Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 Guess from whom came these lovelies? There is no communism in Russia, no freedom in America, and no spirituality in India. Service to mankind is utter selfishness. Jesus was another misguided Jew; and the Buddha was a crackpot. Mutual terror, not love, will save mankind Attending church and going to the bar for a drink are identical There is nothing inside you but fear Communication is impossible between human beings. God, Love, Happiness, the unconscious, death, reincarnation and the soul are non-existent figments of our rich imagination. Freud is the fraud of the 20th century, while J. Krishnamurti is its greatest phoney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 Sounds like UG. > > Sandeep Chatterjee [sMTP:sandeepc] > Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:24 PM > Nisargadatta > ROFL. > > Guess from whom came these lovelies? > > > There is no communism in Russia, no freedom in America, and no spirituality in India. > > Service to mankind is utter selfishness. > > Jesus was another misguided Jew; and the Buddha was a crackpot. > > Mutual terror, not love, will save mankind > > Attending church and going to the bar for a drink are identical > > There is nothing inside you but fear > > Communication is impossible between human beings. > > God, Love, Happiness, the unconscious, death, reincarnation and the soul are non-existent figments of our rich imagination. > > Freud is the fraud of the 20th century, while J. Krishnamurti is its greatest phoney. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 Sandeep, Wasn't you that said everyone is a liar? That one can't speak without lying? [Or do I have you confused with someone else?] So what is so special about these two guys? -Bill Sandeep Chatterjee [sandeepc]Monday, August 11, 2003 11:24 PMNisargadatta Subject: ROFL. Guess from whom came these lovelies? There is no communism in Russia, no freedom in America, and no spirituality in India. Service to mankind is utter selfishness. Jesus was another misguided Jew; and the Buddha was a crackpot. Mutual terror, not love, will save mankind Attending church and going to the bar for a drink are identical There is nothing inside you but fear Communication is impossible between human beings. God, Love, Happiness, the unconscious, death, reincarnation and the soul are non-existent figments of our rich imagination. Freud is the fraud of the 20th century, while J. Krishnamurti is its greatest phoney. **If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1Under the Message Delivery option, choose "No Email" for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 Nothing Bill. Just breaking the monotony.:-) - Bill Rishel Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 12, 2003 05:12 PM RE: ROFL. Sandeep, Wasn't you that said everyone is a liar? That one can't speak without lying? [Or do I have you confused with someone else?] So what is so special about these two guys? -Bill Sandeep Chatterjee [sandeepc]Monday, August 11, 2003 11:24 PMNisargadatta Subject: ROFL. Guess from whom came these lovelies? There is no communism in Russia, no freedom in America, and no spirituality in India. Service to mankind is utter selfishness. Jesus was another misguided Jew; and the Buddha was a crackpot. Mutual terror, not love, will save mankind Attending church and going to the bar for a drink are identical There is nothing inside you but fear Communication is impossible between human beings. God, Love, Happiness, the unconscious, death, reincarnation and the soul are non-existent figments of our rich imagination. Freud is the fraud of the 20th century, while J. Krishnamurti is its greatest phoney. **If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1Under the Message Delivery option, choose "No Email" for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 i love the contrarian ug who takes the extreme positions as an act of kindness/cruelty to challenge our dearly held mainstream (main- extreme) ideals. hur Nisargadatta , Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > Guess from whom came these lovelies? > > > There is no communism in Russia, no freedom in America, and no spirituality in India. > > Service to mankind is utter selfishness. > > Jesus was another misguided Jew; and the Buddha was a crackpot. > > Mutual terror, not love, will save mankind > > Attending church and going to the bar for a drink are identical > > There is nothing inside you but fear > > Communication is impossible between human beings. > > God, Love, Happiness, the unconscious, death, reincarnation and the soul are non-existent figments of our rich imagination. > > Freud is the fraud of the 20th century, while J. Krishnamurti is its greatest phoney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 I misread your message anyway, Sandeep. I thought the quotes were all supposed to be from Freud and JK, and that the last line was your concluding remark! And turns out it was *all* UK. But still, UK seems to me a "bit less worth reading" than say... the average post on this list. So it does not seem that calling everything everyone says bullshit is useful. It is relative. At the very least -- it seems to me -- some bullshit is at a *higher level*. And when someone speaks with real vulnerability, that is quite different from someone "holding forth". Words spoken with vulnerability are never bullshit in my book. Is this a view you share? -Bill Sandeep Chatterjee [sandeepc]Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:13 AMNisargadatta Subject: Re: ROFL. Nothing Bill. Just breaking the monotony.:-) - Bill Rishel Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 12, 2003 05:12 PM RE: ROFL. Sandeep, Wasn't you that said everyone is a liar? That one can't speak without lying? [Or do I have you confused with someone else?] So what is so special about these two guys? -Bill Sandeep Chatterjee [sandeepc]Monday, August 11, 2003 11:24 PMNisargadatta Subject: ROFL. Guess from whom came these lovelies? There is no communism in Russia, no freedom in America, and no spirituality in India. Service to mankind is utter selfishness. Jesus was another misguided Jew; and the Buddha was a crackpot. Mutual terror, not love, will save mankind Attending church and going to the bar for a drink are identical There is nothing inside you but fear Communication is impossible between human beings. God, Love, Happiness, the unconscious, death, reincarnation and the soul are non-existent figments of our rich imagination. Freud is the fraud of the 20th century, while J. Krishnamurti is its greatest phoney. **If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1Under the Message Delivery option, choose "No Email" for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hur@n...> wrote: > i love the contrarian ug who takes the extreme positions as an act of > kindness/cruelty to challenge our dearly held mainstream (main- > extreme) ideals. > > hur Oh, so that's what he's doing. I just thought he was being obnoxious. So, he's really deep, eh? Smiles, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hur@n...> wrote: > > i love the contrarian ug who takes the extreme positions as an act > of > > kindness/cruelty to challenge our dearly held mainstream (main- > > extreme) ideals. > > > > hur > > Oh, so that's what he's doing. > > I just thought he was being obnoxious. > > So, he's really deep, eh? > > Smiles, > Dan sure dan. actually he admits it himself in a way that he's simply turning the seeker's question around and giving it back to him/her. what i observed is that...he listens to the seeker's position. he then takes the contrary extreme position to challenge the seeker's, which is a variation on the old neti-neti approach. easier said than done since not everyone is as original and talented as he is. usually what happens is that...the seeker rather than becoming aware of his/her own attachment, either loves ug's spin or hates it. then the loving seeker will cherish this new belief. ug is merciless though. if you try to give back his position, express your adoration, he'll disagree again and even make fun of you. hence that's why he looks like a cranky old man who's about to slice your soccer ball because it landed in his yard. a friend of mine was in love with him. after her second visit to switzerland to see him i asked her how the visit was. she said, " i don't want to talk about that asshole anymore. " another friend mentioned that at one time, he wanted to talk to ug about his experience of meeing ramana maharshi. ug said to him, " don't mention that unblinking bastard to me. " maybe i am delusional but i also think ug is very sweet. if you watch his videos there's always a twinkle in his eyes as he's being himself. in one of the videos, this well-intentioned new age radio host was interviewing him. i bet no one really explained the radio host beforehand that ug was not an " om shanti, peace to all beings " type of a guru with flower garlands around his neck. as the program progressed it was really funny to see the radio host's expression as he was taken aback by some of ug's cutting comments. hur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 - Bill Rishel Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:22 AM RE: ROFL. I misread your message anyway, Sandeep. I thought the quotes were all supposed to be from Freud and JK, and that the last line was your concluding remark! And turns out it was *all* UK. Yes it's UG all through. But still, UK seems to me a "bit less worth reading" than say...the average post on this list. Curious, what drives that conclusion? Not saying UG is worth it, but curious about your conclusion as so. So it does not seem that calling everything everyone says bullshit is useful. It is relative. At the very least -- it seems to me -- some bullshit is at a *higher level*. LOL. Without getting into whether bullshit or baloney per se, ........would you not agree Bill, higher level bullshit, is still bullshit? And when someone speaks with real vulnerability, that is quite different from someone "holding forth". Words spoken with vulnerability are never bullshit in my book. Is this a view you share? If by vulnerability,..........you are suggesting that since certainity is an oxymoron, .........that any utterances, whether through speech or through standing on one leg, ........being a happening within a phenomenal context, ........can only be a conceptual conjecture, ....... .....and hence the apperceived will never claim "What I say is THE way and MY way or no way".,..... .......then I am with you, Bill. However in the notional sense, there is one more stage, beyond vulnerability. Certainity. Which is the total absence of the need to appear certain or uncertain. As in another List to you Bill.........the need to qualify in order not to be seen as certain or to be seen vulnerable.....the same game is going on, isn't it?.............the game in which an "other" still yanks your chain. The nightingale in India is know as the koel (pronounced ko-yell). It's only the male koel which sings, .........the female koel focussed on more practical aspects of living, is not interested in such silliness. The koel sings not because he has some Truth to convey. He sings, because he has a song to sing. And becoming the singing.... there is no audience for him. And the Universe pauses to listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Sandeep Chatterjee [sandeepc] - Bill Rishel Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:22 AM RE: ROFL. I misread your message anyway, Sandeep. I thought the quotes were all supposed to be from Freud and JK, and that the last line was your concluding remark! And turns out it was *all* UK. Yes it's UG all through. But still, UK seems to me a "bit less worth reading" than say...the average post on this list. Curious, what drives that conclusion? Not saying UG is worth it, but curious about your conclusion as so. The thing is that I don't believe in absolute statements, only relative ones. So my comment is just a statement of my subjective proclivity to read UG. Which is, btw, non-existent. So it does not seem that calling everything everyone says bullshit is useful. It is relative. At the very least -- it seems to me -- some bullshit is at a *higher level*. LOL. Without getting into whether bullshit or baloney per se, ........would you not agree Bill, higher level bullshit, is still bullshit? If my son tells me he loves me, that to me is not bullshit. And anyone who tells me it *is* if full of it, as far as I am concerned. And when someone speaks with real vulnerability, that is quite different from someone "holding forth". Words spoken with vulnerability are never bullshit in my book. Is this a view you share? If by vulnerability,..........you are suggesting that since certainity is an oxymoron, .........that any utterances, whether through speech or through standing on one leg, ........being a happening within a phenomenal context, ........can only be a conceptual conjecture, ....... .....and hence the apperceived will never claim "What I say is THE way and MY way or no way".,..... .......then I am with you, Bill. Sandeep, you are talking about propositional assertions, which is a tiny part of real world communication. "Certainty" and "conjecture" are attributes of propositional assertions. They are not attributes of all forms of communication, however. Are you familiar with "ordinary language philosoply" as originated by Lidwig Wittgenstein. Some of the post-Wittgenstein stuff develops the notion of "speech acts". An example is when the bride and groom say "I do" in a wedding ceremony. Such statements are not propositional assertions. "I do" in such a context does not declare a "state of affairs". It is not a descriptive statement, it is an *act*. Such is an example of an "utterance" that is not a propositional assertion. When someone speaks vulnerably from the heart, that does not, IMO, entail the making of propositional assertions. Propositional assertions is a limited linguistic sandbox, IMO, and not a very interesting one overall. But it is a paradigm that seems to be locked in the brains of many people when it comes to discussions on lists such as this, espesially the more cerebral ones such as this Nisargadatta list. However in the notional sense, there is one more stage, beyond vulnerability. Certainity. "Certainty" doesn't interest me, actually. It is just a mind thing, at any rate. The mind craves certainty, the heart doesn't need it. The cure for the mind is to simply don't feed it! Which is the total absence of the need to appear certain or uncertain. As in another List to you Bill.........the need to qualify in order not to be seen as certain or to be seen vulnerable.....the same game is going on, isn't it?.............the game in which an "other" still yanks your chain. You can't *know* about the needs of anyone else, Sandeep. Any such "knowing" is just conjecture, and certainly lacks "certainty". The nightingale in India is know as the koel (pronounced ko-yell). It's only the male koel which sings, .........the female koel focussed on more practical aspects of living, is not interested in such silliness. The koel sings not because he has some Truth to convey. He sings, because he has a song to sing. And becoming the singing.... there is no audience for him. And the Universe pauses to listen. If I am not-two, what Universe could there be to pause? -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 If I am not-two, what Universe could there be to pause? Indeed. As much as,.. who is to express love, or who is to be vulnerable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Dear Hur, Thanks a lot for your realistic comment about U.G. I have sent a copy to some friends who were startling who the hell that guy is. No moral pros and cons, nicely written. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hur@n...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hur@n...> wrote: > > > i love the contrarian ug who takes the extreme positions as an > act > > of > > > kindness/cruelty to challenge our dearly held mainstream (main- > > > extreme) ideals. > > > > > > hur > > > > Oh, so that's what he's doing. > > > > I just thought he was being obnoxious. > > > > So, he's really deep, eh? > > > > Smiles, > > Dan > > sure dan. actually he admits it himself in a way that he's simply > turning the seeker's question around and giving it back to him/her. > what i observed is that...he listens to the seeker's position. he > then takes the contrary extreme position to challenge the seeker's, > which is a variation on the old neti-neti approach. I agree, Hur. It's pretty transparent though, isn't it? I mean, it's a rote reversal of everything that's supposedly spiritual, to make a point. And it comes across as someone with a point to make. So, if Mr. Spiritual or Mr. Psychology says " black, " Mr. UG says " white. " It's an " anti " stance, and that can be, like you say, a way to get someone to look at treasured beliefs. Although, such a stance can itself become a treasured self-presentation, attitude, and maintained beliefs. And it requires " others " to whom one is anti. I wonder if people who like him a lot, don't like his stance more than they really look into self-beliefs that are being held. Certainly, " I have the anti-answers " can be just as much a self-stance as " I have the answers. " You know, there's one thing on which UG doesn't disagree with the so-called " authorities " like Jesus, Krishnamurti and Buddha whom he tends to put down -- which is the theme of death and transformation, the irrevocable loss of a central organizing principle, which was taken as real, but which never was the case. So, he's not really as " anti " as he pretends. easier said than > done since not everyone is as original and talented as he is. Sure, he's got a flashy presentation -- at least good for some, probably not for a lot of others. But then, that's show biz. :-) > usually what happens is that...the seeker rather than becoming aware > of his/her own attachment, either loves ug's spin or hates it. then > the loving seeker will cherish this new belief. ug is merciless > though. if you try to give back his position, express your > adoration, he'll disagree again and even make fun of you. hence > that's why he looks like a cranky old man who's about to slice your > soccer ball because it landed in his yard. Heh, heh. Wait till he gets a load of my terrier biting his leg every time he tries to pick up his mail. > a friend of mine was in love with him. after her second visit to > switzerland to see him i asked her how the visit was. she said, " i > don't want to talk about that asshole anymore. " Funny, Hur -- Does that point to the development of a cult of his persona, in spite of his protestations that such cults are not cool? Methink perhaps he doth protest too much. :-) > another friend mentioned that at one time, he wanted to talk to ug > about his experience of meeing ramana maharshi. ug said to > him, " don't mention that unblinking bastard to me. " Nice! So talking about how one experienced teacher so-and-so accomplishes nothing -- so how is it he managed to become one of the so and so's? How is it that he travels with an entourage, so he could say the same things to different audiences -- why it's almost as if he has a message, like the people he's anti? Just because it's an anti-message, doesn't mean it's not a message. In fact, it depends on others who have messages that he'll debunk. Without the others who have been accepted as authorities, which UG can give the anti-message to, there's no stance for UG. So, UG needs those authorities, to do the trip he's doing. > maybe i am delusional but i also think ug is very sweet. I don't see any reason to doubt it. if you > watch his videos there's always a twinkle in his eyes as he's being > himself. in one of the videos, this well-intentioned new age radio > host was interviewing him. i bet no one really explained the radio > host beforehand that ug was not an " om shanti, peace to all beings " > type of a guru with flower garlands around his neck. as the program > progressed it was really funny to see the radio host's expression as > he was taken aback by some of ug's cutting comments. Sounds like he sparked some uncertainty! And uncertainty about a conditioned mindset concerning what is spiritual, can be a good thing. One's expected confirmation not received -- confirmation that would give reassurance about reality. However, I have the feeling that UG is actually quite reassuring to people's sense of reality who share his beliefs of an anti- nature, and who idealize him, in the same way others whom he is anti- have been idealized. By the way, Jesus and Buddha weren't really reassuring at all -- quite demanding, in fact. Jesus undermined the whole concept of accumulating merit or status to be spiritual and get somewhere with God, and Buddha said " there is nothing permanent anywhere, which you could have, know, or be. " Thanks for sharing your comments on this. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Hey Bill -- I like what you said about speech that is an act rather than a description. Speech only seems to refer to something outside of the immediate. Speech is always a flux, and the images it calls up are also in flux, and are different for each individual who hears the speech. The flux is ignored, in order to behave as if there could be static representations, referents such as " an existing set situation which is being described " and " something objective to which our words refer. " Yet, indeed, there never are such. So, speech that represents a set state of affairs depends on ignoring, on behaving as if what is never the case, is the case. Speech that is act, is direct movement that is not separated from the " now-movement " which is. Such as Joshu saying " Mu! " Or another teacher who said, " Move on! " Or Jesus saying, " I am the Way " Peace, Dan Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > Sandeep Chatterjee [sandeepc@b...] > > - > Bill Rishel > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:22 AM > RE: ROFL. > > > I misread your message anyway, Sandeep. > > I thought the quotes were all supposed to be from Freud and JK, > and that the last line was your concluding remark! > > And turns out it was *all* UK. > > Yes it's UG all through. > > > But still, UK seems to me a " bit less worth reading " than say...the > average post on this list. > > Curious, what drives that conclusion? > Not saying UG is worth it, but curious about your conclusion as so. > The thing is that I don't believe in absolute statements, only relative > ones. > So my comment is just a statement of my subjective proclivity to read > UG. Which is, btw, non-existent. > > So it does not seem that calling everything everyone says bullshit is > useful. It is relative. At the very least -- it seems to me -- some bullshit > is at a *higher level*. > > LOL. > Without getting into whether bullshit or baloney per se, ........would > you not agree Bill, higher level bullshit, is still bullshit? > If my son tells me he loves me, that to me is not bullshit. And anyone who > tells me it *is* > if full of it, as far as I am concerned. > > And when someone speaks with real vulnerability, that is quite different > from someone " holding forth " . Words spoken with > vulnerability are never bullshit in my book. > > Is this a view you share? > > If by vulnerability,..........you are suggesting that since certainity > is an oxymoron, .........that any utterances, whether through speech or > through standing on one leg, ........being a happening within a phenomenal > context, ........can only be a conceptual conjecture, ....... > > ....and hence the apperceived will never claim " What I say is THE way > and MY way or no way " .,..... > > ......then I am with you, Bill. > Sandeep, you are talking about propositional assertions, which is a tiny > part of > real world communication. " Certainty " and " conjecture " are attributes of > propositional assertions. They are not attributes of all forms of > communication, > however. Are you familiar with " ordinary language philosoply " as originated > by Lidwig Wittgenstein. Some of the post-Wittgenstein stuff develops the > notion of " speech acts " . An example is when the bride and groom say " I do " > in a wedding ceremony. Such statements are not propositional assertions. > " I do " in such a context does not declare a " state of affairs " . It is not a > descriptive statement, it is an *act*. Such is an example of an " utterance " > that is not a propositional assertion. > > When someone speaks vulnerably from the heart, that does not, IMO, entail > the making of propositional assertions. > > Propositional assertions is a limited linguistic sandbox, IMO, and not a > very > interesting one overall. But it is a paradigm that seems to be locked in the > brains of many people when it comes to discussions on lists such as this, > espesially the more cerebral ones such as this Nisargadatta list. > > > > However in the notional sense, there is one more stage, beyond > vulnerability. > > Certainity. > " Certainty " doesn't interest me, actually. It is just a mind thing, at any > rate. > The mind craves certainty, the heart doesn't need it. The cure for the mind > is to simply don't feed it! > > Which is the total absence of the need to appear certain or uncertain. > > As in another List to you Bill.........the need to qualify in order not > to be seen as certain or to be seen vulnerable.....the same game is going > on, isn't it?.............the game in which an " other " still yanks your > chain. > You can't *know* about the needs of anyone else, Sandeep. > Any such " knowing " is just conjecture, and certainly lacks " certainty " . > The nightingale in India is know as the koel (pronounced ko- yell). > > It's only the male koel which sings, .........the female koel focussed > on more practical aspects of living, is not interested in such silliness. > > > > The koel sings not because he has some Truth to convey. > > He sings, because he has a song to sing. > > And becoming the singing.... there is no audience for him. > > And the Universe pauses to listen. > > > If I am not-two, what Universe could there be to pause? > > -Bill 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.