---In [email protected], <turquoiseb@...> wrote :

 From: Duveyoung <[email protected]>   
 What can I do to test these statements?  
 

 Nisargadatta
 "The scriptures say so, but I know nothing about it. I know myself as I am; as 
I appeared or will appear is not within my experience. It is not that I do not 
remember. In fact there is nothing to remember. Reincarnation implies a 
reincarnating self. There is no such thing. The bundle of memories and hopes, 
called the 'I', imagines itself existing everlastingly and creates time to 
accommodate its false eternity: To be, I need no past or future. All experience 
is born of imagination; I do not imagine, so no birth or death happens to me. 
Only those who think themselves born can think themselves re-born. You are 
accusing me of having been born -- I plead not guilty!"
 "By its very nature the mind is outward turned; it always tends to seek for 
the source of things among the things themselves; to be told to look for the 
source within, is, in a way, the beginning of a new life. Awareness takes the 
place of consciousness; in consciousness there is the 'I', who is conscious 
while awareness is undivided; awareness is aware of itself. The 'I am' is a 
thought, while awareness is not a thought, there is no 'I am aware' in 
awareness. Consciousness is an attribute while awareness is not; one can be 
aware of being conscious, but not conscious of awareness. God is the totality 
of consciousness, but awareness is beyond all -- being as well as not-being."
 







 I have no answer to the question posed at the top of this post, but I do have 
a couple to pose for Edg, for the newb who posts as aryavazhi, possibly for 
Anartaxius or Curtis, and for anyone else who earnestly ponders such issues as 
"is awareness the same as consciousness."

 

 These are real questions -- not putdowns, as some might interpret them -- and 
so if any of you have possible answers for them, I would appreciate hearing 
them. I'm looking to understand something I really don't "get." So, this said, 
my questions are:
 

 1. What would you perceive as the value to yourself of actually finding the 
"answer" to abstract questions such as this, and learning the "truth" of them?
 I would get some sort of temporary closure about a single issue.  I could go 
on to other issues then.  Not that I'll sort everything out -- just like to do 
some sorting out while I'm here.  It pleases me somewhat on the order of 
finishing a good crossword puzzle.  


 2. What would you perceive as the value *to anyone else* of actually finding 
the "answer" to abstract questions such as this, and learning the "truth" of 
them?
 I love harmony with others -- a cheap kinda thrill -- sorta like belonging to 
a gang.

 If others find use for this "edification," great!  If not, well, so what?  I 
have so little use for it, it wouldn't be that much of a surprise if they 
didn't either.  I don't contend that intellectual certainty is of any use other 
than that it settles down something inside me -- like getting a song to stop 
playing over and over again in ones head.
 

 I ask because I don't see any such value. 

 

 Knowing what one considers "the truth" has IMO never in history fed and 
clothed a single human being, or helped him/her to feed and clothe another 
human being. I *understand* that some consider themselves "philosophers," and 
are drawn in such a way that they love to ponder abstract, non-real-world 
questions such as these. But *other than* liking it -- and the "narcissism 
payoff" provided by convincing oneself one has discovered "the truth" -- I 
don't see any reason to spend even a moment pondering such issues. Can you 
suggest one?

What issue would be worth pondering if awareness is not consciousness?  None?  
Successful intellectuals do immoral things too -- no pedestals earned by IQ.  
Being able to debate logically is fun, and getting corrected can be fun if one 
sees that harmony is being offered if a fact is accepted.  It's like playing 
ping-pong and getting beat soundly -- you have to admire the other player!  And 
admiring is a spiritual process donchaknow.  What you do and think and feel 
indicates what you will do and think and feel in the future -- not sure there's 
causality afoot, but I assume so, in order to make life work just a bit easier 
in the "have a reason to get out of bed" department.  My admiration for 
Maharishi, before I knew the whole deal, was BENEFICIAL in that I became a 
more-able-to-admire-anything kinda person.

And look, I didn't have to denigrate your mind in public to get my answers out. 
 See how I'm modeling good FFL civility for you?  No charge!  It's on me!  
  

 






Reply via email to