Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99> > wrote: > > Hey guys, if there is a 'me' to get shut of, and that 'me' is me, > > which, if it isn't, it's just another possession of mine, then the > > only way to know what it is is to know what it was, and that means a > > /Gestalt/ shift in one's sense of self of such a nature that it > would > > reveal the 'me' as that sense of self that no longer is. This seeing > > could be termed an insight and of such things might self- > understanding > > be comprised. Anyway, I toss this thought on the table for whatever > > you want to make of it. If you choose to turn it to chopped liver, > > don't forget the Schmaltz. ;>} ----willy > > Your words point here: > > Clarity is simply to distinguish between > what was and this which is. > > What was has never been the case -- what is > has never not been the case. > > You can attribute all kinds of things to what > was(which is not, nor will be): > things that memory observed, experiences > that were had and stored, the basis for personality > or self, knowledge of various things. > > Yet, all those attributions also are " the past. " > > What is, no one has ever communicated, which is > " thus " : all. > > -- Dan Hi Dan, I do not see what I see as a necessary change of identity in the form you have ascribed to my words. Let's see if I can clarify this point. If the was that was was, i.e., the me no longer is, I see no need to distinguish between is and was. Isn't such a distinction, that between what was and what is the hallmark of the me? I see you as have taken what I have said, in particular, and generalized it, which I assume was your intent, but in doing so, I see it losing its particular flavor, and meaning, unless the negated particular is, in particular, noted as having been negated. Anyway, that is how I see what I said as being said. As to your generalized statement, I have, in general, no quibble with it. If I have misunderstood what you were saying, and you were agreeing with me, simply forget what I have said here. [;>} ----willy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Hi Will - > Hi Dan, I do not see what I see as a necessary change of identity in > the form you have ascribed to my words. Identity has never been had -- so it can't have a necessary change. The change is realizing that it never has been had. > Let's see if I can clarify > this point. Okay! > If the was that was was, i.e., the me no longer is, It's not just the me. It is the entire worldview, experiential referencing, social system, and memory template of the assumed " me " that never was. In other words, " was " includes every aspect of " perception " " thought " " experience " " personhood " and " time " - except the timeless aspect that can't be perceived, thought about, experienced, manifested as a person, or known in time. Which is. And is totality. I see no need to > distinguish between is and was. Isn't such a distinction, that between > what was and what is the hallmark of the me? Although is includes all time, this inclusion isn't seen until " was " is exluded. Excluded only because it never is the case. The attempt to have an existence as me is based in and as " was " and can't touch " is " -- " is " is its extinguishment. And there is nothing particular about a me that is to be extinguished or seen through -- it's just that me is a convenient focal point based on the assumption that the primary distinction is between me and not-me. But the primary distinction could be taken as was and is. And that distinction needs to be understood clearly. The ending of any division is through being clear about that distinction, acutely clear -- not ignoring it or being fuzzy about it. I see you as have taken > what I have said, in particular, and generalized it, which I assume > was your intent, but in doing so, I see it losing its particular > flavor, and meaning, unless the negated particular is, in particular, > noted as having been negated. If you say so, I'll take your word for it. > Anyway, that is how I see what I said as being said. As to your > generalized statement, I have, in general, no quibble with it. If I > have misunderstood what you were saying, and you were agreeing with > me, simply forget what I have said here. Agreeing or disagreeing are in and of the was. Is involves no separate beings to agree or disagree. An intriguing place to be, this point between was and is, revealing truth as it is -- " I have come not to bring peace, but a sword. " The dividing point between illusion and truth. To be here is to invest neither in illusion or truth. One's being discriminates the false from the true, by virtue of having nothing false in it, and therefore requiring nothing of truth to be held. " To be in the world, but not of the world. " I am truly fictional, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Dan, I find your response intriguing. Again, if I place myself in the position to see what you say as what I say, I find both agreement and disagreement. You are thinking structure, and I had removed myself from that mode of thinking to express the movement from having bought the illusion of the me to the seeing of it as an illusion. In taking what I had said and placing it back into the structure, I recognized what you were doing. If the structure is already in place, we can recognize the structure even though we are not speaking directly to it, such as in the formal statements you are using, if we recognize the change that reveals the structure. My view of the two views is that one is static and the other is dynamic, with the latter speaking to the insight process that gives birth to the former. Let me take another bite at the apple with the help of what you have just said. W: Hi Dan, I do not see what I see as a necessary change of identity in the form you have ascribed to my words. D: Identity has never been had -- so it can't have a necessary change. The change is realizing that it never has been had. I was referring to your post 10798, and, if you will refer back to it, you will see that nowhere did you directly refer to " the change that is realizing that it never has been had. " In that post, you were making formal statements. It is the realization process that I find intriguing, and all of the nuances attendant to that process. For instance ----- D: But the primary distinction could be taken as was and is. And I take that distinction also as primary. When that identity comes to an end, a reflection upon that ending could bring a transcendental identity into being, where the was is now the point in time where the transcendental act occurred. My use of the term 'the was that was' is my way of saying that the acquired identity has also been excised. In formal language, I would say that the act of observing is the act of the observer and that all acts of the observer are seen to be within that act. Simply, when one is present to oneself, all acts deriving from that presence are also seen. Since remembering is one of those acts, there is no room within the act for an identity to adhere. ----willy Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Will - > > > Hi Dan, I do not see what I see as a necessary change of identity in > > the form you have ascribed to my words. > > Identity has never been had -- so it can't have a necessary > change. > > The change is realizing that it never has been had. > > > Let's see if I can clarify > > this point. > > Okay! > > > If the was that was was, i.e., the me no longer is, > > It's not just the me. It is the entire worldview, experiential > referencing, social system, and memory template of the > assumed " me " that never was. > > In other words, " was " includes every aspect of " perception " > " thought " " experience " " personhood " and " time " - except > the timeless aspect that can't be perceived, thought about, > experienced, manifested as a person, or known in time. > Which is. And is totality. > > I see no need to > > distinguish between is and was. Isn't such a distinction, that > between > > what was and what is the hallmark of the me? > > Although is includes all time, this inclusion isn't > seen until " was " is exluded. Excluded only because > it never is the case. > > The attempt to have an existence as me is based in > and as " was " and can't touch " is " -- " is " is its > extinguishment. > > And there is nothing particular about a me that is to > be extinguished or seen through -- > it's just that me is a convenient focal > point based on the assumption that the primary distinction > is between me and not-me. > > But the primary distinction could be taken as was and is. > > And that distinction needs to be understood clearly. > > The ending of any division is > through being clear about that distinction, > acutely clear -- not ignoring it or being fuzzy about it. > > I see you as have taken > > what I have said, in particular, and generalized it, which I assume > > was your intent, but in doing so, I see it losing its particular > > flavor, and meaning, unless the negated particular is, in > particular, > > noted as having been negated. > > If you say so, I'll take your word for it. > > > Anyway, that is how I see what I said as being said. As to your > > generalized statement, I have, in general, no quibble with it. If I > > have misunderstood what you were saying, and you were agreeing with > > me, simply forget what I have said here. > > Agreeing or disagreeing are in and of the was. > > Is involves no separate beings to agree or disagree. > > An intriguing place to be, this point between > was and is, revealing truth as it is -- > " I have come not to bring > peace, but a sword. " > > The dividing point between illusion and truth. > > To be here is to invest neither in illusion or truth. > > One's being discriminates the false from the true, > by virtue of having nothing false in it, and therefore > requiring nothing of truth to be held. > > " To be in the world, but not of the world. " > > I am truly fictional, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Hi Willy -- > I find your response intriguing. Cool! > Again, if I place myself in the > position to see what you say as what I say, I find both agreement and > disagreement. You are thinking structure, and I had removed myself > from that mode of thinking to express the movement from having bought > the illusion of the me to the seeing of it as an illusion. In taking > what I had said and placing it back into the structure, I recognized > what you were doing. If the structure is already in place, we can > recognize the structure even though we are not speaking directly to > it, such as in the formal statements you are using, if we recognize > the change that reveals the structure. I wish what you just said were more clear to me. Any chance that you could simplify it? I see myself as speaking to the discrimination of structure from nonstructure, and being clear how structuring processes occur. This involves clarity on how time, experience and thought in time, and individual being are based on the past. So, I'm not sure what you see me as placing back into a structure? > My view of the two views is > that one is static and the other is dynamic, with the latter speaking > to the insight process that gives birth to the former. Okay. I see this a bit differently, although with a lot of agreement. The static I see as never actually static, but given the quality of staticity only relatively, in contrast. Thus, the perception of something static requires a being in time, able to make contrasts -- and such a being is never itself static. Thus, staticity never actually occurs, although there can be thinking and perceiving as if it could be the case. Thus, staticity is an illusion, although relatively, it has uses in terms of cognition and perception. Being aware of perceptual and experiential dynamics does give insight into the nature of structuring. Another aspect of insight is into the nature of being aware, which insight transcends movement and stillness (which are polar aspects of being aware). > Let me take > another bite at the apple with the help of what you have just said. > > W: Hi Dan, I do not see what I see as a necessary change of identity > in the form you have ascribed to my words. > > D: Identity has never been had -- so it can't have a necessary change. > The change is realizing that it never has been had. > > I was referring to your post 10798, and, if you will refer back to it, > you will see that nowhere did you directly refer to " the change that > is realizing that it never has been had. " In that post, you were > making formal statements. It is the realization process that I find > intriguing, and all of the nuances attendant to that process. For > instance ----- Will - I don't mean to be a pain in the butt, but I'd rather not refer back to past posts this way. I'd rather just have a spontaneous conversation in which I respond to what you offer and vice versa. For me: more relaxing, less effort, not so formal -- just friendly chat, if that's okay with you. I just was responding directly to what you said when I said " the change is realizing that identity has never been had. " For what it's worth -- or not :-) I'm not trying to build some kind of consistent argument in which truisms are provided in a noncontradictory mode from post to post to post. For me, truth isn't like that. Truth is now, is spontaneous, paradoxical, transcendent. Thus, it can't be formularized in any final, noncontradictory way. We can discuss, but there won't be any absolute, unchanging truth in the meanings of the verbal structurings. Nor will truth be somewhere else, separated from our conversation. I guess you could truth the " livingness " of our conversing, in our experiencing. > D: But the primary distinction could be taken as was and is. > > And I take that distinction also as primary. When that identity comes > to an end, a reflection upon that ending could bring a transcendental > identity into being, where the was is now the point in time where the > transcendental act occurred. I don't see it that way. To me, that trancendent never is not the case -- thus couldn't be a particular act that occurred for an individual in time. The transcendent is " this " from which time arises as time, as if a now could be divided from a then, as if a was could have happened then, apart from now -- so as to give static images called memories and identity systems. > My use of the term 'the was that was' is > my way of saying that the acquired identity has also been excised. Yes, I differ from you a bit on this point. An identity is a staticity, and therefore has never been the case. There may be the efforting to establish an identity, which is, of course, very important in cultural contexts, and involved with roles, communications, and actions. Yet, such identity is never really fixed, and the relations of that identity are never actually achieved -- just achieved well enough to function in orientation to that tribe, or culture. So, nothing is excised, just an efforting that stops. > In > formal language, I would say that the act of observing is the act of > the observer and that all acts of the observer are seen to be within > that act. The observer is the world which is observed. > Simply, when one is present to oneself, all acts deriving > from that presence are also seen. Since remembering is one of those > acts, there is no room within the act for an identity to adhere. Okay. You say " when " -- so time is implied. What about presence not of time, which doesn't arrive or depart? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Hi Dan, I have not responded because I wanted to let the difference in the way our words were working percolate for a while, just to see what might rise in response, and to answer your last question. A picture has appeared. I'll do the picture first, before I apply it, so as to let it stand alone first. There can be a two-step process in moving from the presence of a was to its absence. The presence of a was, the me, can be said to be the artifact of the act of re-membering. When that act comes to an end, for whatever the reason, an experience of that ending is registered. When the act of re-membering is again engaged, the me now has a discontinuity within it, and may see itself in a new light, say enlightened, or transcended. When it is seen that both the me and the enlightened me are artifacts of the act of re-membering, that signals what could be called self-presence. I now segue to my definition of self-presence and your question. W: Simply, when one is present to oneself, all acts deriving from that presence are also seen. Since remembering is one of those acts, there is no room within the act for an identity to adhere. D: Okay. You say " when " -- so time is implied. What about presence not of time, which doesn't arrive or depart? That you saw my use of the word " when " not as conditional, but of time, suggested to me that there was a fracture in our understanding. The picture I have presented above represents my understanding of that fracture. Your use of the word " when " makes sense if it is applied to the first step of the process. Your question of " what about presence not of time, which doesn't arrive or depart, " not only supports that application, but is also the question that begs to be asked. I read again my comment to the " guys " about the " me, " and I can see why you entered the conversation as you did; I knew what I meant, but you did not. It was after we had danced a few steps that I saw we were not on the same dance floor and so stopped to enquire as to what was going on. One more point and I will toss my surmise your way. It may be possible, but I have no experience of it, that the middle step may be omitted, where the transcendental grasp may never have been held. Such a view may not have the categorical distinction between the two steps that I do. I don't know. ----willy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Hi Willy -- - snipping - > W: Simply, when one is present to oneself, all acts deriving from that > presence are also seen. Since remembering is one of those acts, there > is no room within the act for an identity to adhere. > > D: Okay. You say " when " -- so time is implied. What about presence not > of time, which doesn't arrive or depart? > >W: That you saw my use of the word " when " not as conditional, but of > time, suggested to me that there was a fracture in our understanding. D: How can you have a conditionality that is not of time? And how can time not involve changing conditions? Saying " when " something happens, implies that there is another place and time " when " that is not happening. That it is conditional, is an aspect of its temporality. That is it temporal, means that it is involved in conditions. You saying " when one is present to oneself " implies there is another time and place " when " one is not present to oneself. My question is: what about the presence that is not conditional, that is not moreso in or with one time, place and person, than in or with another time, place, or person? This understanding can't be fractured, although when communicating about it, which involves conditions, there may be the perception that the communication got fractured. Nonetheless, who I am hasn't been fractured. This understanding isn't a process, therefore no steps are involved. If there were steps involved, it would be of time, and conditions would pertain. This includes all conditions, thus itself has no conditions nor conditionality. This is the playing out of change, of conditions, of time. Thus, in the midst of this very playing out of conditions, just as they are -- is this timeless truth, the unconditioned. -- Dan > The picture I have presented above represents my understanding of > that fracture. Your use of the word " when " makes sense if it is > applied to the first step of the process. Your question of " what about > presence not of time, which doesn't arrive or depart, " not only > supports that application, but is also the question that begs to be > asked. > > I read again my comment to the " guys " about the " me, " and I can see > why you entered the conversation as you did; I knew what I meant, but > you did not. It was after we had danced a few steps that I saw we were > not on the same dance floor and so stopped to enquire as to what was > going on. One more point and I will toss my surmise your way. It may > be possible, but I have no experience of it, that the middle step may > be omitted, where the transcendental grasp may never have been held. > Such a view may not have the categorical distinction between the two > steps that I do. I don't know. ----willy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 " When " the lights go out, the lights go out. Thanks for the chance to toss words back and forth. ----willy Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Willy -- > > - snipping - > > > W: Simply, when one is present to oneself, all acts deriving from > that > > presence are also seen. Since remembering is one of those acts, > there > > is no room within the act for an identity to adhere. > > > > D: Okay. You say " when " -- so time is implied. What about presence > not > > of time, which doesn't arrive or depart? > > > >W: That you saw my use of the word " when " not as conditional, but of > > time, suggested to me that there was a fracture in our > understanding. > > D: How can you have a conditionality that is not of time? > And how can time not involve changing conditions? > > Saying " when " something happens, implies that there is > another place and time " when " that is not happening. > > That it is conditional, is an aspect of its temporality. > > That is it temporal, means that it is involved in conditions. > > You saying " when one is present to oneself " implies there is > another time and place " when " one is not present to oneself. > > My question is: what about the presence that is not conditional, > that is not moreso in or with one time, place and person, than in > or with another time, place, or person? > > This understanding can't be fractured, although when communicating > about it, which involves conditions, there may be the perception > that the communication got fractured. > > Nonetheless, who I am hasn't been fractured. > > This understanding isn't a process, therefore no steps > are involved. > > If there were steps involved, it would be of time, and > conditions would pertain. > > This includes all conditions, thus itself has no conditions > nor conditionality. > > This is the playing out of change, of conditions, of time. > > Thus, in the midst of this very playing out of conditions, > just as they are -- is this timeless truth, the unconditioned. > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > The picture I have presented above represents my understanding of > > that fracture. Your use of the word " when " makes sense if it is > > applied to the first step of the process. Your question of " what > about > > presence not of time, which doesn't arrive or depart, " not only > > supports that application, but is also the question that begs to be > > asked. > > > > I read again my comment to the " guys " about the " me, " and I can see > > why you entered the conversation as you did; I knew what I meant, > but > > you did not. It was after we had danced a few steps that I saw we > were > > not on the same dance floor and so stopped to enquire as to what was > > going on. One more point and I will toss my surmise your way. It may > > be possible, but I have no experience of it, that the middle step > may > > be omitted, where the transcendental grasp may never have been held. > > Such a view may not have the categorical distinction between the two > > steps that I do. I don't know. ----willy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99> wrote: > " When " the lights go out, the lights go out. Thanks for the chance to > toss words back and forth. ----willy " When the music's over, turn out the lights. " Jim Morrison " This is the light that is darkness " Carlo Suarez You welcome, Willy ... The pleasure been all mine :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 - When you talk with profusion, you might need a transfusion. Expect some confusion after receiving the word infusion. See Dan and Willy professional words donors certified and bonded. -- In Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99> wrote: > " When " the lights go out, the lights go out. Thanks for the chance to > toss words back and forth. ----willy > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Hi Willy -- > > > > - snipping - > > > > > W: Simply, when one is present to oneself, all acts deriving from > > that > > > presence are also seen. Since remembering is one of those acts, > > there > > > is no room within the act for an identity to adhere. > > > > > > D: Okay. You say " when " -- so time is implied. What about presence > > not > > > of time, which doesn't arrive or depart? > > > > > >W: That you saw my use of the word " when " not as conditional, but of > > > time, suggested to me that there was a fracture in our > > understanding. > > > > D: How can you have a conditionality that is not of time? > > And how can time not involve changing conditions? > > > > Saying " when " something happens, implies that there is > > another place and time " when " that is not happening. > > > > That it is conditional, is an aspect of its temporality. > > > > That is it temporal, means that it is involved in conditions. > > > > You saying " when one is present to oneself " implies there is > > another time and place " when " one is not present to oneself. > > > > My question is: what about the presence that is not conditional, > > that is not moreso in or with one time, place and person, than in > > or with another time, place, or person? > > > > This understanding can't be fractured, although when communicating > > about it, which involves conditions, there may be the perception > > that the communication got fractured. > > > > Nonetheless, who I am hasn't been fractured. > > > > This understanding isn't a process, therefore no steps > > are involved. > > > > If there were steps involved, it would be of time, and > > conditions would pertain. > > > > This includes all conditions, thus itself has no conditions > > nor conditionality. > > > > This is the playing out of change, of conditions, of time. > > > > Thus, in the midst of this very playing out of conditions, > > just as they are -- is this timeless truth, the unconditioned. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > The picture I have presented above represents my understanding of > > > that fracture. Your use of the word " when " makes sense if it is > > > applied to the first step of the process. Your question of " what > > about > > > presence not of time, which doesn't arrive or depart, " not only > > > supports that application, but is also the question that begs to be > > > asked. > > > > > > I read again my comment to the " guys " about the " me, " and I can see > > > why you entered the conversation as you did; I knew what I meant, > > but > > > you did not. It was after we had danced a few steps that I saw we > > were > > > not on the same dance floor and so stopped to enquire as to what was > > > going on. One more point and I will toss my surmise your way. It may > > > be possible, but I have no experience of it, that the middle step > > may > > > be omitted, where the transcendental grasp may never have been held. > > > Such a view may not have the categorical distinction between the two > > > steps that I do. I don't know. ----willy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 pete, did you know that mind is a four letter word? Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > - When you talk with profusion, you might need a transfusion. > Expect some confusion after receiving the word infusion. > > See Dan and Willy professional words donors certified and bonded. > > > -- In Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99> > wrote: > > " When " the lights go out, the lights go out. Thanks for the chance > to > > toss words back and forth. ----willy > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > Hi Willy -- > > > > > > - snipping - > > > > > > > W: Simply, when one is present to oneself, all acts deriving > from > > > that > > > > presence are also seen. Since remembering is one of those acts, > > > there > > > > is no room within the act for an identity to adhere. > > > > > > > > D: Okay. You say " when " -- so time is implied. What about > presence > > > not > > > > of time, which doesn't arrive or depart? > > > > > > > >W: That you saw my use of the word " when " not as conditional, > but of > > > > time, suggested to me that there was a fracture in our > > > understanding. > > > > > > D: How can you have a conditionality that is not of time? > > > And how can time not involve changing conditions? > > > > > > Saying " when " something happens, implies that there is > > > another place and time " when " that is not happening. > > > > > > That it is conditional, is an aspect of its temporality. > > > > > > That is it temporal, means that it is involved in conditions. > > > > > > You saying " when one is present to oneself " implies there is > > > another time and place " when " one is not present to oneself. > > > > > > My question is: what about the presence that is not > conditional, > > > that is not moreso in or with one time, place and person, > than in > > > or with another time, place, or person? > > > > > > This understanding can't be fractured, although when > communicating > > > about it, which involves conditions, there may be the > perception > > > that the communication got fractured. > > > > > > Nonetheless, who I am hasn't been fractured. > > > > > > This understanding isn't a process, therefore no steps > > > are involved. > > > > > > If there were steps involved, it would be of time, and > > > conditions would pertain. > > > > > > This includes all conditions, thus itself has no conditions > > > nor conditionality. > > > > > > This is the playing out of change, of conditions, of time. > > > > > > Thus, in the midst of this very playing out of conditions, > > > just as they are -- is this timeless truth, the unconditioned. > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The picture I have presented above represents my understanding > of > > > > that fracture. Your use of the word " when " makes sense if it is > > > > applied to the first step of the process. Your question > of " what > > > about > > > > presence not of time, which doesn't arrive or depart, " not only > > > > supports that application, but is also the question that begs > to be > > > > asked. > > > > > > > > I read again my comment to the " guys " about the " me, " and I can > see > > > > why you entered the conversation as you did; I knew what I > meant, > > > but > > > > you did not. It was after we had danced a few steps that I saw > we > > > were > > > > not on the same dance floor and so stopped to enquire as to > what was > > > > going on. One more point and I will toss my surmise your way. > It may > > > > be possible, but I have no experience of it, that the middle > step > > > may > > > > be omitted, where the transcendental grasp may never have been > held. > > > > Such a view may not have the categorical distinction between > the two > > > > steps that I do. I don't know. ----willy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99> wrote > pete, did you know that mind is a four letter word? Not in these languages: Verstand- German Mente- Spanish, Italian Intellect- French Cit- Sanskrit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 I suspect your are right; it just goes to show that the word mind has as many meanings as there are thoughts as to what it means. Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99> > wrote > > > > pete, did you know that mind is a four letter word? > > Not in these languages: > Verstand- German > Mente- Spanish, Italian > Intellect- French > Cit- Sanskrit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99> wrote: > I suspect your are right; it just goes to show that the word mind has > as many meanings as there are thoughts as to what it means. > No, you were right. I was just being my usual asshole self... and loving it. > Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99> > > wrote > > > > > > > pete, did you know that mind is a four letter word? > > > > Not in these languages: > > Verstand- German > > Mente- Spanish, Italian > > Intellect- French > > Cit- Sanskrit 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.