Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > In Unitary Perception there is no time, Feldman says. Only one > > space. > > > > > > Waste time? In Unitary Perception? LOL! :-) The idea that time > > can be > > > > > > wasted is, I believe, the hallmark of a fragmented mind. It's > > fear, > > > > > > isn't it? Living a whole life being anxious about wasting time? > > > > > > Hahaha. Wasting time is only an _idea_ in the mind, and a very > > strong > > > > > > and persistent idea it is. This idea can be felt in your entire > > > > > > body/mind as a nervous feeling of time passing. This nervous > > feeling > > > > > > breeds fear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not time passing that causes the nervous feeling....It is the > > > > knowledge that time is running out.... > > > > > > > > > > Thr fear of death...of not being.....is the mother of all fears. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > Time running out _is_ the nervous feeling of time passing. Let the now > > > > be your home and watch time flow in a peaceful stillness. > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind lives only in the past......it will never experience the now. > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > I can live in the now, because I have free will. > > > > /AL > > > > > > Can you tell me what free will is? > > > toombaru Yes. When you live in the now you have free will. When you live in the past you do not have free will. The past is not free. Free will is the now flowing without conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > In Unitary Perception there is no time, Feldman says. Only one > > > space. > > > > > > > Waste time? In Unitary Perception? LOL! :-) The idea that time > > > can be > > > > > > > wasted is, I believe, the hallmark of a fragmented mind. It's > > > fear, > > > > > > > isn't it? Living a whole life being anxious about wasting > time? > > > > > > > Hahaha. Wasting time is only an _idea_ in the mind, and a very > > > strong > > > > > > > and persistent idea it is. This idea can be felt in your > entire > > > > > > > body/mind as a nervous feeling of time passing. This nervous > > > feeling > > > > > > > breeds fear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not time passing that causes the nervous feeling....It > is the > > > > > knowledge that time is running out.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Thr fear of death...of not being.....is the mother of all fears. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > Time running out _is_ the nervous feeling of time passing. Let > the now > > > > > be your home and watch time flow in a peaceful stillness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind lives only in the past......it will never experience > the now. > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > I can live in the now, because I have free will. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you tell me what free will is? > > > > > > toombaru > > Yes. When you live in the now you have free will. When you live in the > past you do not have free will. The past is not free. Free will is the > now flowing without conflict. Well.....If I had free will......I would choose lots of money....perfect health.......a stress free life.......that lasted forever...... What do you choose with this free will of yours? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > In Unitary Perception there is no time, Feldman says. Only one > > > > space. > > > > > > > > Waste time? In Unitary Perception? LOL! :-) The idea that time > > > > can be > > > > > > > > wasted is, I believe, the hallmark of a fragmented mind. It's > > > > fear, > > > > > > > > isn't it? Living a whole life being anxious about wasting > > time? > > > > > > > > Hahaha. Wasting time is only an _idea_ in the mind, and a very > > > > strong > > > > > > > > and persistent idea it is. This idea can be felt in your > > entire > > > > > > > > body/mind as a nervous feeling of time passing. This nervous > > > > feeling > > > > > > > > breeds fear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not time passing that causes the nervous feeling....It > > is the > > > > > > knowledge that time is running out.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thr fear of death...of not being.....is the mother of all fears. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > Time running out _is_ the nervous feeling of time passing. Let > > the now > > > > > > be your home and watch time flow in a peaceful stillness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind lives only in the past......it will never experience > > the now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > I can live in the now, because I have free will. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you tell me what free will is? > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Yes. When you live in the now you have free will. When you live in the > > past you do not have free will. The past is not free. Free will is the > > now flowing without conflict. > > > Well.....If I had free will......I would choose lots of money....perfect health.......a stress free > life.......that lasted forever...... > > What do you choose with this free will of yours? > > toombaru When there is conflictless flow there is no separate me having 'free will' (read: conflict), then I and the now are one, and free will is also one. I then want to do, be and feel what I do, am and feel now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Unitary Perception there is no time, Feldman > says. Only > > > one > > > > > space. > > > > > > > > > Waste time? In Unitary Perception? LOL! :-) The idea > that > > > time > > > > > can be > > > > > > > > > wasted is, I believe, the hallmark of a fragmented > mind. > > > It's > > > > > fear, > > > > > > > > > isn't it? Living a whole life being anxious about > wasting > > > time? > > > > > > > > > Hahaha. Wasting time is only an _idea_ in the mind, > and a > > > very > > > > > strong > > > > > > > > > and persistent idea it is. This idea can be felt in > your > > > entire > > > > > > > > > body/mind as a nervous feeling of time passing. This > nervous > > > > > feeling > > > > > > > > > breeds fear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Rhetorical Question. Nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can live an entire life not wasting time. We can also > live an > > > > > > > entire life wasting time. A mystic may say: wasting time? not > > > wasting > > > > > > > time? What's the difference? That, I believe, is what you > mean: > > > > > > > rhetorical question. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > A rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an > effect (to > > > > > > illicit pondering, controversy, sense of ignorance) and no > answer is > > > > > > expected. The intended effect was to direct attention on > the act of > > > > > > posting that is done by " no one " and that such posting has > its uses, > > > > > > practical or other, for egos seeking. This was clearly > expressed > > > in the > > > > > > paragraph that followed. > > > > > > > > > > > > No mysticism or cloaking here, Anders, just a plain ole post in > > > > > > dualistic language talking about " illusory realities. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Fear, by the way, is based not only in thought but also in > affective > > > > > > attachments that coagulate thought and emotion and bodily > > > sensation into > > > > > > Gordian knots or plugs that impede the flow of being. Fear > is basic > > > > > > evidence of emotional attachment to self and self-centeredness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > There is no entity that exists outside of the fear. > > > > > > > > > > The " self " could not be emotionally attached to itself..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > T., an " ego " or " self, " when not seen as unitary concept or singular > > > > existential phenomena of unified structure, can be attached to > all or > > > > parts of the ego's myriad manifestations or have interactive > relations > > > > with " sub-egos " all of which are responsive mental constructions. > > > > Witness the experience of " conscience. " > > > > > > > > This " illusory reality " is very common. Here is an example. An " ego " > > > > over a period of time is formed from infancy and comes to adhere to > > > > personal and social moral and ethical standards to be true and > right and > > > > therefore builds all the rationalities and reasons and > justifications > > > > why this must be so and establishes the authorities in one way > another > > > > upon which it stands and attempts to acts in accordance with these > > > > standards. > > > > > > > > This " building up " results in a " keeper-ego " a keeper of the > standards > > > > that monitors ego's behavior and sends out anxiety and fear if > ego comes > > > > to close to a violation. This sub-ego may be nice or nasty or > somewhere > > > > in between and may assume the position of God, or good angel or > judge, > > > > or accuser or evil spirit or devil depending on all sorts of ego > input > > > > and experience. So there is " ego, " an " overseeing ego " and a > > > > " keeper-ego " of some type and then the building up of the " good ego " > > > > based on the actions performed in accordance with those standards > > > > adhered to. > > > > > > > > If the " good ego " violates these standards often enough, a " bad ego " > > > > emerges. Now there are four (or more) " entities " or parts of > " overseeing > > > > ego. " The more violations committed the " more bad " or more > " evil " the > > > > ego. The " good ego " who did not do this violation is then dealt > with by > > > > the " keeper ego " who may judge, chastise, accuse, or abuse the " good > > > > ego " saying how could you let this happen nicely to horribly while > > > > suggesting solutions. The " bad ego " may laugh at this depending > on how > > > > bad and strong it is. The " keeper ego " may then go after the > " bad ego " > > > > and certainly other people will go after the " bad ego " and the " good > > > > ego " to get them in line. But the " good ego " may be listening to > it all > > > > more than the " bad one. " A distraught " good ego " may also try to > control > > > > or attack the " bad ego, " damning it and trying to control it through > > > > penance, prayer, positive thinking, Jesus, God, meditation, > asceticism > > > > and the " bad ego " does the same and may attack all the other > " egos " or > > > > pull all action in its direction. " God " and " Jesus " and " I am " > and gurus > > > > and avatars and arhats and bodhisattvas and all the host of perfect > > > > entities are also built up and begin appearing in the mind > helping to > > > > quell the discomfort. It can get pretty busy for some. > > > > > > > > Such are the illusory entities or tendencies of mind associated > with the > > > > experience of " conscience " endured by so many. > > > > > > > > In this case, " ego " can be emotionally attached to itself (its > myriad > > > > forms) by encouraging the " good ego " to be strong and supporting > it with > > > > affection and concern. The " good ego " feels good and feels > grateful and > > > > tries to be more good. The " overseeing ego " and " good ego " can be > > > > attached to the " bad ego " through disdain, disgust, fear, > hatred, etc. > > > > (all very strong emotions that are relational) of its evil ways > and by > > > > regularly attempting to suppress and repress its expression. The > > > > " overseeing " and " good " egos may cherishes the " keeper ego " by > providing > > > > it with more " ammunition " to fight evil by reading scriptures > and sacred > > > > texts and self-help books and receiving psychotherapies, joining > groups > > > > of like-minded persons and attempt to protect the whole kit and > caboodle > > > > by keeping secret the existence of the " bad ego " or altering the > > > > " facts " or hiding its deeds while doing good deeds and relating > to God > > > > and Jesus and the sacred and enlightened ones and the caring ones. > > > > > > > > Such ego diversity and the many forms ego may manifest or develop in > > > > just this one example is the bane of the seeking ego that learns > that to > > > > be free itself from such " insanity " as it is experienced it must rid > > > > itself of itself. This is an impossibility, since the ego is a > concept > > > > and an illusion and has no consciousness to do such an action. Ego > > > > cannot see ego for ego is " blind, " a mind creation, a mind > product, an > > > > object. > > > > > > > > That which is " sees " and works through the egos and sub-egos > all, using > > > > whatever is available to allow its expression to be unencumbered. > > > > The " blind ego " seeking " enlightenment, " that is, a safe haven from > > > > itself, is actually " what is " moving steadily to complete > unencumbered > > > > expression. So when the " blind ego " lapses every now and then in its > > > > endless wanderings and ponderings, " what is " fills the openings. > The ego > > > > delights in such occurrences and tries to capture it, multiply it, > > > > solidify it, and so on only to fail continuously. When the lapses > > > > increase in duration, " what is " is able to be as it is more and more > > > > since all egos are " seen. " When seen, egos are transformed into > > > > uninfluential, identity less and content less phenomena. > > > > > > > > These multiple responsive, illusory entities, tendencies, forms, > etc. > > > > can be conceptually reduced to a single " me " or " ego. " But > > > > experientially for neophytes this often is not the case. It is a > little > > > > more messy and confusing. For adepts still not beyond ego > tendencies > > > > and forms, a single ego is identifiable, usually an " onion > layered one " > > > > that is peeled layer by layer to finally see " no thing. " When ego is > > > > fully " seen " there is.... > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well.......That's a very good description of something that doesn't > even > > > exist. > > > > > > > > > I once knew a man that became obsessed with his own shadow....He spent > > > endless hours describing it...... > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Was reading it a pleasure, Toombaru? The description was based on years > > of anecdotal evidence. The descriptions were gathered by asking for > > metaphors of one's mind. In one instance, the description was quite > > simple. There was a silent judge and two lawyers and a watcher of the > > three. The two lawyers, one described as negative and evil and the other > > as positive and good, were at each other over every little event or > > condition. Sometimes the good one won the argument, sometimes the the > > evil one won. The judge said nothing most of the time and only > > interefered when the two lawyers were deadlocked. In those moments the > > judge would give his suggestion and the watcher would decide to act > > sometimes in the favor of the evil lawyer and sometimes in the favor of > > the good lawyer. His testimony was that actions following the order of > > the judge turned out best and compromises made by the watcher for siding > > with either the good or evil lawyer turned out less than happy. > > > > These descriptions are common. Illusions? Most certainly. > > > > What is a metaphor for the mind in Toombaru, the mind used to post and > > to do things with like eating and walking and reading and going to the > > bathroom. Do you experience illusions, Toombaru? These are not > > rhetorical questions. There is real interest. > > > You forgot.......This mind is convinced that mind can never see > itself....never catch even > the most fleeting glimpse of its ever > changing...surging.......swirling.....unknowableness. > > It is forever behind itself.....left in the dust and debris. > > Mind cannot find itself within itself............ > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > As for shadows and the like, the illusions of the world, they are for > > playing, for enjoyment. Playing is enjoyable is it not, Toombaru. :-) > > Odysseus likes to play. Hey Odysseus, catch an illusion and taste its > > sweetness......Haahahahahahahaha! > > > > > > Lewis > > > Alas.....the water in a mirage...will never quench your thirst. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Toombaru. Convinced? Mind is an object, a tool, like the body and used for illusion perceiving and making. It is perceived and, therefore, not conscious. But is is known and used by what is and it can be described as any " illusory object or perception. " There is no thirst to quench or material to pursue or an obsession to control, just curiosity, exploration, experience, and enjoyment without attachment to transient illusions such as a charming conversation, a beautiful sunset, a vigorous swim, hiking in winter, eating a ham sandwich, posting to this forum. Enjoyable " mirages " all. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 > > > > > > Well.....If I had free will......I would choose lots of > money....perfect health.......a stress free > > life.......that lasted forever...... > > > > What do you choose with this free will of yours? > > > > toombaru > > When there is conflictless flow there is no separate me having 'free > will' (read: conflict), then I and the now are one, and free will is > also one. I then want to do, be and feel what I do, am and feel now. Well ....that's a very nice belief structure. Where do you store it? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 s > > > > > > Alas.....the water in a mirage...will never quench your thirst. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Toombaru. Convinced? > > Mind is an object, a tool, like the body and used for illusion > perceiving and making. It is perceived and, therefore, not conscious. > But is is known and used by what is and it can be described as any > " illusory object or perception. " > > There is no thirst to quench or material to pursue or an obsession to > control, just curiosity, exploration, experience, and enjoyment without > attachment to transient illusions such as a charming conversation, a > beautiful sunset, a vigorous swim, hiking in winter, eating a ham > sandwich, posting to this forum. Enjoyable " mirages " all. > > Lewis Indeed. Everything you mentioned has a physical reference point. The trouble that mind has is mistaking its own inventions...ego...self....Self...god....enlightenment...nirvana....chakras....m\ ind......free- will...etc. .etc...for reality and then looking for itself within its own imagination. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 toombaru2004 wrote: > > s > > > > > > > > > Alas.....the water in a mirage...will never quench your thirst. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Toombaru. Convinced? > > > > Mind is an object, a tool, like the body and used for illusion > > perceiving and making. It is perceived and, therefore, not conscious. > > But is is known and used by what is and it can be described as any > > " illusory object or perception. " > > > > There is no thirst to quench or material to pursue or an obsession to > > control, just curiosity, exploration, experience, and enjoyment without > > attachment to transient illusions such as a charming conversation, a > > beautiful sunset, a vigorous swim, hiking in winter, eating a ham > > sandwich, posting to this forum. Enjoyable " mirages " all. > > > > Lewis > > > > > Indeed. > > Everything you mentioned has a physical reference point. > > The trouble that mind has is mistaking its own > inventions...ego...self....Self...god....enlightenment...nirvana....chakras....m\ ind......free- > will...etc. .etc...for reality and then looking for itself within its > own imagination. > > > toombaru ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It is troublesome to experience mind and its creations as one would a sunset? Is not a sunset a percept, a transitory mental creation? What is physical but a conceptual notion originating in mind. There is also just curiosity, exploration, experience, and enjoyment without attachment to transient illusions such as God, Jesus, Atman, atman, Self, Yechidah, Neshamah, fana fi 'Allah', baqa' bi 'Allah, Dark Night of the Soul (St. John of the Cross), daemon, psyche, Buddha-nature, original self, Tao, Brahman, Holy Spirit, no-mind, I Am, etc. There are no " physical reference points " here. There is no mistaking these as illusions. They are words, terms, concepts. They are unreal pointers. As such, they pose no threat or trouble. They represent experiences differentially undergone and the attempt to then formulate and describe. Is the concept of " God " frightening? How about the avenging concept of " God? " Or the hell making one? If ego or a mind " believes " or is " convinced " of the reality of concepts then trouble brews. Otherwise, seeing it as it is, there is great interest in how these creations have come to be, how they are used and transformed and the effects they have upon the movement of what is and how what is uses these to become unecumbered. No need to wave magic wands. Wade deep into these, embrace them, know them, use them, and then let them be. As they are, they are harmless. They have no life or energy except that mistakenly given to them. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alas.....the water in a mirage...will never quench your thirst. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Toombaru. Convinced? > > > > > > > > Mind is an object, a tool, like the body and used for illusion > > > > perceiving and making. It is perceived and, therefore, not > conscious. > > > > But is is known and used by what is and it can be described as any > > > > " illusory object or perception. " > > > > > > > > There is no thirst to quench or material to pursue or an > obsession to > > > > control, just curiosity, exploration, experience, and enjoyment > without > > > > attachment to transient illusions such as a charming conversation, a > > > > beautiful sunset, a vigorous swim, hiking in winter, eating a ham > > > > sandwich, posting to this forum. Enjoyable " mirages " all. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > Everything you mentioned has a physical reference point. > > > > > > The trouble that mind has is mistaking its own > > > > inventions...ego...self....Self...god....enlightenment...nirvana....chakras....m\ ind......free- > > > will...etc. .etc...for reality and then looking for itself within its > > > own imagination. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > It is troublesome to experience mind and its creations as one would a > > sunset? Is not a sunset a percept, a transitory mental creation? > > > > What is physical but a conceptual notion originating in mind. > > > > There is also just curiosity, exploration, experience, and enjoyment > > without attachment to transient illusions such as God, Jesus, Atman, > > atman, Self, Yechidah, Neshamah, fana fi 'Allah', baqa' bi 'Allah, Dark > > Night of the Soul (St. John of the Cross), daemon, psyche, > > Buddha-nature, original self, Tao, Brahman, Holy Spirit, no-mind, I Am, > > etc. There are no " physical reference points " here. > > > > There is no mistaking these as illusions. They are words, terms, > > concepts. They are unreal pointers. As such, they pose no threat or > > trouble. They represent experiences differentially undergone and the > > attempt to then formulate and describe. Is the concept of " God " > > frightening? How about the avenging concept of " God? " Or the hell making > > one? If ego or a mind " believes " or is " convinced " of the reality of > > concepts then trouble brews. > > > > Otherwise, seeing it as it is, there is great interest in how these > > creations have come to be, how they are used and transformed and the > > effects they have upon the movement of what is and how what is uses > > these to become unecumbered. > > > > The totality of the assumed entity is the encumberence itself. > > There is nothing and on one to become unembumbered. > > > toombaru > > > No need to wave magic wands. Wade deep into these, embrace them, know > > them, use them, and then let them be. As they are, they are harmless. > > They have no life or energy except that mistakenly given to them. > > > > > > Lewis > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T. try this clarification. What is always is and is never encumbered as it is and is beyond any conceptuaization or " encumberment " but in expressing through the mind and body there are encumberances (egos, beliefs, illusory realities) hindering the free and effortless expression of what is. What is cannot be encumbered but its free and effortless expression can be. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alas.....the water in a mirage...will never quench your thirst. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Toombaru. Convinced? > > > > > > > > Mind is an object, a tool, like the body and used for illusion > > > > perceiving and making. It is perceived and, therefore, not conscious. > > > > But is is known and used by what is and it can be described as any > > > > " illusory object or perception. " > > > > > > > > There is no thirst to quench or material to pursue or an obsession to > > > > control, just curiosity, exploration, experience, and enjoyment without > > > > attachment to transient illusions such as a charming conversation, a > > > > beautiful sunset, a vigorous swim, hiking in winter, eating a ham > > > > sandwich, posting to this forum. Enjoyable " mirages " all. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > Everything you mentioned has a physical reference point. > > > > > > The trouble that mind has is mistaking its own > > > > inventions...ego...self....Self...god....enlightenment...nirvana....chakras....m\ ind......free- > > > will...etc. .etc...for reality and then looking for itself within its > > > own imagination. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > It is troublesome to experience mind and its creations as one would a > > sunset? Is not a sunset a percept, a transitory mental creation? > > > > What is physical but a conceptual notion originating in mind. > > > > There is also just curiosity, exploration, experience, and enjoyment > > without attachment to transient illusions such as God, Jesus, Atman, > > atman, Self, Yechidah, Neshamah, fana fi 'Allah', baqa' bi 'Allah, Dark > > Night of the Soul (St. John of the Cross), daemon, psyche, > > Buddha-nature, original self, Tao, Brahman, Holy Spirit, no-mind, I Am, > > etc. There are no " physical reference points " here. > > > > There is no mistaking these as illusions. They are words, terms, > > concepts. They are unreal pointers. As such, they pose no threat or > > trouble. They represent experiences differentially undergone and the > > attempt to then formulate and describe. Is the concept of " God " > > frightening? How about the avenging concept of " God? " Or the hell making > > one? If ego or a mind " believes " or is " convinced " of the reality of > > concepts then trouble brews. > > > > Otherwise, seeing it as it is, there is great interest in how these > > creations have come to be, how they are used and transformed and the > > effects they have upon the movement of what is and how what is uses > > these to become unecumbered. The totality of the assumed entity is the encumberence itself. There is nothing and no one to become unembumbered. toombaru > > > > > > > No need to wave magic wands. Wade deep into these, embrace them, know > > them, use them, and then let them be. As they are, they are harmless. > > They have no life or energy except that mistakenly given to them. > > > > > > Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alas.....the water in a mirage...will never quench your thirst. > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > Toombaru. Convinced? > > > > > > > > > > Mind is an object, a tool, like the body and used for illusion > > > > > perceiving and making. It is perceived and, therefore, not > > conscious. > > > > > But is is known and used by what is and it can be described as any > > > > > " illusory object or perception. " > > > > > > > > > > There is no thirst to quench or material to pursue or an > > obsession to > > > > > control, just curiosity, exploration, experience, and enjoyment > > without > > > > > attachment to transient illusions such as a charming conversation, a > > > > > beautiful sunset, a vigorous swim, hiking in winter, eating a ham > > > > > sandwich, posting to this forum. Enjoyable " mirages " all. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > Everything you mentioned has a physical reference point. > > > > > > > > The trouble that mind has is mistaking its own > > > > > > inventions...ego...self....Self...god....enlightenment...nirvana....chakras....m\ ind......free- > > > > will...etc. .etc...for reality and then looking for itself within its > > > > own imagination. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > It is troublesome to experience mind and its creations as one would a > > > sunset? Is not a sunset a percept, a transitory mental creation? > > > > > > What is physical but a conceptual notion originating in mind. > > > > > > There is also just curiosity, exploration, experience, and enjoyment > > > without attachment to transient illusions such as God, Jesus, Atman, > > > atman, Self, Yechidah, Neshamah, fana fi 'Allah', baqa' bi 'Allah, Dark > > > Night of the Soul (St. John of the Cross), daemon, psyche, > > > Buddha-nature, original self, Tao, Brahman, Holy Spirit, no-mind, I Am, > > > etc. There are no " physical reference points " here. > > > > > > There is no mistaking these as illusions. They are words, terms, > > > concepts. They are unreal pointers. As such, they pose no threat or > > > trouble. They represent experiences differentially undergone and the > > > attempt to then formulate and describe. Is the concept of " God " > > > frightening? How about the avenging concept of " God? " Or the hell making > > > one? If ego or a mind " believes " or is " convinced " of the reality of > > > concepts then trouble brews. > > > > > > Otherwise, seeing it as it is, there is great interest in how these > > > creations have come to be, how they are used and transformed and the > > > effects they have upon the movement of what is and how what is uses > > > these to become unecumbered. > > > > > > > > The totality of the assumed entity is the encumberence itself. > > > > There is nothing and on one to become unembumbered. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No need to wave magic wands. Wade deep into these, embrace them, know > > > them, use them, and then let them be. As they are, they are harmless. > > > They have no life or energy except that mistakenly given to them. > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > T. try this clarification. > > What is always is and is never encumbered as it is and is beyond any > conceptuaization or " encumberment " but in expressing through the mind > and body there are encumberances (egos, beliefs, illusory realities) > hindering the free and effortless expression of what is. What is cannot > be encumbered but its free and effortless expression can be. > > > Lewis Oh Lewis......When conceptualization speculates on things beyond conceptuaization..............You can expect some confusion. When the conceptualizing mind speculates on what it conceptualizes as " what is " ....don't bet your house on its conclusions. Mind deals in parts and pieces....seeds and stems.....flotsum and jetsum...mnemonic debris......It can't find anything of value in its own........old boneyard............ toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > In Unitary Perception there is no time, Feldman says. Only > one space. > > > > > Waste time? In Unitary Perception? LOL! :-) The idea that > time can be > > > > > wasted is, I believe, the hallmark of a fragmented mind. It's > fear, > > > > > isn't it? Living a whole life being anxious about wasting time? > > > > > Hahaha. Wasting time is only an _idea_ in the mind, and a > very strong > > > > > and persistent idea it is. This idea can be felt in your entire > > > > > body/mind as a nervous feeling of time passing. This nervous > feeling > > > > > breeds fear. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Rhetorical Question. Nothing more. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > We can live an entire life not wasting time. We can also live an > > > entire life wasting time. A mystic may say: wasting time? not wasting > > > time? What's the difference? That, I believe, is what you mean: > > > rhetorical question. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > A rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (to > > illicit pondering, controversy, sense of ignorance) and no answer is > > expected. The intended effect was to direct attention on the act of > > posting that is done by " no one " and that such posting has its uses, > > practical or other, for egos seeking. This was clearly expressed in the > > paragraph that followed. > > > > No mysticism or cloaking here, Anders, just a plain ole post in > > dualistic language talking about " illusory realities. " > > > > Fear, by the way, is based not only in thought but also in affective > > attachments that coagulate thought and emotion and bodily sensation > into > > Gordian knots or plugs that impede the flow of being. Fear is basic > > evidence of emotional attachment to self and self-centeredness. > > > > > > Lewis > > Horrible knots! I want the flow of being feel like a stream of warm > honey of peace running through my mind and body. Do you know how I can > untie those knots? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Anders, Those knots are partially formed with the emotional attachments demonstrated by " I want " " my mind and body " and " how I can. " The old fashioned way to cure self-absorption is to perform every method and ritual aimed at self-annihilation, to believe and practice every idea of liberation, to imitate gurus, live, love and sacrifice for messiahs, to offer sacrifices, donations to God and the Gods, to perform good works, to love others at risk of your life, to exercise your self-will to the fullest in the search for your true self, ardently search and enquire about I Am, to fast, to wear sackcloth and ashes, to whip the body, and other ascetic practices, to not speak, to pray, to chant mantras, to meditate, recollect, contemplate, to let thoughts flow, to stop thoughts, to be indifferent to perceptions, to deny the world, to intellectually turn everything into an illusion and so on. All these are futile. They lead nowhere. They do not bring self-annihilation but paradoxically increase self-centeredness. The more ardently these are practiced the worse it gets. What gets worse is the feeling of " absolute futility. " But this is key. Self-will, the " I want " exercised to the extreme leads to the realization of the " absolute futility " of self-will in reaching the (false) goals of enlightenment and liberation. At this point, ego is almost shattered and begins to fall apart. There is no where to turn, no wheels to turn, no place to go, no thoughts not tried so none to think, all lead to blind alleys, no effort makes a dfiference, all has been tried, no person can help, all is futile and hopeless, all is meaningless. This is beginning of awakening in the old fashioned way and it can be an exceedingly painful experience that drags on for decades. The simple way is to quickly experience the " absolute futility " of self-will. They say Buddha tried asceticism for several years and then found the middle path. Search and enquiry for I Am leads to the " absolute futility " if practiced ardently, earnestly by some people. Many intellectual egos are well-secured (trapped) in this method and only slowly or if ever reach " absolute futility " for they play with some of the ideas of Advaita Vedanta, use the passive voice, eschew personal pronouns, wave magic wands of intellection to declare and disappear the illusions of others (which is humorous because it is easily done since all is illusion and it is hard to make a mistake) and create a single voice that speaks from the " heights of awareness, " a voice that is none other than ego very well trained in saying " neti, neti. " What is Anders way to " absolute futility " of self-will? Is the quickest road to a high impact, unrecoverable smash up against that wall taken? Or is a pleasant meander picking flowers the way to go? Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alas.....the water in a mirage...will never quench your > thirst. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > Toombaru. Convinced? > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind is an object, a tool, like the body and used for illusion > > > > > > perceiving and making. It is perceived and, therefore, not > > > conscious. > > > > > > But is is known and used by what is and it can be described > as any > > > > > > " illusory object or perception. " > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no thirst to quench or material to pursue or an > > > obsession to > > > > > > control, just curiosity, exploration, experience, and > enjoyment > > > without > > > > > > attachment to transient illusions such as a charming > conversation, a > > > > > > beautiful sunset, a vigorous swim, hiking in winter, eating > a ham > > > > > > sandwich, posting to this forum. Enjoyable " mirages " all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > Everything you mentioned has a physical reference point. > > > > > > > > > > The trouble that mind has is mistaking its own > > > > > > > > > inventions...ego...self....Self...god....enlightenment...nirvana....chakras....m\ ind......free- > > > > > will...etc. .etc...for reality and then looking for itself > within its > > > > > own imagination. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > It is troublesome to experience mind and its creations as one > would a > > > > sunset? Is not a sunset a percept, a transitory mental creation? > > > > > > > > What is physical but a conceptual notion originating in mind. > > > > > > > > There is also just curiosity, exploration, experience, and enjoyment > > > > without attachment to transient illusions such as God, Jesus, Atman, > > > > atman, Self, Yechidah, Neshamah, fana fi 'Allah', baqa' bi > 'Allah, Dark > > > > Night of the Soul (St. John of the Cross), daemon, psyche, > > > > Buddha-nature, original self, Tao, Brahman, Holy Spirit, > no-mind, I Am, > > > > etc. There are no " physical reference points " here. > > > > > > > > There is no mistaking these as illusions. They are words, terms, > > > > concepts. They are unreal pointers. As such, they pose no threat or > > > > trouble. They represent experiences differentially undergone and the > > > > attempt to then formulate and describe. Is the concept of " God " > > > > frightening? How about the avenging concept of " God? " Or the > hell making > > > > one? If ego or a mind " believes " or is " convinced " of the reality of > > > > concepts then trouble brews. > > > > > > > > Otherwise, seeing it as it is, there is great interest in how these > > > > creations have come to be, how they are used and transformed and the > > > > effects they have upon the movement of what is and how what is uses > > > > these to become unecumbered. > > > > > > > > > > > > The totality of the assumed entity is the encumberence itself. > > > > > > There is nothing and on one to become unembumbered. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No need to wave magic wands. Wade deep into these, embrace them, > know > > > > them, use them, and then let them be. As they are, they are > harmless. > > > > They have no life or energy except that mistakenly given to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > T. try this clarification. > > > > What is always is and is never encumbered as it is and is beyond any > > conceptuaization or " encumberment " but in expressing through the mind > > and body there are encumberances (egos, beliefs, illusory realities) > > hindering the free and effortless expression of what is. What is cannot > > be encumbered but its free and effortless expression can be. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Oh Lewis......When conceptualization speculates on things beyond > conceptuaization..............You can expect some confusion. > > When the conceptualizing mind speculates on what it conceptualizes as > " what is " ....don't > bet your house on its conclusions. > > > Mind deals in parts and pieces....seeds and stems.....flotsum and > jetsum...mnemonic > debris......It can't find anything of value in its own........old > boneyard............ > > > > > toombaru ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear T. Oh lovely one. " What is " has never been conceptualized here. This is living experience. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > In Unitary Perception there is no time, Feldman says. Only > > one space. > > > > > > Waste time? In Unitary Perception? LOL! :-) The idea that > > time can be > > > > > > wasted is, I believe, the hallmark of a fragmented mind. It's > > fear, > > > > > > isn't it? Living a whole life being anxious about wasting time? > > > > > > Hahaha. Wasting time is only an _idea_ in the mind, and a > > very strong > > > > > > and persistent idea it is. This idea can be felt in your entire > > > > > > body/mind as a nervous feeling of time passing. This nervous > > feeling > > > > > > breeds fear. > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > Rhetorical Question. Nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can live an entire life not wasting time. We can also live an > > > > entire life wasting time. A mystic may say: wasting time? not > wasting > > > > time? What's the difference? That, I believe, is what you mean: > > > > rhetorical question. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > A rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (to > > > illicit pondering, controversy, sense of ignorance) and no answer is > > > expected. The intended effect was to direct attention on the act of > > > posting that is done by " no one " and that such posting has its uses, > > > practical or other, for egos seeking. This was clearly expressed > in the > > > paragraph that followed. > > > > > > No mysticism or cloaking here, Anders, just a plain ole post in > > > dualistic language talking about " illusory realities. " > > > > > > Fear, by the way, is based not only in thought but also in affective > > > attachments that coagulate thought and emotion and bodily sensation > > into > > > Gordian knots or plugs that impede the flow of being. Fear is basic > > > evidence of emotional attachment to self and self-centeredness. > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Horrible knots! I want the flow of being feel like a stream of warm > > honey of peace running through my mind and body. Do you know how I can > > untie those knots? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Dear Anders, > > Those knots are partially formed with the emotional attachments > demonstrated by " I want " " my mind and body " and " how I can. " > > The old fashioned way to cure self-absorption is to perform every > method and ritual aimed at self-annihilation, to believe and practice > every idea of liberation, to imitate gurus, live, love and sacrifice > for messiahs, to offer sacrifices, donations to God and the Gods, to > perform good works, to love others at risk of your life, to exercise > your self-will to the fullest in the search for your true self, > ardently search and enquire about I Am, to fast, to wear sackcloth and > ashes, to whip the body, and other ascetic practices, to not speak, to > pray, to chant mantras, to meditate, recollect, contemplate, to let > thoughts flow, to stop thoughts, to be indifferent to perceptions, to > deny the world, to intellectually turn everything into an illusion and > so on. > > All these are futile. They lead nowhere. They do not bring > self-annihilation but paradoxically increase self-centeredness. The > more ardently these are practiced the worse it gets. What gets worse > is the feeling of " absolute futility. " But this is key. Self-will, the > " I want " exercised to the extreme leads to the realization of the > " absolute futility " of self-will in reaching the (false) goals of > enlightenment and liberation. At this point, ego is almost shattered > and begins to fall apart. There is no where to turn, no wheels to > turn, no place to go, no thoughts not tried so none to think, all lead > to blind alleys, no effort makes a dfiference, all has been tried, no > person can help, all is futile and hopeless, all is meaningless. This > is beginning of awakening in the old fashioned way and it can be an > exceedingly painful experience that drags on for decades. > > The simple way is to quickly experience the " absolute futility " of > self-will. > > They say Buddha tried asceticism for several years and then found the > middle path. > > Search and enquiry for I Am leads to the " absolute futility " if > practiced ardently, earnestly by some people. Many intellectual egos > are well-secured (trapped) in this method and only slowly or if ever > reach " absolute futility " for they play with some of the ideas of > Advaita Vedanta, use the passive voice, eschew personal pronouns, wave > magic wands of intellection to declare and disappear the illusions of > others (which is humorous because it is easily done since all is > illusion and it is hard to make a mistake) and create a single voice > that speaks from the " heights of awareness, " a voice that is none > other than ego very well trained in saying " neti, neti. " > > > What is Anders way to " absolute futility " of self-will? Is the > quickest road to a high impact, unrecoverable smash up against that > wall taken? Or is a pleasant meander picking flowers the way to go? > > Lewis First you say there no way....... Then you say there is. Which is it? T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alas.....the water in a mirage...will never quench your > > thirst. > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toombaru. Convinced? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind is an object, a tool, like the body and used for illusion > > > > > > > perceiving and making. It is perceived and, therefore, not > > > > conscious. > > > > > > > But is is known and used by what is and it can be described > > as any > > > > > > > " illusory object or perception. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no thirst to quench or material to pursue or an > > > > obsession to > > > > > > > control, just curiosity, exploration, experience, and > > enjoyment > > > > without > > > > > > > attachment to transient illusions such as a charming > > conversation, a > > > > > > > beautiful sunset, a vigorous swim, hiking in winter, eating > > a ham > > > > > > > sandwich, posting to this forum. Enjoyable " mirages " all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you mentioned has a physical reference point. > > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble that mind has is mistaking its own > > > > > > > > > > > > inventions...ego...self....Self...god....enlightenment...nirvana....chakras....m\ ind......free- > > > > > > will...etc. .etc...for reality and then looking for itself > > within its > > > > > > own imagination. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > It is troublesome to experience mind and its creations as one > > would a > > > > > sunset? Is not a sunset a percept, a transitory mental creation? > > > > > > > > > > What is physical but a conceptual notion originating in mind. > > > > > > > > > > There is also just curiosity, exploration, experience, and enjoyment > > > > > without attachment to transient illusions such as God, Jesus, Atman, > > > > > atman, Self, Yechidah, Neshamah, fana fi 'Allah', baqa' bi > > 'Allah, Dark > > > > > Night of the Soul (St. John of the Cross), daemon, psyche, > > > > > Buddha-nature, original self, Tao, Brahman, Holy Spirit, > > no-mind, I Am, > > > > > etc. There are no " physical reference points " here. > > > > > > > > > > There is no mistaking these as illusions. They are words, terms, > > > > > concepts. They are unreal pointers. As such, they pose no threat or > > > > > trouble. They represent experiences differentially undergone and the > > > > > attempt to then formulate and describe. Is the concept of " God " > > > > > frightening? How about the avenging concept of " God? " Or the > > hell making > > > > > one? If ego or a mind " believes " or is " convinced " of the reality of > > > > > concepts then trouble brews. > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, seeing it as it is, there is great interest in how these > > > > > creations have come to be, how they are used and transformed and the > > > > > effects they have upon the movement of what is and how what is uses > > > > > these to become unecumbered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The totality of the assumed entity is the encumberence itself. > > > > > > > > There is nothing and on one to become unembumbered. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No need to wave magic wands. Wade deep into these, embrace them, > > know > > > > > them, use them, and then let them be. As they are, they are > > harmless. > > > > > They have no life or energy except that mistakenly given to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > T. try this clarification. > > > > > > What is always is and is never encumbered as it is and is beyond any > > > conceptuaization or " encumberment " but in expressing through the mind > > > and body there are encumberances (egos, beliefs, illusory realities) > > > hindering the free and effortless expression of what is. What is cannot > > > be encumbered but its free and effortless expression can be. > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Oh Lewis......When conceptualization speculates on things beyond > > conceptuaization..............You can expect some confusion. > > > > When the conceptualizing mind speculates on what it conceptualizes as > > " what is " ....don't > > bet your house on its conclusions. > > > > > > Mind deals in parts and pieces....seeds and stems.....flotsum and > > jetsum...mnemonic > > debris......It can't find anything of value in its own........old > > boneyard............ > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Dear T. Oh lovely one. " What is " has never been conceptualized here. > This is living experience. > > Lewis Once again: All experience needs an experiencer......... Where does that experience of " what isness " reside? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Unitary Perception there is no time, Feldman says. Only > > > one space. > > > > > > > Waste time? In Unitary Perception? LOL! :-) The idea that > > > time can be > > > > > > > wasted is, I believe, the hallmark of a fragmented mind. It's > > > fear, > > > > > > > isn't it? Living a whole life being anxious about wasting > time? > > > > > > > Hahaha. Wasting time is only an _idea_ in the mind, and a > > > very strong > > > > > > > and persistent idea it is. This idea can be felt in your > entire > > > > > > > body/mind as a nervous feeling of time passing. This nervous > > > feeling > > > > > > > breeds fear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Rhetorical Question. Nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can live an entire life not wasting time. We can also live an > > > > > entire life wasting time. A mystic may say: wasting time? not > > wasting > > > > > time? What's the difference? That, I believe, is what you mean: > > > > > rhetorical question. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > A rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (to > > > > illicit pondering, controversy, sense of ignorance) and no answer is > > > > expected. The intended effect was to direct attention on the act of > > > > posting that is done by " no one " and that such posting has its uses, > > > > practical or other, for egos seeking. This was clearly expressed > > in the > > > > paragraph that followed. > > > > > > > > No mysticism or cloaking here, Anders, just a plain ole post in > > > > dualistic language talking about " illusory realities. " > > > > > > > > Fear, by the way, is based not only in thought but also in affective > > > > attachments that coagulate thought and emotion and bodily sensation > > > into > > > > Gordian knots or plugs that impede the flow of being. Fear is basic > > > > evidence of emotional attachment to self and self-centeredness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Horrible knots! I want the flow of being feel like a stream of warm > > > honey of peace running through my mind and body. Do you know how I can > > > untie those knots? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Dear Anders, > > > > Those knots are partially formed with the emotional attachments > > demonstrated by " I want " " my mind and body " and " how I can. " > > > > The old fashioned way to cure self-absorption is to perform every > > method and ritual aimed at self-annihilation, to believe and practice > > every idea of liberation, to imitate gurus, live, love and sacrifice > > for messiahs, to offer sacrifices, donations to God and the Gods, to > > perform good works, to love others at risk of your life, to exercise > > your self-will to the fullest in the search for your true self, > > ardently search and enquire about I Am, to fast, to wear sackcloth and > > ashes, to whip the body, and other ascetic practices, to not speak, to > > pray, to chant mantras, to meditate, recollect, contemplate, to let > > thoughts flow, to stop thoughts, to be indifferent to perceptions, to > > deny the world, to intellectually turn everything into an illusion and > > so on. > > > > All these are futile. They lead nowhere. They do not bring > > self-annihilation but paradoxically increase self-centeredness. The > > more ardently these are practiced the worse it gets. What gets worse > > is the feeling of " absolute futility. " But this is key. Self-will, the > > " I want " exercised to the extreme leads to the realization of the > > " absolute futility " of self-will in reaching the (false) goals of > > enlightenment and liberation. At this point, ego is almost shattered > > and begins to fall apart. There is no where to turn, no wheels to > > turn, no place to go, no thoughts not tried so none to think, all lead > > to blind alleys, no effort makes a dfiference, all has been tried, no > > person can help, all is futile and hopeless, all is meaningless. This > > is beginning of awakening in the old fashioned way and it can be an > > exceedingly painful experience that drags on for decades. > > > > The simple way is to quickly experience the " absolute futility " of > > self-will. > > > > They say Buddha tried asceticism for several years and then found the > > middle path. > > > > Search and enquiry for I Am leads to the " absolute futility " if > > practiced ardently, earnestly by some people. Many intellectual egos > > are well-secured (trapped) in this method and only slowly or if ever > > reach " absolute futility " for they play with some of the ideas of > > Advaita Vedanta, use the passive voice, eschew personal pronouns, wave > > magic wands of intellection to declare and disappear the illusions of > > others (which is humorous because it is easily done since all is > > illusion and it is hard to make a mistake) and create a single voice > > that speaks from the " heights of awareness, " a voice that is none > > other than ego very well trained in saying " neti, neti. " > > > > > > What is Anders way to " absolute futility " of self-will? Is the > > quickest road to a high impact, unrecoverable smash up against that > > wall taken? Or is a pleasant meander picking flowers the way to go? > > > > Lewis > > > > First you say there no way....... > > > Then you say there is. > > > Which is it? > > > T. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Both T. It is both. Wise teachers wishing a student to learn the " absolute futility of self-will " will encourage the use of self-will until it is broken completely, forever shattered and unrecoverable. The method employed is a ruse. A promise is made, great benefits and outcomes are offered, direction is given. But the wise teacher knows that there is no method and no goal, these are illusions. But since ego is entranced with illusions, obdurate, and selfish, it needs to be tricked into exhaustion and disintegration by luring it in with lovely benefits and outcomes so it will perform the difficult actions and undergo the necessary hardships that will break it up and make it impossible for it to put itself together again (think Humpty Dumpty as ego). So the " method and the goals " are a ruse, a lie, to lure a selfish blind ego into into " disassembling " itself (ie. there is no way to achieve the falsely stated goals with the method employed), But the ruse works, if the ego (student) is " ardent enough " (read greedy) and obedient enough (read stubborn), to put its whole effort into the trickery to get the lovely benefits and outcomes and in doing so disintegrates (so it works). Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alas.....the water in a mirage...will never quench your > > > thirst. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toombaru. Convinced? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind is an object, a tool, like the body and used for > illusion > > > > > > > > perceiving and making. It is perceived and, therefore, not > > > > > conscious. > > > > > > > > But is is known and used by what is and it can be > described > > > as any > > > > > > > > " illusory object or perception. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no thirst to quench or material to pursue or an > > > > > obsession to > > > > > > > > control, just curiosity, exploration, experience, and > > > enjoyment > > > > > without > > > > > > > > attachment to transient illusions such as a charming > > > conversation, a > > > > > > > > beautiful sunset, a vigorous swim, hiking in winter, > eating > > > a ham > > > > > > > > sandwich, posting to this forum. Enjoyable " mirages " all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you mentioned has a physical reference point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble that mind has is mistaking its own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inventions...ego...self....Self...god....enlightenment...nirvana....chakras....m\ ind......free- > > > > > > > will...etc. .etc...for reality and then looking for itself > > > within its > > > > > > > own imagination. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > It is troublesome to experience mind and its creations as one > > > would a > > > > > > sunset? Is not a sunset a percept, a transitory mental > creation? > > > > > > > > > > > > What is physical but a conceptual notion originating in mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is also just curiosity, exploration, experience, and > enjoyment > > > > > > without attachment to transient illusions such as God, > Jesus, Atman, > > > > > > atman, Self, Yechidah, Neshamah, fana fi 'Allah', baqa' bi > > > 'Allah, Dark > > > > > > Night of the Soul (St. John of the Cross), daemon, psyche, > > > > > > Buddha-nature, original self, Tao, Brahman, Holy Spirit, > > > no-mind, I Am, > > > > > > etc. There are no " physical reference points " here. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no mistaking these as illusions. They are words, > terms, > > > > > > concepts. They are unreal pointers. As such, they pose no > threat or > > > > > > trouble. They represent experiences differentially > undergone and the > > > > > > attempt to then formulate and describe. Is the concept of " God " > > > > > > frightening? How about the avenging concept of " God? " Or the > > > hell making > > > > > > one? If ego or a mind " believes " or is " convinced " of the > reality of > > > > > > concepts then trouble brews. > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, seeing it as it is, there is great interest in > how these > > > > > > creations have come to be, how they are used and > transformed and the > > > > > > effects they have upon the movement of what is and how what > is uses > > > > > > these to become unecumbered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The totality of the assumed entity is the encumberence itself. > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing and on one to become unembumbered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No need to wave magic wands. Wade deep into these, embrace > them, > > > know > > > > > > them, use them, and then let them be. As they are, they are > > > harmless. > > > > > > They have no life or energy except that mistakenly given to > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > T. try this clarification. > > > > > > > > What is always is and is never encumbered as it is and is beyond any > > > > conceptuaization or " encumberment " but in expressing through the > mind > > > > and body there are encumberances (egos, beliefs, illusory realities) > > > > hindering the free and effortless expression of what is. What is > cannot > > > > be encumbered but its free and effortless expression can be. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > Oh Lewis......When conceptualization speculates on things beyond > > > conceptuaization..............You can expect some confusion. > > > > > > When the conceptualizing mind speculates on what it conceptualizes as > > > " what is " ....don't > > > bet your house on its conclusions. > > > > > > > > > Mind deals in parts and pieces....seeds and stems.....flotsum and > > > jetsum...mnemonic > > > debris......It can't find anything of value in its own........old > > > boneyard............ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Dear T. Oh lovely one. " What is " has never been conceptualized here. > > This is living experience. > > > > Lewis > > > > > Once again: > > > All experience needs an experiencer......... > > Where does that experience of " what isness " reside? > > > > toombaru ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why seek to elicit a concept to answer a question about the concepts of a doer and its location? The answer is plain and ordinary and it goes without saying. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Unitary Perception there is no time, Feldman says. Only > > > > one space. > > > > > > > > Waste time? In Unitary Perception? LOL! :-) The idea that > > > > time can be > > > > > > > > wasted is, I believe, the hallmark of a fragmented mind. It's > > > > fear, > > > > > > > > isn't it? Living a whole life being anxious about wasting > > time? > > > > > > > > Hahaha. Wasting time is only an _idea_ in the mind, and a > > > > very strong > > > > > > > > and persistent idea it is. This idea can be felt in your > > entire > > > > > > > > body/mind as a nervous feeling of time passing. This nervous > > > > feeling > > > > > > > > breeds fear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > Rhetorical Question. Nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can live an entire life not wasting time. We can also live an > > > > > > entire life wasting time. A mystic may say: wasting time? not > > > wasting > > > > > > time? What's the difference? That, I believe, is what you mean: > > > > > > rhetorical question. > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > A rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (to > > > > > illicit pondering, controversy, sense of ignorance) and no answer is > > > > > expected. The intended effect was to direct attention on the act of > > > > > posting that is done by " no one " and that such posting has its uses, > > > > > practical or other, for egos seeking. This was clearly expressed > > > in the > > > > > paragraph that followed. > > > > > > > > > > No mysticism or cloaking here, Anders, just a plain ole post in > > > > > dualistic language talking about " illusory realities. " > > > > > > > > > > Fear, by the way, is based not only in thought but also in affective > > > > > attachments that coagulate thought and emotion and bodily sensation > > > > into > > > > > Gordian knots or plugs that impede the flow of being. Fear is basic > > > > > evidence of emotional attachment to self and self-centeredness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > Horrible knots! I want the flow of being feel like a stream of warm > > > > honey of peace running through my mind and body. Do you know how I can > > > > untie those knots? > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Dear Anders, > > > > > > Those knots are partially formed with the emotional attachments > > > demonstrated by " I want " " my mind and body " and " how I can. " > > > > > > The old fashioned way to cure self-absorption is to perform every > > > method and ritual aimed at self-annihilation, to believe and practice > > > every idea of liberation, to imitate gurus, live, love and sacrifice > > > for messiahs, to offer sacrifices, donations to God and the Gods, to > > > perform good works, to love others at risk of your life, to exercise > > > your self-will to the fullest in the search for your true self, > > > ardently search and enquire about I Am, to fast, to wear sackcloth and > > > ashes, to whip the body, and other ascetic practices, to not speak, to > > > pray, to chant mantras, to meditate, recollect, contemplate, to let > > > thoughts flow, to stop thoughts, to be indifferent to perceptions, to > > > deny the world, to intellectually turn everything into an illusion and > > > so on. > > > > > > All these are futile. They lead nowhere. They do not bring > > > self-annihilation but paradoxically increase self-centeredness. The > > > more ardently these are practiced the worse it gets. What gets worse > > > is the feeling of " absolute futility. " But this is key. Self-will, the > > > " I want " exercised to the extreme leads to the realization of the > > > " absolute futility " of self-will in reaching the (false) goals of > > > enlightenment and liberation. At this point, ego is almost shattered > > > and begins to fall apart. There is no where to turn, no wheels to > > > turn, no place to go, no thoughts not tried so none to think, all lead > > > to blind alleys, no effort makes a dfiference, all has been tried, no > > > person can help, all is futile and hopeless, all is meaningless. This > > > is beginning of awakening in the old fashioned way and it can be an > > > exceedingly painful experience that drags on for decades. > > > > > > The simple way is to quickly experience the " absolute futility " of > > > self-will. > > > > > > They say Buddha tried asceticism for several years and then found the > > > middle path. > > > > > > Search and enquiry for I Am leads to the " absolute futility " if > > > practiced ardently, earnestly by some people. Many intellectual egos > > > are well-secured (trapped) in this method and only slowly or if ever > > > reach " absolute futility " for they play with some of the ideas of > > > Advaita Vedanta, use the passive voice, eschew personal pronouns, wave > > > magic wands of intellection to declare and disappear the illusions of > > > others (which is humorous because it is easily done since all is > > > illusion and it is hard to make a mistake) and create a single voice > > > that speaks from the " heights of awareness, " a voice that is none > > > other than ego very well trained in saying " neti, neti. " > > > > > > > > > What is Anders way to " absolute futility " of self-will? Is the > > > quickest road to a high impact, unrecoverable smash up against that > > > wall taken? Or is a pleasant meander picking flowers the way to go? > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > First you say there no way....... > > > > > > Then you say there is. > > > > > > Which is it? > > > > > > T. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Both T. It is both. > > Wise teachers wishing a student to learn the " absolute futility of > self-will " will encourage the use of self-will until it is broken > completely, forever shattered and unrecoverable. The method employed is > a ruse. A promise is made, great benefits and outcomes are offered, > direction is given. But the wise teacher knows that there is no method > and no goal, these are illusions. But since ego is entranced with > illusions, obdurate, and selfish, it needs to be tricked into exhaustion > and disintegration by luring it in with lovely benefits and outcomes so > it will perform the difficult actions and undergo the necessary > hardships that will break it up and make it impossible for it to put > itself together again (think Humpty Dumpty as ego). > > So the " method and the goals " are a ruse, a lie, to lure a selfish blind > ego into into " disassembling " itself (ie. there is no way to achieve the > falsely stated goals with the method employed), But the ruse works, if > the ego (student) is " ardent enough " (read greedy) and obedient enough > (read stubborn), to put its whole effort into the trickery to get the > lovely benefits and outcomes and in doing so disintegrates (so it works). > > > Lewis And when " it works " .....what do you imagine happens? t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alas.....the water in a mirage...will never quench your > > > > thirst. > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toombaru. Convinced? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind is an object, a tool, like the body and used for > > illusion > > > > > > > > > perceiving and making. It is perceived and, therefore, not > > > > > > conscious. > > > > > > > > > But is is known and used by what is and it can be > > described > > > > as any > > > > > > > > > " illusory object or perception. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no thirst to quench or material to pursue or an > > > > > > obsession to > > > > > > > > > control, just curiosity, exploration, experience, and > > > > enjoyment > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > attachment to transient illusions such as a charming > > > > conversation, a > > > > > > > > > beautiful sunset, a vigorous swim, hiking in winter, > > eating > > > > a ham > > > > > > > > > sandwich, posting to this forum. Enjoyable " mirages " all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you mentioned has a physical reference point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble that mind has is mistaking its own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inventions...ego...self....Self...god....enlightenment...nirvana....chakras....m\ ind......free- > > > > > > > > will...etc. .etc...for reality and then looking for itself > > > > within its > > > > > > > > own imagination. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > It is troublesome to experience mind and its creations as one > > > > would a > > > > > > > sunset? Is not a sunset a percept, a transitory mental > > creation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is physical but a conceptual notion originating in mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is also just curiosity, exploration, experience, and > > enjoyment > > > > > > > without attachment to transient illusions such as God, > > Jesus, Atman, > > > > > > > atman, Self, Yechidah, Neshamah, fana fi 'Allah', baqa' bi > > > > 'Allah, Dark > > > > > > > Night of the Soul (St. John of the Cross), daemon, psyche, > > > > > > > Buddha-nature, original self, Tao, Brahman, Holy Spirit, > > > > no-mind, I Am, > > > > > > > etc. There are no " physical reference points " here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no mistaking these as illusions. They are words, > > terms, > > > > > > > concepts. They are unreal pointers. As such, they pose no > > threat or > > > > > > > trouble. They represent experiences differentially > > undergone and the > > > > > > > attempt to then formulate and describe. Is the concept of " God " > > > > > > > frightening? How about the avenging concept of " God? " Or the > > > > hell making > > > > > > > one? If ego or a mind " believes " or is " convinced " of the > > reality of > > > > > > > concepts then trouble brews. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, seeing it as it is, there is great interest in > > how these > > > > > > > creations have come to be, how they are used and > > transformed and the > > > > > > > effects they have upon the movement of what is and how what > > is uses > > > > > > > these to become unecumbered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The totality of the assumed entity is the encumberence itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing and on one to become unembumbered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No need to wave magic wands. Wade deep into these, embrace > > them, > > > > know > > > > > > > them, use them, and then let them be. As they are, they are > > > > harmless. > > > > > > > They have no life or energy except that mistakenly given to > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > T. try this clarification. > > > > > > > > > > What is always is and is never encumbered as it is and is beyond any > > > > > conceptuaization or " encumberment " but in expressing through the > > mind > > > > > and body there are encumberances (egos, beliefs, illusory realities) > > > > > hindering the free and effortless expression of what is. What is > > cannot > > > > > be encumbered but its free and effortless expression can be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh Lewis......When conceptualization speculates on things beyond > > > > conceptuaization..............You can expect some confusion. > > > > > > > > When the conceptualizing mind speculates on what it conceptualizes as > > > > " what is " ....don't > > > > bet your house on its conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind deals in parts and pieces....seeds and stems.....flotsum and > > > > jetsum...mnemonic > > > > debris......It can't find anything of value in its own........old > > > > boneyard............ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Dear T. Oh lovely one. " What is " has never been conceptualized here. > > > This is living experience. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > Once again: > > > > > > All experience needs an experiencer......... > > > > Where does that experience of " what isness " reside? > > > > > > > > toombaru > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Why seek to elicit a concept to answer a question about the concepts of > a doer and its location? The answer is plain and ordinary and it goes > without saying. > > Lewis So.......where does it reside? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Unitary Perception there is no time, Feldman says. > Only > > > > > one space. > > > > > > > > > Waste time? In Unitary Perception? LOL! :-) The idea that > > > > > time can be > > > > > > > > > wasted is, I believe, the hallmark of a fragmented > mind. It's > > > > > fear, > > > > > > > > > isn't it? Living a whole life being anxious about > wasting > > > time? > > > > > > > > > Hahaha. Wasting time is only an _idea_ in the mind, and a > > > > > very strong > > > > > > > > > and persistent idea it is. This idea can be felt in your > > > entire > > > > > > > > > body/mind as a nervous feeling of time passing. This > nervous > > > > > feeling > > > > > > > > > breeds fear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Rhetorical Question. Nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can live an entire life not wasting time. We can also > live an > > > > > > > entire life wasting time. A mystic may say: wasting time? not > > > > wasting > > > > > > > time? What's the difference? That, I believe, is what you > mean: > > > > > > > rhetorical question. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > A rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an > effect (to > > > > > > illicit pondering, controversy, sense of ignorance) and no > answer is > > > > > > expected. The intended effect was to direct attention on the > act of > > > > > > posting that is done by " no one " and that such posting has > its uses, > > > > > > practical or other, for egos seeking. This was clearly expressed > > > > in the > > > > > > paragraph that followed. > > > > > > > > > > > > No mysticism or cloaking here, Anders, just a plain ole post in > > > > > > dualistic language talking about " illusory realities. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Fear, by the way, is based not only in thought but also in > affective > > > > > > attachments that coagulate thought and emotion and bodily > sensation > > > > > into > > > > > > Gordian knots or plugs that impede the flow of being. Fear > is basic > > > > > > evidence of emotional attachment to self and self-centeredness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > Horrible knots! I want the flow of being feel like a stream of > warm > > > > > honey of peace running through my mind and body. Do you know > how I can > > > > > untie those knots? > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Dear Anders, > > > > > > > > Those knots are partially formed with the emotional attachments > > > > demonstrated by " I want " " my mind and body " and " how I can. " > > > > > > > > The old fashioned way to cure self-absorption is to perform every > > > > method and ritual aimed at self-annihilation, to believe and > practice > > > > every idea of liberation, to imitate gurus, live, love and sacrifice > > > > for messiahs, to offer sacrifices, donations to God and the Gods, to > > > > perform good works, to love others at risk of your life, to exercise > > > > your self-will to the fullest in the search for your true self, > > > > ardently search and enquire about I Am, to fast, to wear > sackcloth and > > > > ashes, to whip the body, and other ascetic practices, to not > speak, to > > > > pray, to chant mantras, to meditate, recollect, contemplate, to let > > > > thoughts flow, to stop thoughts, to be indifferent to > perceptions, to > > > > deny the world, to intellectually turn everything into an > illusion and > > > > so on. > > > > > > > > All these are futile. They lead nowhere. They do not bring > > > > self-annihilation but paradoxically increase self-centeredness. The > > > > more ardently these are practiced the worse it gets. What gets worse > > > > is the feeling of " absolute futility. " But this is key. > Self-will, the > > > > " I want " exercised to the extreme leads to the realization of the > > > > " absolute futility " of self-will in reaching the (false) goals of > > > > enlightenment and liberation. At this point, ego is almost shattered > > > > and begins to fall apart. There is no where to turn, no wheels to > > > > turn, no place to go, no thoughts not tried so none to think, > all lead > > > > to blind alleys, no effort makes a dfiference, all has been > tried, no > > > > person can help, all is futile and hopeless, all is meaningless. > This > > > > is beginning of awakening in the old fashioned way and it can be an > > > > exceedingly painful experience that drags on for decades. > > > > > > > > The simple way is to quickly experience the " absolute futility " of > > > > self-will. > > > > > > > > They say Buddha tried asceticism for several years and then > found the > > > > middle path. > > > > > > > > Search and enquiry for I Am leads to the " absolute futility " if > > > > practiced ardently, earnestly by some people. Many intellectual egos > > > > are well-secured (trapped) in this method and only slowly or if ever > > > > reach " absolute futility " for they play with some of the ideas of > > > > Advaita Vedanta, use the passive voice, eschew personal > pronouns, wave > > > > magic wands of intellection to declare and disappear the > illusions of > > > > others (which is humorous because it is easily done since all is > > > > illusion and it is hard to make a mistake) and create a single voice > > > > that speaks from the " heights of awareness, " a voice that is none > > > > other than ego very well trained in saying " neti, neti. " > > > > > > > > > > > > What is Anders way to " absolute futility " of self-will? Is the > > > > quickest road to a high impact, unrecoverable smash up against that > > > > wall taken? Or is a pleasant meander picking flowers the way to go? > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > First you say there no way....... > > > > > > > > > Then you say there is. > > > > > > > > > Which is it? > > > > > > > > > T. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Both T. It is both. > > > > Wise teachers wishing a student to learn the " absolute futility of > > self-will " will encourage the use of self-will until it is broken > > completely, forever shattered and unrecoverable. The method employed is > > a ruse. A promise is made, great benefits and outcomes are offered, > > direction is given. But the wise teacher knows that there is no method > > and no goal, these are illusions. But since ego is entranced with > > illusions, obdurate, and selfish, it needs to be tricked into exhaustion > > and disintegration by luring it in with lovely benefits and outcomes so > > it will perform the difficult actions and undergo the necessary > > hardships that will break it up and make it impossible for it to put > > itself together again (think Humpty Dumpty as ego). > > > > So the " method and the goals " are a ruse, a lie, to lure a selfish blind > > ego into into " disassembling " itself (ie. there is no way to achieve the > > falsely stated goals with the method employed), But the ruse works, if > > the ego (student) is " ardent enough " (read greedy) and obedient enough > > (read stubborn), to put its whole effort into the trickery to get the > > lovely benefits and outcomes and in doing so disintegrates (so it works). > > > > > > Lewis > > > And when " it works " .....what do you imagine happens? > > > t. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ " So it works " reads " there is a way " per T.'s previous post. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alas.....the water in a mirage...will never > quench your > > > > > thirst. > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toombaru. Convinced? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind is an object, a tool, like the body and used > for > > > illusion > > > > > > > > > > perceiving and making. It is perceived and, > therefore, not > > > > > > > conscious. > > > > > > > > > > But is is known and used by what is and it can be > > > described > > > > > as any > > > > > > > > > > " illusory object or perception. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no thirst to quench or material to > pursue or an > > > > > > > obsession to > > > > > > > > > > control, just curiosity, exploration, experience, and > > > > > enjoyment > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > attachment to transient illusions such as a charming > > > > > conversation, a > > > > > > > > > > beautiful sunset, a vigorous swim, hiking in winter, > > > eating > > > > > a ham > > > > > > > > > > sandwich, posting to this forum. Enjoyable > " mirages " all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you mentioned has a physical reference point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble that mind has is mistaking its own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inventions...ego...self....Self...god....enlightenment...nirvana....chakras....m\ ind......free- > > > > > > > > > will...etc. .etc...for reality and then looking for > itself > > > > > within its > > > > > > > > > own imagination. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > It is troublesome to experience mind and its creations > as one > > > > > would a > > > > > > > > sunset? Is not a sunset a percept, a transitory mental > > > creation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is physical but a conceptual notion originating > in mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is also just curiosity, exploration, experience, > and > > > enjoyment > > > > > > > > without attachment to transient illusions such as God, > > > Jesus, Atman, > > > > > > > > atman, Self, Yechidah, Neshamah, fana fi 'Allah', baqa' bi > > > > > 'Allah, Dark > > > > > > > > Night of the Soul (St. John of the Cross), daemon, psyche, > > > > > > > > Buddha-nature, original self, Tao, Brahman, Holy Spirit, > > > > > no-mind, I Am, > > > > > > > > etc. There are no " physical reference points " here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no mistaking these as illusions. They are words, > > > terms, > > > > > > > > concepts. They are unreal pointers. As such, they pose no > > > threat or > > > > > > > > trouble. They represent experiences differentially > > > undergone and the > > > > > > > > attempt to then formulate and describe. Is the concept > of " God " > > > > > > > > frightening? How about the avenging concept of " God? " > Or the > > > > > hell making > > > > > > > > one? If ego or a mind " believes " or is " convinced " of the > > > reality of > > > > > > > > concepts then trouble brews. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, seeing it as it is, there is great interest in > > > how these > > > > > > > > creations have come to be, how they are used and > > > transformed and the > > > > > > > > effects they have upon the movement of what is and how > what > > > is uses > > > > > > > > these to become unecumbered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The totality of the assumed entity is the encumberence > itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing and on one to become unembumbered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No need to wave magic wands. Wade deep into these, > embrace > > > them, > > > > > know > > > > > > > > them, use them, and then let them be. As they are, > they are > > > > > harmless. > > > > > > > > They have no life or energy except that mistakenly > given to > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > T. try this clarification. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is always is and is never encumbered as it is and is > beyond any > > > > > > conceptuaization or " encumberment " but in expressing > through the > > > mind > > > > > > and body there are encumberances (egos, beliefs, illusory > realities) > > > > > > hindering the free and effortless expression of what is. > What is > > > cannot > > > > > > be encumbered but its free and effortless expression can be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh Lewis......When conceptualization speculates on things beyond > > > > > conceptuaization..............You can expect some confusion. > > > > > > > > > > When the conceptualizing mind speculates on what it > conceptualizes as > > > > > " what is " ....don't > > > > > bet your house on its conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind deals in parts and pieces....seeds and stems.....flotsum and > > > > > jetsum...mnemonic > > > > > debris......It can't find anything of value in its own........old > > > > > boneyard............ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Dear T. Oh lovely one. " What is " has never been conceptualized > here. > > > > This is living experience. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again: > > > > > > > > > All experience needs an experiencer......... > > > > > > Where does that experience of " what isness " reside? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Why seek to elicit a concept to answer a question about the concepts of > > a doer and its location? The answer is plain and ordinary and it goes > > without saying. > > > > Lewis > > > > So.......where does it reside? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What is " it " T. ? Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 --> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > Dear T. Oh lovely one. " What is " has never been conceptualized > > here. > > > > > This is living experience. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again: > > > > > > > > > > > > All experience needs an experiencer......... > > > > > > > > Where does that experience of " what isness " reside? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Why seek to elicit a concept to answer a question about the concepts of > > > a doer and its location? The answer is plain and ordinary and it goes > > > without saying. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > So.......where does it reside? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > What is " it " T. ? > > Lewis Above you said: What is has never been conceptualized here. This is living experience. The " it " refers to your phrase " living experience. " My question was asking you where you thought this " living experience " was housed. Any experience need a place to be stored.......needs an experiencer. t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 toombaru2004 wrote: > > --> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Dear T. Oh lovely one. " What is " has never been > conceptualized > > > here. > > > > > > This is living experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All experience needs an experiencer......... > > > > > > > > > > Where does that experience of " what isness " reside? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Why seek to elicit a concept to answer a question about the > concepts of > > > > a doer and its location? The answer is plain and ordinary and it > goes > > > > without saying. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > So.......where does it reside? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > What is " it " T. ? > > > > Lewis > > > > > Above you said: > > What is has never been conceptualized here. > > This is living experience. > > > The " it " refers to your phrase " living experience. " > > My question was asking you where you thought this " living experience " > was housed. > > Any experience need a place to be stored.......needs an experiencer. > > > t. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ " Living experience refers to ongoing awareness and participation in " events " for example posting. An experience, a set of contiguous or non-contiguous perceptual events, may be stored in " memory " a mind brain function and retrieved or recalled for various uses. As was done above. Does " someone " in particular or identifiable experience, store, retrieve, and use memories (of experiences)? Yes and no. Yes, egos claim identities, experiences, and memories and hordes, hides, cherish, rejects, abuses, polishes, changes, loses, etc. them. No. Egos are illusions and what experiences is and does is by no one in particular. What is and does is indescribable, ineffable, it just is and does leaving traces (postings, memories, photos). If a label is needed it can be said that " T. " experiences it or " I " experiences it. However " T. " and " I " are the same. " T. " is " I " and " I " am " T. " Such labels are conventional and convenient. When watching two squirrels during mating season run, climb and jump through the trees in their dance of life, what identity do they have? None, unless they are externally tagged or identified and named according to their distinctive markings. Such tagging and labeling means nothing to the squirrels, they carry on. Squirrels " know " the difference between one squirrel and the next and behave accordingly as squirrels do. How do squirrels be and do? There is no definitive explanation. God, deities, instinct, Pavlovian and operant conditioning, and the like are used to explain the ordered behavior of squirrels. Watching humans are the same. The daily round of human activities are carried on in spite of external labeling by observers. Humans similarly " know " the perceptual differences between them and behave as humans do. Similarly, instinct, genetics, operant conditioning, other psychological and social psychological theories are used by egos to explain human behavior but with little clarity. After all, ego is trying to what it cannot. Labels for human beings such as names and pronouns serve many purposes usually for identification, order and hierarchy, the management of activities and community, as well as for a host of ego-related purposes. None of this alters that " T. " and " I " are the same. " T. " is " I " and " I " am " T. " Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Well.....If I had free will......I would choose lots of > > money....perfect health.......a stress free > > > life.......that lasted forever...... > > > > > > What do you choose with this free will of yours? > > > > > > toombaru > > > > When there is conflictless flow there is no separate me having 'free > > will' (read: conflict), then I and the now are one, and free will is > > also one. I then want to do, be and feel what I do, am and feel now. > > > > Well ....that's a very nice belief structure. > > Where do you store it? > > > > toombaru I guess for this to really work is has to become natural as breathing. Where do I store my breath? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well.....If I had free will......I would choose lots of > > > money....perfect health.......a stress free > > > > life.......that lasted forever...... > > > > > > > > What do you choose with this free will of yours? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > When there is conflictless flow there is no separate me having 'free > > > will' (read: conflict), then I and the now are one, and free will is > > > also one. I then want to do, be and feel what I do, am and feel now. > > > > > > > > Well ....that's a very nice belief structure. > > > > Where do you store it? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > I guess for this to really work is has to become natural as breathing. > Where do I store my breath? In what you believe to be your very own ......separate body. t. t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > .... > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Dear Anders, > > Those knots are partially formed with the emotional attachments > demonstrated by " I want " " my mind and body " and " how I can. " > > The old fashioned way to cure self-absorption is to perform every > method and ritual aimed at self-annihilation, to believe and practice > every idea of liberation, to imitate gurus, live, love and sacrifice > for messiahs, to offer sacrifices, donations to God and the Gods, to > perform good works, to love others at risk of your life, to exercise > your self-will to the fullest in the search for your true self, > ardently search and enquire about I Am, to fast, to wear sackcloth and > ashes, to whip the body, and other ascetic practices, to not speak, to > pray, to chant mantras, to meditate, recollect, contemplate, to let > thoughts flow, to stop thoughts, to be indifferent to perceptions, to > deny the world, to intellectually turn everything into an illusion and > so on. > > All these are futile. They lead nowhere. They do not bring > self-annihilation but paradoxically increase self-centeredness. The > more ardently these are practiced the worse it gets. What gets worse > is the feeling of " absolute futility. " But this is key. Self-will, the > " I want " exercised to the extreme leads to the realization of the > " absolute futility " of self-will in reaching the (false) goals of > enlightenment and liberation. At this point, ego is almost shattered > and begins to fall apart. There is no where to turn, no wheels to > turn, no place to go, no thoughts not tried so none to think, all lead > to blind alleys, no effort makes a dfiference, all has been tried, no > person can help, all is futile and hopeless, all is meaningless. This > is beginning of awakening in the old fashioned way and it can be an > exceedingly painful experience that drags on for decades. > > The simple way is to quickly experience the " absolute futility " of > self-will. > > They say Buddha tried asceticism for several years and then found the > middle path. > > Search and enquiry for I Am leads to the " absolute futility " if > practiced ardently, earnestly by some people. Many intellectual egos > are well-secured (trapped) in this method and only slowly or if ever > reach " absolute futility " for they play with some of the ideas of > Advaita Vedanta, use the passive voice, eschew personal pronouns, wave > magic wands of intellection to declare and disappear the illusions of > others (which is humorous because it is easily done since all is > illusion and it is hard to make a mistake) and create a single voice > that speaks from the " heights of awareness, " a voice that is none > other than ego very well trained in saying " neti, neti. " > > > What is Anders way to " absolute futility " of self-will? Is the > quickest road to a high impact, unrecoverable smash up against that > wall taken? Or is a pleasant meander picking flowers the way to go? > > Lewis So you are saying that all I do and not do is a part of the knots, and that will only make the knots more knotty. 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.