > > > Geo, I must raise the same question that Pete raised in the above posting on the problem with perception. What is the difference between a perception and an hallucination? Surely there is a difference. > Geo, perhaps I should wait for Dan to respond because your response does not resonate at all. Thanks anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 > Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence of > being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. What confounds " me " > is how am " I " not the body-mind if the vehicle for > knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and > depends > on the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also > dissolves > into the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the " Absolute " . > " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the > body-mind. Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in > duality. > This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with > form. > If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness as > well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I Am " > and negate the body-mind. Wouldn't both have to be negated simultaneously? > Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as > disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with either, > correct? So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? This > skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as > Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where > have > " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? > -doug- > > Nis considers three " levels " of being. The first is identification with > the > body, which is none other then living with the sense of some inner > observer > (the organism). This is the level of 99,9999999% of humanity lives. The > next > level (according to nis) can be understood when you consider the senses. > At > this point one should say I AM ALL. You can get to this level in the > following way: Are your eyes separate from you? Of course not, for > anything > that is sensed in any way is you otherwise you would not sense it. The > same > with your ears, skin, your thoughts, your emotions and feelings. Now...I > ask: are the objects of perception separate or different from the sense > organs that are you? No. The vision of a bird flying is a movement of the > retina of YOUR eyes. One could say that the sense objects are senses in > movement. So now I can say that I am all and all is me because all > perceptions are through the senses. At this point there is freedom from > identification with the body. See it. Although one is able to say that I > am > all...and this " all " is perceived through the senses, there is no more the > centered inner separate observer that is indicative of identification with > the body. One must meditate deeply and contemplate this stage of > being.......then there is the next level....if there is interest... > -geo- > >Please continue Geo. -d- So I am all and all is me without a shadow of doubt. I have understood and transcended the center, the identification with the body and am able to say " there is no division " , or " all is consciousness " , or " I am the world, the world is me " . But at this point there is still the I AM. There is no way to talk about the next without meditation in the truest sense of the world - otherwise it may become an issue for intellectual dispute. One must ask: " what is the nature of THIS " , or " what is the nature of the I " , of existence - (being one as all this, of course). There is a ground that is impossible to be pointed at, indicated in any way, referred to. Something very close and unmovable, timeless, dimensionless - the potentiality of all..........etc............(sssshhh....quiet werner) LOL -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 - Douglas Nisargadatta Saturday, November 07, 2009 4:30 PM Re: Practicing Nisargadatta's teaching Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence > > of > > being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. What confounds > > " me " > > is how am " I " not the body-mind if the vehicle for > > knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and > > depends > > on the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also > > dissolves > > into the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the > > " Absolute " . > > " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the > > body-mind. Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in > > duality. > > This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with > > form. > > If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness as > > well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I > > Am " > > and negate the body-mind. Wouldn't both have to be negated > > simultaneously? > > Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as > > disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with either, > > correct? So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? > > This > > skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as > > Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where > > have > > " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? > > -doug- > > > > Nis considers three " levels " of being. The first is identification with > > the > > body, which is none other then living with the sense of some inner > > observer > > (the organism). This is the level of 99,9999999% of humanity lives. The > > next > > level (according to nis) can be understood when you consider the senses. > > At > > this point one should say I AM ALL. You can get to this level in the > > following way: Are your eyes separate from you? Of course not, for > > anything > > that is sensed in any way is you otherwise you would not sense it. The > > same > > with your ears, skin, your thoughts, your emotions and feelings. Now...I > > ask: are the objects of perception separate or different from the sense > > organs that are you? No. The vision of a bird flying is a movement of > > the > > retina of YOUR eyes. One could say that the sense objects are senses in > > movement. So now I can say that I am all and all is me because all > > perceptions are through the senses. At this point there is freedom from > > identification with the body. See it. Although one is able to say that I > > am > > all...and this " all " is perceived through the senses, there is no more > > the > > centered inner separate observer that is indicative of identification > > with > > the body. One must meditate deeply and contemplate this stage of > > being.......then there is the next level....if there is interest... > > -geo- > > > >Please continue Geo. > -d- > > So I am all and all is me without a shadow of doubt. I have understood and > transcended the center, the identification with the body and am able to > say > " there is no division " , or " all is consciousness " , or " I am the world, the > world is me " . But at this point there is still the I AM. There is no way > to > talk about the next without meditation in the truest sense of the world - > otherwise it may become an issue for intellectual dispute. One must ask: > " what is the nature of THIS " , or " what is the nature of the I " , of > existence - (being one as all this, of course). There is a ground that is > impossible to be pointed at, indicated in any way, referred to. Something > very close and unmovable, timeless, dimensionless - the potentiality of > all..........etc............(sssshhh....quiet werner) LOL > -geo- > Geo, I must raise the same question that Pete raised in the above posting on the problem with perception. What is the difference between a perception and an hallucination? Surely there is a difference. -doug- I am not following pete's messages on that matter, but... In the present context none. Any perception comes through the senses. A hallucination may be a miss-sensation or imagination. I am all of it anyway. The thing is that if I am prone to have too much hallucinations I probably will not be in this list and probably will not understand what identification with the body means. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 - Douglas Nisargadatta Saturday, November 07, 2009 5:08 PM Re: Practicing Nisargadatta's teaching Nisargadatta , " Douglas " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence > > > of > > > being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. What confounds > > > " me " > > > is how am " I " not the body-mind if the vehicle for > > > knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and > > > depends > > > on the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also > > > dissolves > > > into the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the > > > " Absolute " . > > > " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the > > > body-mind. Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in > > > duality. > > > This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with > > > form. > > > If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness > > > as > > > well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I > > > Am " > > > and negate the body-mind. Wouldn't both have to be negated > > > simultaneously? > > > Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as > > > disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with > > > either, > > > correct? So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? > > > This > > > skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as > > > Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where > > > have > > > " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? > > > -doug- > > > > > > Nis considers three " levels " of being. The first is identification > > > with > > > the > > > body, which is none other then living with the sense of some inner > > > observer > > > (the organism). This is the level of 99,9999999% of humanity lives. > > > The > > > next > > > level (according to nis) can be understood when you consider the > > > senses. > > > At > > > this point one should say I AM ALL. You can get to this level in the > > > following way: Are your eyes separate from you? Of course not, for > > > anything > > > that is sensed in any way is you otherwise you would not sense it. The > > > same > > > with your ears, skin, your thoughts, your emotions and feelings. > > > Now...I > > > ask: are the objects of perception separate or different from the > > > sense > > > organs that are you? No. The vision of a bird flying is a movement of > > > the > > > retina of YOUR eyes. One could say that the sense objects are senses > > > in > > > movement. So now I can say that I am all and all is me because all > > > perceptions are through the senses. At this point there is freedom > > > from > > > identification with the body. See it. Although one is able to say that > > > I > > > am > > > all...and this " all " is perceived through the senses, there is no more > > > the > > > centered inner separate observer that is indicative of identification > > > with > > > the body. One must meditate deeply and contemplate this stage of > > > being.......then there is the next level....if there is interest... > > > -geo- > > > > > >Please continue Geo. > > -d- > > > > So I am all and all is me without a shadow of doubt. I have understood > > and > > transcended the center, the identification with the body and am able to > > say > > " there is no division " , or " all is consciousness " , or " I am the world, > > the > > world is me " . But at this point there is still the I AM. There is no way > > to > > talk about the next without meditation in the truest sense of the > > world - > > otherwise it may become an issue for intellectual dispute. One must ask: > > " what is the nature of THIS " , or " what is the nature of the I " , of > > existence - (being one as all this, of course). There is a ground that > > is > > impossible to be pointed at, indicated in any way, referred to. > > Something > > very close and unmovable, timeless, dimensionless - the potentiality of > > all..........etc............(sssshhh....quiet werner) LOL > > -geo- > > > Geo, I must raise the same question that Pete raised in the above posting > on the problem with perception. What is the difference between a > perception and an hallucination? Surely there is a difference. > Geo, perhaps I should wait for Dan to respond because your response does not resonate at all. Thanks anyway. -doug- Yes...you wait. -geo- 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.