Robert Adams

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by Tara5

Can i observe the candle without the Me?
Yes!
I can observe the candle without any 'past knowledge'...without Naming it..
watching becomes an ego-based process when we Watch with a Conditioned-Mind....

That reminds me of the Yogananda chant... who is in my temple. All the doors do open themselves; All the lights do light themselves. Darkness like a dark bird flies away, oh, flies away.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by ajay00

Adams here is also speaking of Awareness or no-mind or witnessing, which is all one and the same.

The mind is but thoughts and the emotions they generate, which has a beginning and an end, and are different from the Self or Awareness or pure consciousness.

It's not the same. Witnessing is self related. This is why beyond self there is no witness.

For some reason you guys want to prise apart the witness from self. You can't do that.

The witness is not something that can exist beyond self.

I could quote you something that Ramana say's that will emphasise what I am saying, then you could quote another teacher and another teacher.

What does this tell you?

All you are doing is emphasising my point and all you are doing is conceptualising more and more intellectual stuff . You speak about Self and thoughtless awareness on one hand and yet you are quoting many teachers again, bringing more and more knowledge to the table. Everything on the table that you present are mindful conclusions made.

You can agree with me on this or not, but there are no thoughts about the world or self in thoughtless awareness, so all you have to do, is do the math.

What comes about via a thoughtful conclusion about Self that is beyond thought is a conclusion made that derives through making sense of that which is beyond sense.

There is no point addressing your other thought's because all I would be doing is countering your thoughts or the thoughts of the other teachers you are quoting by concluding more and more stuff .

I am not so much here to debate more and more stuff, I am here to illustrate the nature of the mindfulness that reflect all these conclusions .

Tara and myself are speaking about experiencing life and making sense of the physical reality as we see it, it's not about no mind, thoughtless awareness.

I am not getting drawn into that aspect because it doesn't relate to what we are talking about, they are completely different aspects ..

I don't know why you are even bringing it up, it has no relevance.


x daz x

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by God-Like

It's not the same. Witnessing is self related. This is why beyond self there is no witness.

There is a higher Self and smaller self in nondualistic and advaitan philosophy.
The Self corresponds to awareness while the smaller self corresponds to ego or mind.
Witnessing can be said to be Self related thus, not self or ego-related.

Originally Posted by God-Like

I could quote you something that Ramana say's that will emphasise what I am saying, then you could quote another teacher and another teacher.

Do quote then !
I am interested in any of these master's sayings that corresponds to your thought process ! But it is highly unlikely.

Originally Posted by God-Like

What comes about via a thoughtful conclusion about Self that is beyond thought is a conclusion made that derives through making sense of that which is beyond sense.

Lol...
If you are truly anchored in the Self, you will be content with it due to its peaceful state , rather than complicating the nature of the Self (which is simplicity embodied) with all such mental gymnastics and contortions.

The mind, is usually the culprit, which complicates the whole thing due to its own inherent complexity, and does so with everything else.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by ajay00

There is a higher Self and smaller self in nondualistic and advaitan philosophy.

The Self corresponds to awareness while the smaller self corresponds to ego or mind.

Witnessing can be said to be Self related thus, not self or ego-related.




Do quote then !

I am interested in any of these master's sayings that corresponds to your thought process ! But it is highly unlikely.



Lol...

If you are truly anchored in the Self, you will be content with it due to its peaceful state , rather than complicating the nature of the Self (which is simplicity embodied) with all such mental gymnastics and contortions.

The mind, is usually the culprit, which complicates the whole thing due to its own inherent complexity, and does so with everything else.

The quote

The witness is not the person. The person comes into being when there is a basis for it, an organism, and a body. In it, the Absolute is reflected as awareness. Pure awareness becomes self-awareness. When there is a Self, self-awareness is the witness. When there is no self to witness, there is no witnessing either. It is very simple; it is the presence of the person that complicates. See that there is no such thing as a permanently separate person and all becomes clear. Awareness, mind, matter are of one reality in its two aspects as immovable and movable and three attributes of inertia, energy and harmony. Awareness becomes consciousness when it has an object. The object changes all the time. In consciousness there is movement; awareness by itself is motionless and timeless, here and now.



You see awareness becomes consciousness when there is an object. The object in this instance is the mind-body-self-persona . self awareness is the witness. When there is no self to witness there is no witnessing either.

So what is happening here is that we have Adams and such likes who try and prise apart the witness from the self while still witnessing lol.

There is only witnessing happening while there is self, while awareness becomes consciousness in the presence of a mind-body-object.

While there is self awareness, self awareness is the witness .

You can't divide or separate the witness from the self aware experience of the mind-body-world.


Again let me reiterate my thoughts about how you perceive Self for all you are doing is stating more and more conclusions about that which is beyond conclusion.

Please tell me how you have derived at your conclusions of Self that is beyond thought. You spoke about thoughtless awareness, so i am genuinely interested in how you have concluded what you have. I don't want to hear what other teachers have said, I want to understand how you yourself personally have come to your conclusions about that which is beyond words and thoughts in reflection of this world / reality.

What realization did you have that brought about all your knowledge?


x daz x

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by God-Like

The quote
The witness is not the person. The person comes into being when there is a basis for it, an organism, and a body. In it, the Absolute is reflected as awareness. Pure awareness becomes self-awareness. When there is a Self, self-awareness is the witness. When there is no self to witness, there is no witnessing either. It is very simple; it is the presence of the person that complicates. See that there is no such thing as a permanently separate person and all becomes clear. Awareness, mind, matter are of one reality in its two aspects as immovable and movable and three attributes of inertia, energy and harmony. Awareness becomes consciousness when it has an object. The object changes all the time. In consciousness there is movement; awareness by itself is motionless and timeless, here and now.

This is a statement of Nisargadatta Maharaj whom you had been criticizing in the Hinduism forums. Now you are quoting him. Very well...

Originally Posted by God-Like

You see awareness becomes consciousness when there is an object. The object in this instance is the mind-body-self-persona . self awareness is the witness. When there is no self to witness there is no witnessing either.

Here awareness is the Self, while consciousness with an object is the ego or false self, created by identification with the external object through attachment or desire in the form of craving or aversion.
Nisargadatta is actually differentiating between Self/awareness/ pure consciousness and ordinary human consciousness or self which is defiled by desires in the form of cravings and aversions.

Originally Posted by God-Like

The witness is not the person. The person comes into being when there is a basis for it, an organism, and a body. In it, the Absolute is reflected as awareness. Pure awareness becomes self-awareness. When there is a Self, self-awareness is the witness. When there is no self to witness, there is no witnessing either. It is very simple; it is the presence of the person that complicates.

Originally Posted by God-Like

So what is happening here is that we have Adams and such likes who try and prise apart the witness from the self while still witnessing lol.

What actually we have here is a misinterpretation of Nisargadatta's teaching.

Niz himself states, "The witness is not the person. The person comes into being when there is a basis for it, an organism, and a body." He is referring to the witness as the conscious entity and not the mind-body complex.

The Self and Awareness and the Witness are all one and the same, though the Witness is used in association or reference with the mind-body complex, as it is the witnessing of various thoughts and emotions in the mind-body dispassionately, that breaks the compulsive identification with the mind and body, and brings a distance between them.

[ajay00]

God-like, I appreciate your interest and knowledge in nonduality, but I would ask you to put it in fruitful practice rather than indulge in mere futile intellectual debates which goes nowhere.

Practice of awareness/mindfulness brings great good at all levels, and you will find a sort of immunity from negative energies and entities too.

Practice of it in the midst of nature or in the beach, can also help resolve past traumatic experiences and brings healing along with joy and peace in the long run.

As the saying goes, 'An ounce of practice is worth more than tonnes of theory.'

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by ajay00

This is a statement of Nisargadatta Maharaj whom you had been criticizing in the Hinduism forums. Now you are quoting him. Very well...
Here awareness is the Self, while consciousness with an object is the ego or false self, created by identification with the external object through attachment or desire in the form of craving or aversion.

Nisargadatta is actually differentiating between Self/awareness/ pure consciousness and ordinary human consciousness or self which is defiled by desires in the form of cravings and aversions.
What actually we have here is a misinterpretation of Nisargadatta's teaching.

Niz himself states, "The witness is not the person. The person comes into being when there is a basis for it, an organism, and a body." He is referring to the witness as the conscious entity and not the mind-body complex.

The Self and Awareness and the Witness are all one and the same, though the Witness is used in association or reference with the mind-body complex, as it is the witnessing of various thoughts and emotions in the mind-body dispassionately, that breaks the compulsive identification with the mind and body, and brings a distance between them.

Yes I am actually aware that it is a niz quote, the quote was listed as a Ramana link from where I copied it, I have quoted this before under Ramana's name so didn't want to confuse matters, it's not really important who said what.

In regards to criticizing niz, I am allowed to agree with certain aspects of his teachings and not other's . It's that simple and straightforward, I probably would agree with some of what Adams is saying in parts also, all I did was pick out something that Tara posted and took it form there.

Niz doesn't refer self in this quote as being false at all and doesn't mention cravings or desires .
He speaks about the relationship between awareness becoming consciousness in the presence of an object.
He speaks about while there is self awareness, self awareness is the witness.
So you can't be the witness itself of life experience that is not of self .
self awareness is the witness. so how can the awareness of self be not of the self.
self only is, because of the union / fusion of the aware / consciousness of an mind-body referred to as self.
When there is no self awareness there is no witnessing. It is there in black and white.
This means that the witness exists for as long as self does. You can't have self awareness without self.

You haven't answered me in regards to your realizations had that reflect your own conclusions.

I mentioned niz's quote because I have a similar understanding based upon what I concluded about self and no self, mind and no mind.
We can agree to disagree on what niz actually mean't by that quote that is not a problem, I am more interested where the information comes from. Which is the whole point in me speaking with Tara.

All you keep doing is speaking about how things are without saying how you have realized that or concluded that for yourself.
You haven't addressed this as yet .

x daz x

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Yes I am actually aware that it is a niz quote, the quote was listed as a Ramana link from where I copied it, I have quoted this before under Ramana's name so didn't want to confuse matters, it's not really important who said what.

Well, I am glad that you respect Niz enough now to quote him and not just criticize him .

Originally Posted by God-Like

In regards to criticizing niz, I am allowed to agree with certain aspects of his teachings and not other's . It's that simple and straightforward, I probably would agree with some of what Adams is saying in parts also, all I did was pick out something that Tara posted and took it form there.

You seem to do it with Eckhart Tolle as well. Do you think there is a hidden pattern in all this !

Originally Posted by God-Like

Niz doesn't refer self in this quote as being false at all and doesn't mention cravings or desires .

Thatj's becoz u don't know nondualist philosophy well.

The smaller self is the ego and mind as distinguished from the higher Self or Awareness or pure consciousness.
You have just misinterpreted and misunderstood the whole thing, as usual.

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by God-Like

You engaged with me so I replied to you and asked you questions relating to the origin of your realizations / conclusions to which you haven't answered .
When peeps don't actually answer me, then futile intellectual debates as you put it go nowhere fast.
Our conversations always reflect this somewhat.
I ask you about how information that is of the mind comes via thoughtless awareness and you don't answer .
All you do is refer to more conclusions .
This is your doing .
x daz x

The nondualist philosophy is very simple and it is something to be practiced and not merely intellectually debated upon, which is ridiculous.

It is like having a treasure map and holding neverending debates and discussions on it for years instead of finding the treasure, while others get their hands on it.

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by ajay00

Niz himself states, "The witness is not the person.

The nondualist philosophy is very simple and it is something to be practiced

Since you can only live/be it and there is no way to write or speak about it, that does make it very simple.