Guest guest Posted March 20, 2010 Report Share Posted March 20, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. > > Awareness has no time. > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? When we capitalize Awareness and look at it as Brahman the way Hindus do, and the Empty Space the way Buddhists teach, or the formless Holy Spirit the way Christians view the impersonal " That " ... then this sort of understanding is only useful for the little old me who's like a sad puppy always searching for the eternal bone of hope. What usually happens is that the bone, the puppy and the hope all die in time and what remains is the existence. Very often mystical teachings view the world as an illusion and offer some type of hope for eternity but it seems the other way around... that we are the illusion and the world/existence is very much real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2010 Report Share Posted March 20, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. > > > > Awareness has no time. > > > > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? When we capitalize Awareness and look at it as Brahman the way Hindus do, and the Empty Space the way Buddhists teach, or the formless Holy Spirit the way Christians view the impersonal " That " ... then this sort of understanding is only useful for the little old me who's like a sad puppy always searching for the eternal bone of hope. What usually happens is that the bone, the puppy and the hope all die in time and what remains is the existence. Very often mystical teachings view the world as an illusion and offer some type of hope for eternity but it seems the other way around... that we are the illusion and the world/existence is very much real. P: I'm with you on this. It's important to see that insolvable philosophical questions are mirages created by the limitations of language. These problems can't be solved with language based reasoning. We have to see directly how language creates a mirage called Awareness, which has no connection with whatever is aware of these words as you read, now. Language creates also the problem of the observer and the observed, and the problem of an owner of mental states that needs to be liberated, and who craves surviving the body's death. Not until we understand that abstract words do not point to entities, but only to human activities, and language contexts, we will continue to pursue the mirages they represent. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. > > > > Awareness has no time. > > > > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? D: It's obvious. I know the body-mind as object. And the knowing awareness isn't a property of the object known as object. It can't be, that would be a contradiction. The question isn't " how can one possibly know? " it's " how can a knowing center, and its own awareness, be construed as located in a body-mind? " That is the question. And although people automatically tend to take ownership of awareness, it is not the person's to claim. So, rather than any kind of special knowing, I'm simply allowing the assumption to dissolve, by which the body-mind attempt to own something it can't own. And with the dissolution of that assumption, it is clear - now, immediately so - and no special " knowing " is claimed. The object, in spite of assumptions to the contrary, has never been able to turn back around against itself and know itself as a conceptually separable object, and such a contradiction never occurred - it just seemed to occur, as long as the assumption of a centralized knower was intact. So, It's right here, directly so. It has nothing to do with capitalizing awareness, or studying Buddhism, or reading and believing in the Bible, or learning about Brahman. None of that is involved. Just the immediately so. That is all, and is enough. And thus, no hope is involved. Because no future is involved. One understands the world-dream immediately, by understanding the appearance of objects as that appearance occurs, and is construed (cognized) now. - Dan - (nothing new below) When we capitalize Awareness and look at it as Brahman the way Hindus do, and the Empty Space the way Buddhists teach, or the formless Holy Spirit the way Christians view the impersonal " That " ... then this sort of understanding is only useful for the little old me who's like a sad puppy always searching for the eternal bone of hope. What usually happens is that the bone, the puppy and the hope all die in time and what remains is the existence. Very often mystical teachings view the world as an illusion and offer some type of hope for eternity but it seems the other way around... that we are the illusion and the world/existence is very much real. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. > > > > > > Awareness has no time. > > > > > > > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? > > D: It's obvious. I know the body-mind as object. > > And the knowing awareness isn't a property of the object > known as object. It can't be, that would be a contradiction. Fwiw, I don't see what you're saying above as claiming something like " upon total brain death, awareness remains " . I don't see you pointing to that at all -- but rather, that the cognized object known as body-mind (which is actually a mental picture) is not the source of awareness. Is that a fair assessment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. > > > > > > > > Awareness has no time. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? > > > > D: It's obvious. I know the body-mind as object. > > > > And the knowing awareness isn't a property of the object > > known as object. It can't be, that would be a contradiction. > > Fwiw, I don't see what you're saying above as claiming something like " upon total brain death, awareness remains " . > > I don't see you pointing to that at all -- but rather, that the cognized object known as body-mind (which is actually a mental picture) is not the source of awareness. > > Is that a fair assessment? Yes. What I'm saying is based on present awareness, not speculation about an imagined future, such as " what happens when. " Nondivision of awareness/object of awareness is the present understanding, and doesn't require the death of the body-mind to be clear about. Nor does one need to " prepare " for what will happen in the future, at the death of the body-mind system. Right now, I am aware of and through the body-mind without awareness being based in body-mind, or being the result of body-mind. One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes it seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk about. Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object. And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the " representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a misunderstanding, imho. So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc. Thus, one is the " nothing " through which awareness/body-mind or awareness/any-object co-arises in experiences of apparent multiplicity, such as " I live on a planet inhabited by many body-minds, " etc. If one understands this way, the consensus agreements about multiplicity, time, individual existence and separation are turned on their head. I'm not discussing this to try to be " right " or " prove a point " or " win a debate " -- just suggesting that nondivision is the present awareness, and this frees one from assuming division and separation. Which is to say, one is free from the divisions that thought assumes as reality. One can think, and speak - but one also is aware thoughtlessly, nonverbally. And this involves no conflict or judgment of present experience, or " others " whatsoever. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. > > > > > > > > > > Awareness has no time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? > > > > > > D: It's obvious. I know the body-mind as object. > > > > > > And the knowing awareness isn't a property of the object > > > known as object. It can't be, that would be a contradiction. > > > > Fwiw, I don't see what you're saying above as claiming something like " upon total brain death, awareness remains " . > > > > I don't see you pointing to that at all -- but rather, that the cognized object known as body-mind (which is actually a mental picture) is not the source of awareness. > > > > Is that a fair assessment? > > Yes. > > What I'm saying is based on present awareness, not speculation about an imagined future, such as " what happens when. " Nondivision of awareness/object of awareness is the present understanding, and doesn't require the death of the body-mind to be clear about. Nor does one need to " prepare " for what will happen in the future, at the death of the body-mind system. > > Right now, I am aware of and through the body-mind without awareness being based in body-mind, or being the result of body-mind. > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes it seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk about. Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object. > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the " representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a misunderstanding, imho. > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc. > > Thus, one is the " nothing " through which awareness/body-mind or awareness/any-object co-arises in experiences of apparent multiplicity, such as " I live on a planet inhabited by many body-minds, " etc. > > If one understands this way, the consensus agreements about multiplicity, time, individual existence and separation are turned on their head. > > I'm not discussing this to try to be " right " or " prove a point " or " win a debate " -- just suggesting that nondivision is the present awareness, and this frees one from assuming division and separation. Which is to say, one is free from the divisions that thought assumes as reality. One can think, and speak - but one also is aware thoughtlessly, nonverbally. And this involves no conflict or judgment of present experience, or " others " whatsoever. > > - D - P: This is your best clarification to date, but do you identify with awareness? Is awareness seen as a toy that the unknown does not really need? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. > > > > > > > > > > Awareness has no time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? > > > > > > D: It's obvious. I know the body-mind as object. > > > > > > And the knowing awareness isn't a property of the object > > > known as object. It can't be, that would be a contradiction. > > > > Fwiw, I don't see what you're saying above as claiming something like " upon total brain death, awareness remains " . > > > > I don't see you pointing to that at all -- but rather, that the cognized object known as body-mind (which is actually a mental picture) is not the source of awareness. > > > > Is that a fair assessment? > > Yes. > > What I'm saying is based on present awareness, not speculation about an imagined future, such as " what happens when. " Nondivision of awareness/object of awareness is the present understanding, and doesn't require the death of the body-mind to be clear about. Nor does one need to " prepare " for what will happen in the future, at the death of the body-mind system. > Thanks... I mostly wanted to clarify that because there's a tendency to think that if awareness isn't the product of the body/mind, it must be the product of " something else " , or otherwise be some sort of " spiritual essence " or soul -- something like that. And I knew that isn't what you're getting at, by saying awareness isn't a product of a body/mind, or inside a body/mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness has no time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? > > > > > > > > D: It's obvious. I know the body-mind as object. > > > > > > > > And the knowing awareness isn't a property of the object > > > > known as object. It can't be, that would be a contradiction. > > > > > > Fwiw, I don't see what you're saying above as claiming something like " upon total brain death, awareness remains " . > > > > > > I don't see you pointing to that at all -- but rather, that the cognized object known as body-mind (which is actually a mental picture) is not the source of awareness. > > > > > > Is that a fair assessment? > > > > Yes. > > > > What I'm saying is based on present awareness, not speculation about an imagined future, such as " what happens when. " Nondivision of awareness/object of awareness is the present understanding, and doesn't require the death of the body-mind to be clear about. Nor does one need to " prepare " for what will happen in the future, at the death of the body-mind system. > > > > Right now, I am aware of and through the body-mind without awareness being based in body-mind, or being the result of body-mind. > > > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes it seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk about. Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object. > > > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the " representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a misunderstanding, imho. > > > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc. > > > > Thus, one is the " nothing " through which awareness/body-mind or awareness/any-object co-arises in experiences of apparent multiplicity, such as " I live on a planet inhabited by many body-minds, " etc. > > > > If one understands this way, the consensus agreements about multiplicity, time, individual existence and separation are turned on their head. > > > > I'm not discussing this to try to be " right " or " prove a point " or " win a debate " -- just suggesting that nondivision is the present awareness, and this frees one from assuming division and separation. Which is to say, one is free from the divisions that thought assumes as reality. One can think, and speak - but one also is aware thoughtlessly, nonverbally. And this involves no conflict or judgment of present experience, or " others " whatsoever. > > > > - D - > > P: This is your best clarification to date, but > do you identify with awareness? Is awareness seen > as a toy that the unknown does not really need? > He already said his intent isn't to objectify awareness. There's no identifying with " something " that isn't a something, isn't an object. The very notion is silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness has no time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? > > > > > > > > > > D: It's obvious. I know the body-mind as object. > > > > > > > > > > And the knowing awareness isn't a property of the object > > > > > known as object. It can't be, that would be a contradiction. > > > > > > > > Fwiw, I don't see what you're saying above as claiming something like " upon total brain death, awareness remains " . > > > > > > > > I don't see you pointing to that at all -- but rather, that the cognized object known as body-mind (which is actually a mental picture) is not the source of awareness. > > > > > > > > Is that a fair assessment? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > What I'm saying is based on present awareness, not speculation about an imagined future, such as " what happens when. " Nondivision of awareness/object of awareness is the present understanding, and doesn't require the death of the body-mind to be clear about. Nor does one need to " prepare " for what will happen in the future, at the death of the body-mind system. > > > > > > Right now, I am aware of and through the body-mind without awareness being based in body-mind, or being the result of body-mind. > > > > > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes it seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk about. Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object. > > > > > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the " representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a misunderstanding, imho. > > > > > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc. > > > > > > Thus, one is the " nothing " through which awareness/body-mind or awareness/any-object co-arises in experiences of apparent multiplicity, such as " I live on a planet inhabited by many body-minds, " etc. > > > > > > If one understands this way, the consensus agreements about multiplicity, time, individual existence and separation are turned on their head. > > > > > > I'm not discussing this to try to be " right " or " prove a point " or " win a debate " -- just suggesting that nondivision is the present awareness, and this frees one from assuming division and separation. Which is to say, one is free from the divisions that thought assumes as reality. One can think, and speak - but one also is aware thoughtlessly, nonverbally. And this involves no conflict or judgment of present experience, or " others " whatsoever. > > > > > > - D - > > > > P: This is your best clarification to date, but > > do you identify with awareness? Is awareness seen > > as a toy that the unknown does not really need? > > > > He already said his intent isn't to objectify awareness. > > There's no identifying with " something " that isn't a something, isn't an object. The very notion is silly. > P.S. -- now, " the brain " , on the other hand... Heheheh ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness has no time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? > > > > > > > > > > > > D: It's obvious. I know the body-mind as object. > > > > > > > > > > > > And the knowing awareness isn't a property of the object > > > > > > known as object. It can't be, that would be a contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > Fwiw, I don't see what you're saying above as claiming something like " upon total brain death, awareness remains " . > > > > > > > > > > I don't see you pointing to that at all -- but rather, that the cognized object known as body-mind (which is actually a mental picture) is not the source of awareness. > > > > > > > > > > Is that a fair assessment? > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > What I'm saying is based on present awareness, not speculation about an imagined future, such as " what happens when. " Nondivision of awareness/object of awareness is the present understanding, and doesn't require the death of the body-mind to be clear about. Nor does one need to " prepare " for what will happen in the future, at the death of the body-mind system. > > > > > > > > Right now, I am aware of and through the body-mind without awareness being based in body-mind, or being the result of body-mind. > > > > > > > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes it seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk about. Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object. > > > > > > > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the " representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a misunderstanding, imho. > > > > > > > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc. > > > > > > > > Thus, one is the " nothing " through which awareness/body-mind or awareness/any-object co-arises in experiences of apparent multiplicity, such as " I live on a planet inhabited by many body-minds, " etc. > > > > > > > > If one understands this way, the consensus agreements about multiplicity, time, individual existence and separation are turned on their head. > > > > > > > > I'm not discussing this to try to be " right " or " prove a point " or " win a debate " -- just suggesting that nondivision is the present awareness, and this frees one from assuming division and separation. Which is to say, one is free from the divisions that thought assumes as reality. One can think, and speak - but one also is aware thoughtlessly, nonverbally. And this involves no conflict or judgment of present experience, or " others " whatsoever. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > P: This is your best clarification to date, but > > > do you identify with awareness? Is awareness seen > > > as a toy that the unknown does not really need? > > > > > > > He already said his intent isn't to objectify awareness. > > > > There's no identifying with " something " that isn't a something, isn't an object. The very notion is silly. > > > > P.S. -- now, " the brain " , on the other hand... > > Heheheh ;-). > I could address the question addressed to Dan, back to Pete: .... but do you identify with the brain? Is the brain seen as a toy that the unknown does not really need? Do tell, Pete... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness has no time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? > > > > > > > > D: It's obvious. I know the body-mind as object. > > > > > > > > And the knowing awareness isn't a property of the object > > > > known as object. It can't be, that would be a contradiction. > > > > > > Fwiw, I don't see what you're saying above as claiming something like " upon total brain death, awareness remains " . > > > > > > I don't see you pointing to that at all -- but rather, that the cognized object known as body-mind (which is actually a mental picture) is not the source of awareness. > > > > > > Is that a fair assessment? > > > > Yes. > > > > What I'm saying is based on present awareness, not speculation about an imagined future, such as " what happens when. " Nondivision of awareness/object of awareness is the present understanding, and doesn't require the death of the body-mind to be clear about. Nor does one need to " prepare " for what will happen in the future, at the death of the body-mind system. > > > > Right now, I am aware of and through the body-mind without awareness being based in body-mind, or being the result of body-mind. > > > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes it seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk about. Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object. > > > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the " representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a misunderstanding, imho. > > > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc. > > > > Thus, one is the " nothing " through which awareness/body-mind or awareness/any-object co-arises in experiences of apparent multiplicity, such as " I live on a planet inhabited by many body-minds, " etc. > > > > If one understands this way, the consensus agreements about multiplicity, time, individual existence and separation are turned on their head. > > > > I'm not discussing this to try to be " right " or " prove a point " or " win a debate " -- just suggesting that nondivision is the present awareness, and this frees one from assuming division and separation. Which is to say, one is free from the divisions that thought assumes as reality. One can think, and speak - but one also is aware thoughtlessly, nonverbally. And this involves no conflict or judgment of present experience, or " others " whatsoever. > > > > - D - > > P: This is your best clarification to date, but > do you identify with awareness? Is awareness seen > as a toy that the unknown does not really need? D: The unknown and all that is considered to be known are simply not-two. This is an immediate fact of being aware. The unknown is not something personified, not like a child playing with toys. The unknown is the immediate fact of being aware, as being aware " happens. " You may be asking something like: " What about when one is not aware? " " Does the unknown need to be aware? " It is not a matter of " need " because there is no personification, and " need " pertains to a conceptualized being with limitations. It is a matter of unfolding. Awareness unfolds from nothing, the unknown. It is natural, seamless - it is not made to happen. There is nothing outside which would make it to happen, nor is there anything inside for which awareness would be a need or a desire. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness has no time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D: It's obvious. I know the body-mind as object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the knowing awareness isn't a property of the object > > > > > > > known as object. It can't be, that would be a contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fwiw, I don't see what you're saying above as claiming something like " upon total brain death, awareness remains " . > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see you pointing to that at all -- but rather, that the cognized object known as body-mind (which is actually a mental picture) is not the source of awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that a fair assessment? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying is based on present awareness, not speculation about an imagined future, such as " what happens when. " Nondivision of awareness/object of awareness is the present understanding, and doesn't require the death of the body-mind to be clear about. Nor does one need to " prepare " for what will happen in the future, at the death of the body-mind system. > > > > > > > > > > Right now, I am aware of and through the body-mind without awareness being based in body-mind, or being the result of body-mind. > > > > > > > > > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes it seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk about. Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object. > > > > > > > > > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the " representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a misunderstanding, imho. > > > > > > > > > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc. > > > > > > > > > > Thus, one is the " nothing " through which awareness/body-mind or awareness/any-object co-arises in experiences of apparent multiplicity, such as " I live on a planet inhabited by many body-minds, " etc. > > > > > > > > > > If one understands this way, the consensus agreements about multiplicity, time, individual existence and separation are turned on their head. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not discussing this to try to be " right " or " prove a point " or " win a debate " -- just suggesting that nondivision is the present awareness, and this frees one from assuming division and separation. Which is to say, one is free from the divisions that thought assumes as reality. One can think, and speak - but one also is aware thoughtlessly, nonverbally. And this involves no conflict or judgment of present experience, or " others " whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > P: This is your best clarification to date, but > > > > do you identify with awareness? Is awareness seen > > > > as a toy that the unknown does not really need? > > > > > > > > > > He already said his intent isn't to objectify awareness. > > > > > > There's no identifying with " something " that isn't a something, isn't an object. The very notion is silly. > > > > > > > P.S. -- now, " the brain " , on the other hand... > > > > Heheheh ;-). > > > > I could address the question addressed to Dan, back to Pete: > > ... but do you identify with the brain? Is the brain seen as a toy that the unknown does not really need? > > Do tell, Pete... Good point. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not " coming from " the body-mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness has no time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D: It's obvious. I know the body-mind as object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the knowing awareness isn't a property of the object > > > > > > > > known as object. It can't be, that would be a contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fwiw, I don't see what you're saying above as claiming something like " upon total brain death, awareness remains " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see you pointing to that at all -- but rather, that the cognized object known as body-mind (which is actually a mental picture) is not the source of awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that a fair assessment? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying is based on present awareness, not speculation about an imagined future, such as " what happens when. " Nondivision of awareness/object of awareness is the present understanding, and doesn't require the death of the body-mind to be clear about. Nor does one need to " prepare " for what will happen in the future, at the death of the body-mind system. > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, I am aware of and through the body-mind without awareness being based in body-mind, or being the result of body-mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes it seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk about. Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object. > > > > > > > > > > > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the " representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a misunderstanding, imho. > > > > > > > > > > > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, one is the " nothing " through which awareness/body-mind or awareness/any-object co-arises in experiences of apparent multiplicity, such as " I live on a planet inhabited by many body-minds, " etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > If one understands this way, the consensus agreements about multiplicity, time, individual existence and separation are turned on their head. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not discussing this to try to be " right " or " prove a point " or " win a debate " -- just suggesting that nondivision is the present awareness, and this frees one from assuming division and separation. Which is to say, one is free from the divisions that thought assumes as reality. One can think, and speak - but one also is aware thoughtlessly, nonverbally. And this involves no conflict or judgment of present experience, or " others " whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > P: This is your best clarification to date, but > > > > > do you identify with awareness? Is awareness seen > > > > > as a toy that the unknown does not really need? > > > > > > > > > > > > > He already said his intent isn't to objectify awareness. > > > > > > > > There's no identifying with " something " that isn't a something, isn't an object. The very notion is silly. > > > > > > > > > > P.S. -- now, " the brain " , on the other hand... > > > > > > Heheheh ;-). > > > > > > > I could address the question addressed to Dan, back to Pete: > > > > ... but do you identify with the brain? Is the brain seen as a toy that the unknown does not really need? > > > > Do tell, Pete... > > Good point. > > - D - > It would be nice if Pete would acknowledge that 'scientific thinking' isn't necessary to counteract 'magical thinking'. " Clear seeing " involves neither subjective magical thought nor objective scientific thought. Reality is neither subjective, nor objective. Thought seems to get trapped into one or the other of these two poles -- and it's unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 - cerosoul Nisargadatta Monday, March 22, 2010 1:38 PM Re: where the " i thought " rises -- dan Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason one is aware of " body-mind " is because awareness is not > > > > > " coming from " the body-mind. > > > > > > > > > > Awareness has no time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that for sure. How can you possibly know? > > > > > > D: It's obvious. I know the body-mind as object. > > > > > > And the knowing awareness isn't a property of the object > > > known as object. It can't be, that would be a contradiction. > > > > Fwiw, I don't see what you're saying above as claiming something like > > " upon total brain death, awareness remains " . > > > > I don't see you pointing to that at all -- but rather, that the cognized > > object known as body-mind (which is actually a mental picture) is not > > the source of awareness. > > > > Is that a fair assessment? > > Yes. > > What I'm saying is based on present awareness, not speculation about an > imagined future, such as " what happens when. " Nondivision of > awareness/object of awareness is the present understanding, and doesn't > require the death of the body-mind to be clear about. Nor does one need to > " prepare " for what will happen in the future, at the death of the > body-mind system. > > Right now, I am aware of and through the body-mind without awareness being > based in body-mind, or being the result of body-mind. > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes it > seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk > about. Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a > representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression > that awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object. > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the > " representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and > should be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's > entirely a misunderstanding, imho. > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been > objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the > sake of discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and > someone can describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where > awareness is, etc. > > Thus, one is the " nothing " through which awareness/body-mind or > awareness/any-object co-arises in experiences of apparent multiplicity, > such as " I live on a planet inhabited by many body-minds, " etc. > > If one understands this way, the consensus agreements about multiplicity, > time, individual existence and separation are turned on their head. > > I'm not discussing this to try to be " right " or " prove a point " or " win a > debate " -- just suggesting that nondivision is the present awareness, and > this frees one from assuming division and separation. Which is to say, one > is free from the divisions that thought assumes as reality. One can think, > and speak - but one also is aware thoughtlessly, nonverbally. And this > involves no conflict or judgment of present experience, or " others " > whatsoever. > > - D - P: This is your best clarification to date, but do you identify with awareness? Is awareness seen as a toy that the unknown does not really need? geo: Unknown AND awareness? avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100320-1, 20/03/2010 Tested on: 22/3/2010 17:57:12 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes it seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk about. Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object. > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the " representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a misunderstanding, imho. > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc. > > if i understad you correctly you're saying that awareness is not an object? do you consider computer software to be an object? is electricity an object? if awareness is not an object then what is it? a form of energy? brain/mind's software where things thing reflect? what i don't like is that " awareness " becomes another word for " holy spirit " and some advaita believers use this as if it's their ticket to some sort of eternal life. it's ok if they do but someone needs to point that out so everything is out in the open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 > > > > P: This is your best clarification to date, but > > do you identify with awareness? Is awareness seen > > as a toy that the unknown does not really need? > > > >T: He already said his intent isn't to objectify awareness. > > There's no identifying with " something " that isn't a something, isn't an object. The very notion is silly. P: I know you and him are an " item, " but must you speak for him? Control your motherly instinct, please. Besides, what you wrote is very silly. People identify with vague ideals all the time. If, a stranger, would ask you, " Tell me about yourself? " Would you name an object? No, probably you would name activities, qualities, and concepts that you hold to give her an idea of who you are. Most religious people believe they are a soul without having even a clear idea what a soul is, and no religion will define soul as an object. We can't say something is an object, if we can't know its qualities and relationships to other objects. People, nevertheless, identify themselves as souls, or awareness, terms that have no known qualities nor interactions with any objects. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 > > > > > > > > P: This is your best clarification to date, but > > > > do you identify with awareness? Is awareness seen > > > > as a toy that the unknown does not really need? > > > > > > > > > >T: He already said his intent isn't to objectify awareness. > > > > > > There's no identifying with " something " that isn't a something, isn't an object. The very notion is silly. > > > > > > > P.S. -- now, " the brain " , on the other hand... > > > > Heheheh ;-). > > > > I could address the question addressed to Dan, back to Pete: > > ... but do you identify with the brain? P: No, dear Tim, there is no identification here. To identify means to set apart. Here, awareness and not being aware are not set apart. I must admit, that I see awareness as a fallen state, since pain and suffering only happens when aware, but even so, the moon must have its bright and dark side to be Da Moon. T: Is the brain seen as a toy that the unknown does not really need? > > Do tell, Pete... P: Yes, the unknown doesn't need the brain. The brain is the dynamo of consciousness. That is a very apt metaphor. Electricity exists as a universal potential, but it only manifest through certain mechanisms such as thunderclouds, and dynamos. A dynamo makes electricity available for particularized uses, just as a brain does with awareness, it particularizes it. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > dan, i'm sorry but you write like a chrisitan monk from the middle ages who's writing volumes on metaphysics. sometimes i have to read it twice. > > hi hur - i just write as it comes to me. glad you enjoy reading it. likewise, i'm sure. > > > your writing rest on major assumptions: > > > > 1. there's no separate knower: i thought evolution created billions of separate knowers who are called humans. > > i don't assume there is no separate knower. i just don't assume that there is one - and the only separate knower i've ever found is an assumption without anything there to back it up. > > you sound like this assumption seems real to you. > > that is where you and i differ. > > it also is where you and nisargadatta differ, apparently. > > > 2. awareness is not an object: this is the similar to how aristotelian christians based their belief that mind is like the soul and therefore you can't find the mind anywhere...not even in the brain. i believe awareness happens in human brain. trees are not aware since they have no brain...because they don't need to move. > > it's funny to me that you dedicate a list to nisargadatta and believe these things that are in the opposite direction of how he spoke. > if we are going to be technical we would have all been kicked out of his living room a long time ago. maharaj speaks for himself. this is a discussion list. we form our own arguments here and let those concepts go to war for intellectual sport. it wouldn't be fun otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > dan, i'm sorry but you write like a chrisitan monk from the middle ages who's writing volumes on metaphysics. sometimes i have to read it twice. > > > > hi hur - i just write as it comes to me. glad you enjoy reading it. likewise, i'm sure. > > > > > your writing rest on major assumptions: > > > > > > 1. there's no separate knower: i thought evolution created billions of separate knowers who are called humans. > > > > i don't assume there is no separate knower. i just don't assume that there is one - and the only separate knower i've ever found is an assumption without anything there to back it up. > > > > you sound like this assumption seems real to you. > > > > that is where you and i differ. > > > > it also is where you and nisargadatta differ, apparently. > > > > > 2. awareness is not an object: this is the similar to how aristotelian christians based their belief that mind is like the soul and therefore you can't find the mind anywhere...not even in the brain. i believe awareness happens in human brain. trees are not aware since they have no brain...because they don't need to move. > > > > it's funny to me that you dedicate a list to nisargadatta and believe these things that are in the opposite direction of how he spoke. > > > > if we are going to be technical we would have all been kicked out of his living room a long time ago. maharaj speaks for himself. this is a discussion list. we form our own arguments here and let those concepts go to war for intellectual sport. it wouldn't be fun otherwise. i'm just sitting here quietly. being aware is fun enough. just enjoying the passing show. always a good time, even without any war involved. thanks for being you. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > dan, i'm sorry but you write like a chrisitan monk from the middle ages who's writing volumes on metaphysics. sometimes i have to read it twice. > > > > > > hi hur - i just write as it comes to me. glad you enjoy reading it. likewise, i'm sure. > > > > > > > your writing rest on major assumptions: > > > > > > > > 1. there's no separate knower: i thought evolution created billions of separate knowers who are called humans. > > > > > > i don't assume there is no separate knower. i just don't assume that there is one - and the only separate knower i've ever found is an assumption without anything there to back it up. > > > > > > you sound like this assumption seems real to you. > > > > > > that is where you and i differ. > > > > > > it also is where you and nisargadatta differ, apparently. > > > > > > > 2. awareness is not an object: this is the similar to how aristotelian christians based their belief that mind is like the soul and therefore you can't find the mind anywhere...not even in the brain. i believe awareness happens in human brain. trees are not aware since they have no brain...because they don't need to move. > > > > > > it's funny to me that you dedicate a list to nisargadatta and believe these things that are in the opposite direction of how he spoke. > > > > > > > if we are going to be technical we would have all been kicked out of his living room a long time ago. maharaj speaks for himself. this is a discussion list. we form our own arguments here and let those concepts go to war for intellectual sport. it wouldn't be fun otherwise. > > i'm just sitting here quietly. > > being aware is fun enough. > > just enjoying the passing show. > > always a good time, even without any war involved. > > thanks for being you. > > - d - > dan, i think you're getting the drips, drips of " awareness " too much. you need to dose down. whatever it is, it must be a really good quality " awareness " , clear, not sickeningly sweet and amazingly amazing. cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dan, i'm sorry but you write like a chrisitan monk from the middle ages who's writing volumes on metaphysics. sometimes i have to read it twice. > > > > > > > > hi hur - i just write as it comes to me. glad you enjoy reading it. likewise, i'm sure. > > > > > > > > > your writing rest on major assumptions: > > > > > > > > > > 1. there's no separate knower: i thought evolution created billions of separate knowers who are called humans. > > > > > > > > i don't assume there is no separate knower. i just don't assume that there is one - and the only separate knower i've ever found is an assumption without anything there to back it up. > > > > > > > > you sound like this assumption seems real to you. > > > > > > > > that is where you and i differ. > > > > > > > > it also is where you and nisargadatta differ, apparently. > > > > > > > > > 2. awareness is not an object: this is the similar to how aristotelian christians based their belief that mind is like the soul and therefore you can't find the mind anywhere...not even in the brain. i believe awareness happens in human brain. trees are not aware since they have no brain...because they don't need to move. > > > > > > > > it's funny to me that you dedicate a list to nisargadatta and believe these things that are in the opposite direction of how he spoke. > > > > > > > > > > if we are going to be technical we would have all been kicked out of his living room a long time ago. maharaj speaks for himself. this is a discussion list. we form our own arguments here and let those concepts go to war for intellectual sport. it wouldn't be fun otherwise. > > > > i'm just sitting here quietly. > > > > being aware is fun enough. > > > > just enjoying the passing show. > > > > always a good time, even without any war involved. > > > > thanks for being you. > > > > - d - > > > > dan, i think you're getting the drips, drips of " awareness " too much. you need to dose down. whatever it is, it must be a really good quality " awareness " , clear, not sickeningly sweet and amazingly amazing. cheers. Hey Hur - All these thoughts about what is going on with " you " - It's the predominant disease of this list. Glad you joined in with the happy crowd feasting on " you thoughts. " Maybe that's why Ramana and Nisargadatta each, in their own way, put the focus on looking into " I " ... Do you ever step back and have a laugh? - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > dan, i'm sorry but you write like a chrisitan monk from the middle ages who's writing volumes on metaphysics. sometimes i have to read it twice. > > > > > > hi hur - i just write as it comes to me. glad you enjoy reading it. likewise, i'm sure. > > > > > > > your writing rest on major assumptions: > > > > > > > > 1. there's no separate knower: i thought evolution created billions of separate knowers who are called humans. > > > > > > i don't assume there is no separate knower. i just don't assume that there is one - and the only separate knower i've ever found is an assumption without anything there to back it up. > > > > > > you sound like this assumption seems real to you. > > > > > > that is where you and i differ. > > > > > > it also is where you and nisargadatta differ, apparently. > > > > > > > 2. awareness is not an object: this is the similar to how aristotelian christians based their belief that mind is like the soul and therefore you can't find the mind anywhere...not even in the brain. i believe awareness happens in human brain. trees are not aware since they have no brain...because they don't need to move. > > > > > > it's funny to me that you dedicate a list to nisargadatta and believe these things that are in the opposite direction of how he spoke. > > > > > > > if we are going to be technical we would have all been kicked out of his living room a long time ago. maharaj speaks for himself. this is a discussion list. we form our own arguments here and let those concepts go to war for intellectual sport. it wouldn't be fun otherwise. > > i'm just sitting here quietly. > > being aware is fun enough. > > just enjoying the passing show. > > always a good time, even without any war involved. > > thanks for being you. > > - d - if being aware is fun enough.. why do you feel compelled to post that? and if you are dissolved.. " who " is having such fun? your twisted up dabbo. there is no show for anyone kiddo. you read like a teenage girl on steroids writing creepy love poetry. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 > > > > > > > dan, i think you're getting the drips, drips of " awareness " too much. you need to dose down. whatever it is, it must be a really good quality " awareness " , clear, not sickeningly sweet and amazingly amazing. cheers. > > Hey Hur - > > All these thoughts about what is going on with " you " - > > It's the predominant disease of this list. > > Glad you joined in with the happy crowd feasting on " you thoughts. " > > Maybe that's why Ramana and Nisargadatta each, in their own way, put the focus on looking into " I " ... > > Do you ever step back and have a laugh? P: Dan, do you ever step back and ask yourself why so many people think you ought to slow down the compulsive humming of your one tune? > > - D - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dan, i'm sorry but you write like a chrisitan monk from the middle ages who's writing volumes on metaphysics. sometimes i have to read it twice. > > > > > > > > > > hi hur - i just write as it comes to me. glad you enjoy reading it. likewise, i'm sure. > > > > > > > > > > > your writing rest on major assumptions: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. there's no separate knower: i thought evolution created billions of separate knowers who are called humans. > > > > > > > > > > i don't assume there is no separate knower. i just don't assume that there is one - and the only separate knower i've ever found is an assumption without anything there to back it up. > > > > > > > > > > you sound like this assumption seems real to you. > > > > > > > > > > that is where you and i differ. > > > > > > > > > > it also is where you and nisargadatta differ, apparently. > > > > > > > > > > > 2. awareness is not an object: this is the similar to how aristotelian christians based their belief that mind is like the soul and therefore you can't find the mind anywhere...not even in the brain. i believe awareness happens in human brain. trees are not aware since they have no brain...because they don't need to move. > > > > > > > > > > it's funny to me that you dedicate a list to nisargadatta and believe these things that are in the opposite direction of how he spoke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > if we are going to be technical we would have all been kicked out of his living room a long time ago. maharaj speaks for himself. this is a discussion list. we form our own arguments here and let those concepts go to war for intellectual sport. it wouldn't be fun otherwise. > > > > > > i'm just sitting here quietly. > > > > > > being aware is fun enough. > > > > > > just enjoying the passing show. > > > > > > always a good time, even without any war involved. > > > > > > thanks for being you. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > dan, i think you're getting the drips, drips of " awareness " too much. you need to dose down. whatever it is, it must be a really good quality " awareness " , clear, not sickeningly sweet and amazingly amazing. cheers. > > Hey Hur - > > All these thoughts about what is going on with " you " - > > It's the predominant disease of this list. > > Glad you joined in with the happy crowd feasting on " you thoughts. " > > Maybe that's why Ramana and Nisargadatta each, in their own way, put the focus on looking into " I " ... > > Do you ever step back and have a laugh? > > - D - > don't we all? afterall we didn't join the hare krishna list. sometimes we'd like to poke fun of each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dan, i'm sorry but you write like a chrisitan monk from the middle ages who's writing volumes on metaphysics. sometimes i have to read it twice. > > > > > > > > > > hi hur - i just write as it comes to me. glad you enjoy reading it. likewise, i'm sure. > > > > > > > > > > > your writing rest on major assumptions: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. there's no separate knower: i thought evolution created billions of separate knowers who are called humans. > > > > > > > > > > i don't assume there is no separate knower. i just don't assume that there is one - and the only separate knower i've ever found is an assumption without anything there to back it up. > > > > > > > > > > you sound like this assumption seems real to you. > > > > > > > > > > that is where you and i differ. > > > > > > > > > > it also is where you and nisargadatta differ, apparently. > > > > > > > > > > > 2. awareness is not an object: this is the similar to how aristotelian christians based their belief that mind is like the soul and therefore you can't find the mind anywhere...not even in the brain. i believe awareness happens in human brain. trees are not aware since they have no brain...because they don't need to move. > > > > > > > > > > it's funny to me that you dedicate a list to nisargadatta and believe these things that are in the opposite direction of how he spoke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > if we are going to be technical we would have all been kicked out of his living room a long time ago. maharaj speaks for himself. this is a discussion list. we form our own arguments here and let those concepts go to war for intellectual sport. it wouldn't be fun otherwise. > > > > > > i'm just sitting here quietly. > > > > > > being aware is fun enough. > > > > > > just enjoying the passing show. > > > > > > always a good time, even without any war involved. > > > > > > thanks for being you. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > dan, i think you're getting the drips, drips of " awareness " too much. you need to dose down. whatever it is, it must be a really good quality " awareness " , clear, not sickeningly sweet and amazingly amazing. cheers. > > Hey Hur - > > All these thoughts about what is going on with " you " - > > It's the predominant disease of this list. > > Glad you joined in with the happy crowd feasting on " you thoughts. " > > Maybe that's why Ramana and Nisargadatta each, in their own way, put the focus on looking into " I " ... > > Do you ever step back and have a laugh? > > - D - dabbo.. i think Hur is doing just that. you can't though it would seem. ..b b.b. 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.