Truth

October 18, 2002

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> Cool Dan!

> Very nice.

> -Bill

It takes one to know one.

-- Dan

October 18, 2002

I bet to disagree, my friend. In my long gone wild

days

I used to abuse alcohol, tobacco, but never firearms,

mind you. Well, if i was plaster i could not even add

right, much less understand anything more complicated

that my way home. No, the brain is the center of

understanding and I do understand why you have

difficulty understanding this. Of course, the

brain

is a phenomenon, everything made of matter/energy is a

phenomenon. You said the brain is perceived. Perceived

by what?

Are you an idealist, a Platonism? Oh, I get it, Dan

is an eternal disembodied entity floating in the blue

heaven. Good luck!

You have heard of brain scanning machines, electrodes

and other techniques. You have heard of brain injuries

that impede thinking. These is all been proved and

documented.

Love to correspond with an 18th century man,

Pete

Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More

http://faith.

October 19, 2002

Hi James,

Thanks for your reply:

>I have lived on the lip

of insanity, wanting to know reasons,

knocking on a door. It opens!

>I've been knocking from the inside.

>(trans- C.Barks with J.Moyne)

>I also noted that in sessions with Jean Klein - he

allowed

Silence to speak much of the time. In other words I

felt that there

was great depth in his actions. For me, his actions

>said, 'Be Still'.

It brought to mind a behavior of Liquorman that

puzzled me for a while. I observed that when he

finished answering a question from a participant, he

would look around and above the heads of people as if

inspecting the walls for cracks, or spider webs. He

did

this with a joyful, but somewhat dazed expression.

Then months later, I saw a retarded youth do the same

thing while riding the subway. The young man had the

same expression on his face. Damn! I thought, this

idiot is seeing the same thing Liquorman did.

What did they share that allowed them to see in the

same way? An empty mind and a lack of identification

perhaps?

Krishnamurti always begin his " Commentaries on living "

with a description of his surroundings as to emphasize

the importance of observation without cogitation.

It's this undivided, non-reflexive perception of the

whole that they point at, but people love to stare

an idolize fingers( concepts and gurus). What can one

say?

Love,

James

Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More

http://faith.

October 19, 2002

Are you, not having understood it, any better than

him?

----

Anand.

--- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote:

<HR>

<tt>

Pete --

You haven't understood phenomena yet, Pete.

So, you are searching for a & quot;who & quot; who

would

& nbsp; understand phenomena.

No, asking & quot;who & quot; is just a question arising

as another

& nbsp; phenomenon.

When you know, you won't ask such things.

You also won't have to take the brain as a center

& nbsp; of knowing whatsover.

You've switched from saying you had no center to

& nbsp; saying you're relying on brain centers for

knowing.

If you had a mind, maybe you could make it up :-)

You, who have spoken repeatedly about being

& nbsp; anti-concept, are hung up on the conceptual

& nbsp; stance of an understanding occurring in the

& nbsp; brain. & nbsp; You construct the brain

through

& nbsp; your understanding of it. & nbsp; The

& quot;you & quot; who

& nbsp; gives form, isn't a form, and isn't a

concept.

You misinterpret what I say, which has nothing

& nbsp; to do with a disembodied knower.

Perhaps the words & quot;all-pervasive & quot; and

& quot;nonlocalizable & quot;

& nbsp; might provide a clue.

Your misinterpreation shows where you are trying

& nbsp; to understand me from. & nbsp; I am not there, in

those

& nbsp; concepts, Pete.

Of course a brain can be scanned, and electrical

& nbsp; activity can be shown, also true for a

computer.

Understanding is far more than you're conceiving

it

& nbsp; to be, Pete.

Let alone this nonunderstandable from which

understanding

& nbsp; arises.

Namaste,

Dan

Nisargadatta, pete seesaw

& lt;seesaw1us & gt; wrote:

& gt; I bet to disagree, my friend. In my long gone

wild

& gt; days

& gt; I used to abuse alcohol, tobacco, but never

firearms,

& gt; mind you. Well, if i was plaster i could not even

add

& gt; right, much less understand anything more

complicated

& gt; that my way home. No, the brain is the center

of

& gt; understanding and I do understand why you

have

& gt; difficulty & nbsp; understanding this. Of

course, the

& gt; brain

& gt; is a phenomenon, everything made of matter/energy

is a

& gt; phenomenon. You said the brain is perceived.

Perceived

& gt; by what?

& gt; & nbsp; Are you an idealist, a Platonism? Oh, I get

it, Dan

& gt; is an eternal disembodied entity floating in the

blue

& gt; heaven. Good luck!

& gt;

& gt; You have heard of brain scanning machines,

electrodes

& gt; and other techniques. You have heard of brain

injuries

& gt; that impede thinking. These is all been proved

and

& gt; documented.

& gt;

& gt; Love to correspond with an 18th century man,

& gt;

& gt; Pete

& gt;

& gt;

& gt;

& gt; Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & amp;

More

& gt; <a

href= " http://faith. " >http://faith.</a>

</tt>

<td align=center><font size= " -1 "

color=#003399>

October 19, 2002

Pete,

Clean the shit in your head.It stinks.

------

Anand.

--- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote:

<HR>

<tt>

Pete --

You haven't understood phenomena yet, Pete.

So, you are searching for a & quot;who & quot; who

would

& nbsp; understand phenomena.

No, asking & quot;who & quot; is just a question arising

as another

& nbsp; phenomenon.

When you know, you won't ask such things.

You also won't have to take the brain as a center

& nbsp; of knowing whatsover.

You've switched from saying you had no center to

& nbsp; saying you're relying on brain centers for

knowing.

If you had a mind, maybe you could make it up :-)

You, who have spoken repeatedly about being

& nbsp; anti-concept, are hung up on the conceptual

& nbsp; stance of an understanding occurring in the

& nbsp; brain. & nbsp; You construct the brain

through

& nbsp; your understanding of it. & nbsp; The

& quot;you & quot; who

& nbsp; gives form, isn't a form, and isn't a

concept.

You misinterpret what I say, which has nothing

& nbsp; to do with a disembodied knower.

Perhaps the words & quot;all-pervasive & quot; and

& quot;nonlocalizable & quot;

& nbsp; might provide a clue.

Your misinterpreation shows where you are trying

& nbsp; to understand me from. & nbsp; I am not there, in

those

& nbsp; concepts, Pete.

Of course a brain can be scanned, and electrical

& nbsp; activity can be shown, also true for a

computer.

Understanding is far more than you're conceiving

it

& nbsp; to be, Pete.

Let alone this nonunderstandable from which

understanding

& nbsp; arises.

Namaste,

Dan

Nisargadatta, pete seesaw

& lt;seesaw1us & gt; wrote:

& gt; I bet to disagree, my friend. In my long gone

wild

& gt; days

& gt; I used to abuse alcohol, tobacco, but never

firearms,

& gt; mind you. Well, if i was plaster i could not even

add

& gt; right, much less understand anything more

complicated

& gt; that my way home. No, the brain is the center

of

& gt; understanding and I do understand why you

have

& gt; difficulty & nbsp; understanding this. Of

course, the

& gt; brain

& gt; is a phenomenon, everything made of matter/energy

is a

& gt; phenomenon. You said the brain is perceived.

Perceived

& gt; by what?

& gt; & nbsp; Are you an idealist, a Platonism? Oh, I get

it, Dan

& gt; is an eternal disembodied entity floating in the

blue

& gt; heaven. Good luck!

& gt;

& gt; You have heard of brain scanning machines,

electrodes

& gt; and other techniques. You have heard of brain

injuries

& gt; that impede thinking. These is all been proved

and

& gt; documented.

& gt;

& gt; Love to correspond with an 18th century man,

& gt;

& gt; Pete

& gt;

& gt;

& gt;

& gt; Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & amp;

More

& gt; <a

href= " http://faith. " >http://faith.</a>

</tt>

<td align=center><font size= " -1 "

color=#003399>

October 19, 2002

Thanks, Swamiji Maha Avidya. I would have been scared

shitless if you had agreed. )))

Tell us master, how does it fill to be sel-realized?

Your disciples are waiting for that historical moment

in which you, Exalted One, will deem us worthy of

hearing your Truth of Truth. I beg you, Master, do it

before the men in the white coats come to get you!

Pete

--- Anand Eswaran <anandesw wrote:

> Pete,

>

> Clean the shit in your head.It stinks.

>

> ------

> Anand.

>

> --- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote:

> <HR>

> <html><body>

>

> <tt>

> Pete --

>

> You haven't understood phenomena yet, Pete.

>

> So, you are searching for a & quot;who & quot; who

> would

> & nbsp; understand phenomena.

>

> No, asking & quot;who & quot; is just a question

> arising

> as another

> & nbsp; phenomenon.

>

> When you know, you won't ask such things.

>

> You also won't have to take the brain as a

> center

> & nbsp; of knowing whatsover.

>

> You've switched from saying you had no center to

> & nbsp; saying you're relying on brain centers for

> knowing.

>

> If you had a mind, maybe you could make it up

> :-)

>

> You, who have spoken repeatedly about being

> & nbsp; anti-concept, are hung up on the

> conceptual

> & nbsp; stance of an understanding occurring in the

>

> & nbsp; brain. & nbsp; You construct the brain

> through

> & nbsp; your understanding of it. & nbsp; The

> & quot;you & quot; who

> & nbsp; gives form, isn't a form, and isn't a

> concept.

>

> You misinterpret what I say, which has nothing

> & nbsp; to do with a disembodied knower.

>

> Perhaps the words & quot;all-pervasive & quot; and

> & quot;nonlocalizable & quot;

> & nbsp; might provide a clue.

>

> Your misinterpreation shows where you are trying

> & nbsp; to understand me from. & nbsp; I am not there,

> in

> those

> & nbsp; concepts, Pete.

>

> Of course a brain can be scanned, and electrical

> & nbsp; activity can be shown, also true for a

> computer.

>

> Understanding is far more than you're conceiving

> it

> & nbsp; to be, Pete.

>

> Let alone this nonunderstandable from which

> understanding

> & nbsp; arises.

>

> Namaste,

> Dan

>

> Nisargadatta, pete seesaw

> & lt;seesaw1us & gt; wrote:

> & gt; I bet to disagree, my friend. In my long gone

> wild

> & gt; days

> & gt; I used to abuse alcohol, tobacco, but never

> firearms,

> & gt; mind you. Well, if i was plaster i could not

> even

> add

> & gt; right, much less understand anything more

> complicated

> & gt; that my way home. No, the brain is the center

> of

> & gt; understanding and I do understand why you

> have

> & gt; difficulty & nbsp; understanding this. Of

> course, the

> & gt; brain

> & gt; is a phenomenon, everything made of

> matter/energy

> is a

> & gt; phenomenon. You said the brain is perceived.

> Perceived

> & gt; by what?

> & gt; & nbsp; Are you an idealist, a Platonism? Oh, I

> get

> it, Dan

> & gt; is an eternal disembodied entity floating in

> the

> blue

> & gt; heaven. Good luck!

> & gt;

> & gt; You have heard of brain scanning machines,

> electrodes

> & gt; and other techniques. You have heard of brain

> injuries

> & gt; that impede thinking. These is all been proved

> and

> & gt; documented.

> & gt;

> & gt; Love to correspond with an 18th century

> man,

> & gt;

> & gt; Pete

> & gt;

> & gt;

>

> & gt;

> & gt; Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos

> & amp;

> More

> & gt; <a

>

href= " http://faith. " >http://faith.</a>

>

> </tt>

>

>

>

>

>

> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>

> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>

> <td align=center><font size= " -1 "

> color=#003399>

> Sponsor</td>

> </tr>

> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>

> <td align=center width=470><TABLE WIDTH=300

> HEIGHT=250

> border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td

> align=center><font face=arial

> size=-2>

> <TR>

> <TD>

> <a

>

href= " http://rd./M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/S=1705077\

076:HM/A=810327/R=0/*http://geocities./ps/info?.refer=blrecs "

> target=_top><IMG

>

SRC= " http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_geocities/lrec2b_1_01.jpg "

> WIDTH=185 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></a></TR></TD>

> <TD>

> <a

>

href= " http://rd./M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/S=1705077\

076:HM/A=810327/R=1/*http://geocities./ps/info?.refer=blrecs "

> target=_top><IMG

>

SRC= " http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_geocities/lrec2b_2_02.gif "

> WIDTH=115 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></TD>

> </TR></a>

> </TABLE></td>

> </tr>

> <tr><td><img alt= " " width=1 height=1

>

src= " http://us.adserver./l?M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupmai\

l/S=:HM/A=810327/rand=590473215 " ></td></tr>

> </table>

>

>

>

>

> <tt>

>

October 19, 2002

Nisargadatta, Anand Eswaran <anandesw> wrote:

> Are you, not having understood it, any better than

> him?

> ----

> Anand.

What do you think there is to understand, Anand?

There is no way for you to define better or worse, until

you are there as an observer with your

opinions.

-- Dan

Sign In

Truth

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads