Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are the same - there won't be any problem understanding that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. Nothing sensed. -d- Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 - geo Nisargadatta Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:40 PM Re: Awareness/perception P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are the same - there won't be any problem understanding that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. Nothing sensed. -d- Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without some perceived world. And it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. BTW, any and all concepts are just that: concepts. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 - geo Nisargadatta Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:46 PM Re: Awareness/perception - geo Nisargadatta Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:40 PM Re: Awareness/perception P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are the same - there won't be any problem understanding that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. Nothing sensed. -d- Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without some perceived world. And it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. BTW, any and all concepts are just that: concepts. PS1 - So I would say: there is only awareness of perceptions. Nothing elese, nowhere else. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 One can say that my perceptions are different from yours or john's are different from Tony's, but we can not say that awareness is different to each localized body/mind. We can not say that one's emptiness is different from another's -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > Nothing sensed. > -d- > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > -geo- The changing is not other than the unchanging. Yet, verbally, ideationally, you can use words as if there were different items: perception/change vs. awareness/no-change. Not so, directly understood. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:40 PM > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > Nothing sensed. > -d- > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without some > perceived world. And > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. BTW, > any and all concepts > are just that: concepts. > -geo- yes. and of course, concepts are concepts. and the nonconceptual is a concept, once you name it. and yet, there is no concept existing apart from the nonconceptual. thus, the direct knowing of awareness-perception as not divided turns the previously assumed reality on its head (the reality in which division is assumed as actual). - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:46 PM > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:40 PM > Re: Awareness/perception > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > Nothing sensed. > -d- > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without some > perceived world. And > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. BTW, > any and all concepts > are just that: concepts. > > PS1 - So I would say: there is only awareness of perceptions. Nothing elese, > nowhere else. > -geo- there is nothing being perceived. there is no time for any perception to form. so now, where are you? - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > One can say that my perceptions are different from yours or john's are different from Tony's, but > we can not say that awareness is different to each localized body/mind. We can not say > that one's emptiness is different from another's > -geo- Actually, you pretty much can say whatever you want. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > One can say that my perceptions are different from yours or john's are different from Tony's, but > > we can not say that awareness is different to each localized body/mind. We can not say > > that one's emptiness is different from another's > > -geo- > > Actually, you pretty much can say whatever you want. > > - D - > Indeed. The actuality " beyond the words " isn't changed or affected one iota by what one says. The question for the reader is then, perhaps: Has 'the actuality beyond the words' been looked at at all? Or have words been acting as an avoidance of this actuality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:14 PM Re: Awareness/perception Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:46 PM > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:40 PM > Re: Awareness/perception > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > Nothing sensed. > -d- > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without some > perceived world. And > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > BTW, > any and all concepts > are just that: concepts. > > PS1 - So I would say: there is only awareness of perceptions. Nothing > elese, > nowhere else. > -geo- there is nothing being perceived. there is no time for any perception to form. so now, where are you? - D - Here I am with the conviction that you are just thinking, imagining. Can you " not-perceive " the stuff you are looking at? No , you can not. But you can think of the idea that there is no time for it to be there. Imagination. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:32 PM Re: Awareness/perception Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > One can say that my perceptions are different from yours or john's are > different from Tony's, but > we can not say that awareness is different to each localized body/mind. We > can not say > that one's emptiness is different from another's > -geo- Actually, you pretty much can say whatever you want. - D - Sure. Did you think it was otherwise? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:14 PM > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:46 PM > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:40 PM > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > > Nothing sensed. > > -d- > > > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without some > > perceived world. And > > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > > BTW, > > any and all concepts > > are just that: concepts. > > > > PS1 - So I would say: there is only awareness of perceptions. Nothing > > elese, > > nowhere else. > > -geo- > > there is nothing being perceived. > > there is no time for any perception to form. > > so now, where are you? > > - D - > > Here I am with the conviction that you are just thinking, imagining. > Can you " not-perceive " the stuff you are looking at? > No , you can not. But you can think of the idea that there is no > time for it to be there. Imagination. > -geo- > The key is to stop thinking, and start noticing. What I mean by that is -- divest the investment in thinking, and invest in attention, awareness. Actually, just divesting the investment in thinking, words, conceptuality is enough -- awareness/noticing is 'what remains' when this investment goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > Nothing sensed. > -d- > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without some > perceived world. And > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > BTW, > any and all concepts > are just that: concepts. > -geo- yes. and of course, concepts are concepts. and the nonconceptual is a concept, once you name it. -d- Not nescessarily. The word is not the " thing " . I can say " awareness " and I know that it is not the word. -geo- and yet, there is no concept existing apart from the nonconceptual. -d- Yes. -geo- thus, the direct knowing of awareness-perception as not divided turns the previously assumed reality on its head (the reality in which division is assumed as actual). - d - I dont know what you are talking about here. The changing is " because " there is the unchanging - they are not two and they are not identical. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:46 PM > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:40 PM > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > > Nothing sensed. > > -d- > > > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without some > > perceived world. And > > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. BTW, > > any and all concepts > > are just that: concepts. > > > > PS1 - So I would say: there is only awareness of perceptions. Nothing elese, > > nowhere else. > > -geo- > > there is nothing being perceived. > > there is no time for any perception to form. > > so now, where are you? > > - D - what's the point? quit trying to buffalo your way around everything. i mean..so what? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:14 PM > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:46 PM > > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:40 PM > > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > > > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > > > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > > > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > > > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > > > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > > > Nothing sensed. > > > -d- > > > > > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > > > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > > > > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without some > > > perceived world. And > > > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > > > BTW, > > > any and all concepts > > > are just that: concepts. > > > > > > PS1 - So I would say: there is only awareness of perceptions. Nothing > > > elese, > > > nowhere else. > > > -geo- > > > > there is nothing being perceived. > > > > there is no time for any perception to form. > > > > so now, where are you? > > > > - D - > > > > Here I am with the conviction that you are just thinking, imagining. > > Can you " not-perceive " the stuff you are looking at? > > No , you can not. But you can think of the idea that there is no > > time for it to be there. Imagination. > > -geo- > > > > The key is to stop thinking, and start noticing. > > What I mean by that is -- divest the investment in thinking, and invest in attention, awareness. > > Actually, just divesting the investment in thinking, words, conceptuality is enough -- awareness/noticing is 'what remains' when this investment goes. the key???? oh for Christ sakes! invest in good investments. bullshit isn't one of them. ..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 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:14 PM > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:46 PM > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:40 PM > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > > Nothing sensed. > > -d- > > > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without some > > perceived world. And > > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > > BTW, > > any and all concepts > > are just that: concepts. > > > > PS1 - So I would say: there is only awareness of perceptions. Nothing > > elese, > > nowhere else. > > -geo- > > there is nothing being perceived. > > there is no time for any perception to form. > > so now, where are you? > > - D - > > Here I am with the conviction that you are just thinking, imagining. > Can you " not-perceive " the stuff you are looking at? > No , you can not. But you can think of the idea that there is no > time for it to be there. Imagination. > -geo- Yes, there you are with your " conviction " about what is going on with someone else. And all that is, is what's going on with 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 , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > > Nothing sensed. > > -d- > > > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without some > > perceived world. And > > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > > BTW, > > any and all concepts > > are just that: concepts. > > -geo- > > yes. > > and of course, concepts are concepts. > > and the nonconceptual is a concept, once you name it. > -d- > > Not nescessarily. The word is not the " thing " . I can say " awareness " and I > know that it is not > the word. > -geo- > > and yet, there is no concept existing apart from the nonconceptual. > -d- > > Yes. > -geo- > > thus, the direct knowing of awareness-perception as not divided turns the > previously assumed reality on its head (the reality in which division is > assumed as actual). > - d - > > I dont know what you are talking about here. The changing is " because " there > is the unchanging - they are not two and they are not identical. > -geo- Yes, you don't know. So why not just stick with " don't know " ... Be the " don't know " ... Nothing to be said beyond this ... - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Thursday, March 25, 2010 12:35 PM Re: Awareness/perception Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > > Nothing sensed. > > -d- > > > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without > > some > > perceived world. And > > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > > BTW, > > any and all concepts > > are just that: concepts. > > -geo- > > yes. > > and of course, concepts are concepts. > > and the nonconceptual is a concept, once you name it. > -d- > > Not nescessarily. The word is not the " thing " . I can say " awareness " and I > know that it is not > the word. > -geo- > > and yet, there is no concept existing apart from the nonconceptual. > -d- > > Yes. > -geo- > > thus, the direct knowing of awareness-perception as not divided turns the > previously assumed reality on its head (the reality in which division is > assumed as actual). > - d - > > I dont know what you are talking about here. The changing is " because " > there > is the unchanging - they are not two and they are not identical. > -geo- Yes, you don't know. So why not just stick with " don't know " ... Be the " don't know " ... Nothing to be said beyond this ... - D - Yea..stick to your " dont know " . Dont say anything beyond this... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Thursday, March 25, 2010 12:33 PM Re: Awareness/perception Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:14 PM > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:46 PM > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:40 PM > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > > Nothing sensed. > > -d- > > > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without > > some > > perceived world. And > > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > > BTW, > > any and all concepts > > are just that: concepts. > > > > PS1 - So I would say: there is only awareness of perceptions. Nothing > > elese, > > nowhere else. > > -geo- > > there is nothing being perceived. > > there is no time for any perception to form. > > so now, where are you? > > - D - > > Here I am with the conviction that you are just thinking, imagining. > Can you " not-perceive " the stuff you are looking at? > No , you can not. But you can think of the idea that there is no > time for it to be there. Imagination. > -geo- Yes, there you are with your " conviction " about what is going on with someone else. And all that is, is what's going on with you. - d - Of course. But reason tells me that there is " another " who is all-inclusive behind the words I read. So I am talking to that.You said: " there is nothing being perceived. There is no time for any perception to form " so now, where are you? " - You said that. So..you are asking whom? You seemed concerned with what geo had to say. So I say: Can you " not-perceive " the stuff you are looking at? No, you can not. But you can conceive the idea that there is no time for it to be there. Imagination. This means that the perception is there...and besides there is the idea that there should not be time for such perceptiuon to exist. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, March 25, 2010 12:35 PM > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > > > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > > > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > > > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > > > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > > > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > > > Nothing sensed. > > > -d- > > > > > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > > > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > > > > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without > > > some > > > perceived world. And > > > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > > > BTW, > > > any and all concepts > > > are just that: concepts. > > > -geo- > > > > yes. > > > > and of course, concepts are concepts. > > > > and the nonconceptual is a concept, once you name it. > > -d- > > > > Not nescessarily. The word is not the " thing " . I can say " awareness " and I > > know that it is not > > the word. > > -geo- > > > > and yet, there is no concept existing apart from the nonconceptual. > > -d- > > > > Yes. > > -geo- > > > > thus, the direct knowing of awareness-perception as not divided turns the > > previously assumed reality on its head (the reality in which division is > > assumed as actual). > > - d - > > > > I dont know what you are talking about here. The changing is " because " > > there > > is the unchanging - they are not two and they are not identical. > > -geo- > > Yes, you don't know. > > So why not just stick with " don't know " ... > > Be the " don't know " ... > > Nothing to be said beyond this ... > > - D - > > Yea..stick to your " dont know " . Dont say anything beyond this... > -geo- Nothing has been said. Nor will it be. Just let go of preoccupations. - 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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > > > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > > > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > > > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > > > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > > > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > > > Nothing sensed. > > > -d- > > > > > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > > > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > > > > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without some > > > perceived world. And > > > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > > > BTW, > > > any and all concepts > > > are just that: concepts. > > > -geo- > > > > yes. > > > > and of course, concepts are concepts. > > > > and the nonconceptual is a concept, once you name it. > > -d- > > > > Not nescessarily. The word is not the " thing " . I can say " awareness " and I > > know that it is not > > the word. > > -geo- > > > > and yet, there is no concept existing apart from the nonconceptual. > > -d- > > > > Yes. > > -geo- > > > > thus, the direct knowing of awareness-perception as not divided turns the > > previously assumed reality on its head (the reality in which division is > > assumed as actual). > > - d - > > > > I dont know what you are talking about here. The changing is " because " there > > is the unchanging - they are not two and they are not identical. > > -geo- > > Yes, you don't know. > > So why not just stick with " don't know " ... > > Be the " don't know " ... > > Nothing to be said beyond this ... > > he probably doesn't stick with " don't know " .. for the very same reason that you don't. what that reason is i don't know. unlike yourself who thinks he does. if you really didn't think that you did know.. you wouldn't be handing out this ridiculous advise. get real about your own blind eye dabbo. LOL! ..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 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:14 PM > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:46 PM > > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:40 PM > > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > > > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > > > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > > > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > > > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > > > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > > > Nothing sensed. > > > -d- > > > > > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > > > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > > > > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without some > > > perceived world. And > > > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > > > BTW, > > > any and all concepts > > > are just that: concepts. > > > > > > PS1 - So I would say: there is only awareness of perceptions. Nothing > > > elese, > > > nowhere else. > > > -geo- > > > > there is nothing being perceived. > > > > there is no time for any perception to form. > > > > so now, where are you? > > > > - D - > > > > Here I am with the conviction that you are just thinking, imagining. > > Can you " not-perceive " the stuff you are looking at? > > No , you can not. But you can think of the idea that there is no > > time for it to be there. Imagination. > > -geo- > > Yes, there you are with your " conviction " about what is going on with someone else. > > And all that is, is what's going on with you. > > - d - that dabbo is all that is ever going on with your own sorry self. and your pompous attitude is also.. suffocating that very deluded pontificating self... into believing itself. ..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 - BobN Nisargadatta Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:40 PM Re: Awareness/perception Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > > > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > > > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > > > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > > > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > > > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > > > Nothing sensed. > > > -d- > > > > > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > > > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > > > > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without > > > some > > > perceived world. And > > > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > > > BTW, > > > any and all concepts > > > are just that: concepts. > > > -geo- > > > > yes. > > > > and of course, concepts are concepts. > > > > and the nonconceptual is a concept, once you name it. > > -d- > > > > Not nescessarily. The word is not the " thing " . I can say " awareness " and > > I > > know that it is not > > the word. > > -geo- > > > > and yet, there is no concept existing apart from the nonconceptual. > > -d- > > > > Yes. > > -geo- > > > > thus, the direct knowing of awareness-perception as not divided turns > > the > > previously assumed reality on its head (the reality in which division is > > assumed as actual). > > - d - > > > > I dont know what you are talking about here. The changing is " because " > > there > > is the unchanging - they are not two and they are not identical. > > -geo- > > Yes, you don't know. > > So why not just stick with " don't know " ... > > Be the " don't know " ... > > Nothing to be said beyond this ... > > he probably doesn't stick with " don't know " .. for the very same reason that you don't. what that reason is i don't know. unlike yourself who thinks he does. if you really didn't think that you did know.. you wouldn't be handing out this ridiculous advise. get real about your own blind eye dabbo. LOL! ..b b.b. Yea! Well said! Thanks for the help... I was really beguining to fear for my self-safety. :>) -eog- 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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, March 25, 2010 12:35 PM > > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > > > > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > > > > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > > > > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > > > > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > > > > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > > > > Nothing sensed. > > > > -d- > > > > > > > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > > > > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > > > > > > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without > > > > some > > > > perceived world. And > > > > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > > > > BTW, > > > > any and all concepts > > > > are just that: concepts. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > yes. > > > > > > and of course, concepts are concepts. > > > > > > and the nonconceptual is a concept, once you name it. > > > -d- > > > > > > Not nescessarily. The word is not the " thing " . I can say " awareness " and I > > > know that it is not > > > the word. > > > -geo- > > > > > > and yet, there is no concept existing apart from the nonconceptual. > > > -d- > > > > > > Yes. > > > -geo- > > > > > > thus, the direct knowing of awareness-perception as not divided turns the > > > previously assumed reality on its head (the reality in which division is > > > assumed as actual). > > > - d - > > > > > > I dont know what you are talking about here. The changing is " because " > > > there > > > is the unchanging - they are not two and they are not identical. > > > -geo- > > > > Yes, you don't know. > > > > So why not just stick with " don't know " ... > > > > Be the " don't know " ... > > > > Nothing to be said beyond this ... > > > > - D - > > > > Yea..stick to your " dont know " . Dont say anything beyond this... > > -geo- > > > Nothing has been said. Nor will it be. > > Just let go of preoccupations. > > - D - dabbo YOUR preoccupation.. YOUR Magnificent Obsession.. is yourself. and you will NEVER let go of your own pontificating bullshit. it's sweet and all but also nutzoid. LOL! ..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 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:40 PM > Re: Awareness/perception > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops, > > > > sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are > > > > the same - there won't be any problem understanding > > > > that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an > > > > add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on, > > > > because there is only sensing. Empty sensing. > > > > Nothing sensed. > > > > -d- > > > > > > > > Nonetheless sensing, perceptions, are endlessly changing. > > > > In the other hand the same can not be said about awareness. > > > > > > > > PS - And I know... makes no sense to conceive some awareness without > > > > some > > > > perceived world. And > > > > it makes no sense to conceive of a world of perceptions w/o awareness. > > > > BTW, > > > > any and all concepts > > > > are just that: concepts. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > yes. > > > > > > and of course, concepts are concepts. > > > > > > and the nonconceptual is a concept, once you name it. > > > -d- > > > > > > Not nescessarily. The word is not the " thing " . I can say " awareness " and > > > I > > > know that it is not > > > the word. > > > -geo- > > > > > > and yet, there is no concept existing apart from the nonconceptual. > > > -d- > > > > > > Yes. > > > -geo- > > > > > > thus, the direct knowing of awareness-perception as not divided turns > > > the > > > previously assumed reality on its head (the reality in which division is > > > assumed as actual). > > > - d - > > > > > > I dont know what you are talking about here. The changing is " because " > > > there > > > is the unchanging - they are not two and they are not identical. > > > -geo- > > > > Yes, you don't know. > > > > So why not just stick with " don't know " ... > > > > Be the " don't know " ... > > > > Nothing to be said beyond this ... > > > > > > he probably doesn't stick with " don't know " .. > > for the very same reason that you don't. > > what that reason is i don't know. > > unlike yourself who thinks he does. > > if you really didn't think that you did know.. > > you wouldn't be handing out this ridiculous advise. > > get real about your own blind eye dabbo. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. > > Yea! Well said! Thanks for the help... I was really beguining > to fear for my self-safety. :>) > -eog- don't fear geo. i'm sure wherever dabbo is.. there are kind nurses and restraining white coated attendants. they're probably used to his drooling babbling. it's a slobbering love affair he has with his own sorry thoughts. :-) ..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.