Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 In a message dated 1/20/05 7:12:21 PM, cptc writes: > dated 1/20/05 12:15:51 PM, dan330033 writes: > > > > P: Clear and well said, Dan! > > > > > > > > There is this which isn't a concept, thought, happening of > > > the past. > > > > > > It doesn't matter whether I thought I could > > > name it 'now,' 'god,' 'truth,' > > > 'who I am,' or 'Spot.' Names won't give what it is, > > > and thoughts about that issue, once named, > > > just keep one involved with one's own mentation processes. > > > > > > If I am involved in a relationship with my own mentation, > > > thinking I'm closing in on truth, > > > I am trying to substitute knowledge for " what is, " images > > > for " what is. " > > > > > > So, what is this beyond a relationship with one's own production > > > of images, words, feelings? > > > > > > If you are clear on this, then what becomes of time, space, > > > choice, and the observer? There is no concern about > > > observing the choice to choose, or anything else. > > > All such notions are gone. > > > > > > This is known first-hand, not a matter of reading something > > > in a book or on-line, hearing something from a teacher, > > > getting the results that are approved of by > > > a philosophy or in a religion. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > There was a tribe.....in Micronesia that never developed a spoken language. > The anthropologists named the Kaepson group. > > Instead of verbalizations....they carved little figures to represent > different aspects of their reality. > > The figure for monkey....was shaped like a little monkey........The figure > for a little tree was always smaller then the figure carved to represent a big > tree. > > > There was general agreement and harmony when converstions evolved around the > areas of procuring food and shelter.......but there was always some stress > whenever they tried to discuss things like God.....truth.....and love...... > > > They never were able to agree on what the figures for these things should be > shaped like........... > > > Its a shame....they are no longer with us........They were sweet little > people. > > > :-( > > > toombaru > P: LOL. Lewis can tell you all human groups developed languages. What court jester you have become! And we don't even have a King. Well, maybe Arnold could give you a job to play the buffoon at state dinners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/20/05 12:15:51 PM, dan330033 writes: > > P: Clear and well said, Dan! > > > > > There is this which isn't a concept, thought, happening of > > the past. > > > > It doesn't matter whether I thought I could > > name it 'now,' 'god,' 'truth,' > > 'who I am,' or 'Spot.' Names won't give what it is, > > and thoughts about that issue, once named, > > just keep one involved with one's own mentation processes. > > > > If I am involved in a relationship with my own mentation, > > thinking I'm closing in on truth, > > I am trying to substitute knowledge for " what is, " images > > for " what is. " > > > > So, what is this beyond a relationship with one's own production > > of images, words, feelings? > > > > If you are clear on this, then what becomes of time, space, > > choice, and the observer? There is no concern about > > observing the choice to choose, or anything else. > > All such notions are gone. > > > > This is known first-hand, not a matter of reading something > > in a book or on-line, hearing something from a teacher, > > getting the results that are approved of by > > a philosophy or in a religion. > > > > -- Dan > > > > There was a tribe.....in Micronesia that never developed a spoken language. The anthropologists named the Kaepson group. Instead of verbalizations....they carved little figures to represent different aspects of their reality. The figure for monkey....was shaped like a little monkey........The figure for a little tree was always smaller then the figure carved to represent a big tree. There was general agreement and harmony when converstions evolved around the areas of procuring food and shelter.......but there was always some stress whenever they tried to discuss things like God.....truth.....and love...... They never were able to agree on what the figures for these things should be shaped like........... Its a shame....they are no longer with us........They were sweet little people. :-( toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: .... > There was a tribe.....in Micronesia that never developed a spoken language. The anthropologists named the Kaepson group. > > Instead of verbalizations....they carved little figures to represent different aspects of their reality. > > The figure for monkey....was shaped like a little monkey........The figure for a little tree was always smaller then the figure carved to represent a big tree. > > > There was general agreement and harmony when converstions evolved around the areas of procuring food and shelter.......but there was always some stress whenever they tried to discuss things like God.....truth.....and love...... > > > They never were able to agree on what the figures for these things should be shaped like........... > > > Its a shame....they are no longer with us........They were sweet little people. > > > :-( > > > toombaru Why did'nt they carve an alphabet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > ... > > > There was a tribe.....in Micronesia that never developed a spoken > language. The anthropologists named the Kaepson group. > > > > Instead of verbalizations....they carved little figures to represent > different aspects of their reality. > > > > The figure for monkey....was shaped like a little monkey........The > figure for a little tree was always smaller then the figure carved to > represent a big tree. > > > > > > There was general agreement and harmony when converstions evolved > around the areas of procuring food and shelter.......but there was > always some stress whenever they tried to discuss things like > God.....truth.....and love...... > > > > > > They never were able to agree on what the figures for these things > should be shaped like........... > > > > > > Its a shame....they are no longer with us........They were sweet > little people. > > > > > > :-( > > > > > > toombaru > > Why did'nt they carve an alphabet? Well...... then all they would have would be symbols for symbols. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > ... > > > > > There was a tribe.....in Micronesia that never developed a spoken > > language. The anthropologists named the Kaepson group. > > > > > > Instead of verbalizations....they carved little figures to represent > > different aspects of their reality. > > > > > > The figure for monkey....was shaped like a little monkey........The > > figure for a little tree was always smaller then the figure carved to > > represent a big tree. > > > > > > > > > There was general agreement and harmony when converstions evolved > > around the areas of procuring food and shelter.......but there was > > always some stress whenever they tried to discuss things like > > God.....truth.....and love...... > > > > > > > > > They never were able to agree on what the figures for these things > > should be shaped like........... > > > > > > > > > Its a shame....they are no longer with us........They were sweet > > little people. > > > > > > > > > :-( > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Why did'nt they carve an alphabet? > > > > Well...... then all they would have would be symbols for symbols. as opposed to symbols for realities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > There was a tribe.....in Micronesia that never developed a spoken > > > language. The anthropologists named the Kaepson group. > > > > > > > > Instead of verbalizations....they carved little figures to represent > > > different aspects of their reality. > > > > > > > > The figure for monkey....was shaped like a little monkey........The > > > figure for a little tree was always smaller then the figure carved to > > > represent a big tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > There was general agreement and harmony when converstions evolved > > > around the areas of procuring food and shelter.......but there was > > > always some stress whenever they tried to discuss things like > > > God.....truth.....and love...... > > > > > > > > > > > > They never were able to agree on what the figures for these things > > > should be shaped like........... > > > > > > > > > > > > Its a shame....they are no longer with us........They were sweet > > > little people. > > > > > > > > > > > > :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Why did'nt they carve an alphabet? > > > > > > > > Well...... then all they would have would be symbols for symbols. > > as opposed to symbols for realities? The only reality that some thing has to the mind resides in the symbol that represents it. It may have a reality outside of mind....but mind can never " know " it in any form other then as a symbol. The word.......creates the thing. Mind and things and not different. Things exist only in mind. t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > There was a tribe.....in Micronesia that never developed a spoken > > > > language. The anthropologists named the Kaepson group. > > > > > > > > > > Instead of verbalizations....they carved little figures to represent > > > > different aspects of their reality. > > > > > > > > > > The figure for monkey....was shaped like a little monkey........The > > > > figure for a little tree was always smaller then the figure carved to > > > > represent a big tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was general agreement and harmony when converstions evolved > > > > around the areas of procuring food and shelter.......but there was > > > > always some stress whenever they tried to discuss things like > > > > God.....truth.....and love...... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They never were able to agree on what the figures for these things > > > > should be shaped like........... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its a shame....they are no longer with us........They were sweet > > > > little people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Why did'nt they carve an alphabet? > > > > > > > > > > > > Well...... then all they would have would be symbols for symbols. > > > > as opposed to symbols for realities? > > > > The only reality that some thing has to the > mind resides in the symbol that represents it. > > It may have a reality outside of mind....but mind can never " know " it in any form other then as a symbol. > > > The word.......creates the thing. > Mind and things and not different. > Things exist only in mind. > > > t. did you say " may have a reality outside the mind " or " exist only in mind " ? ooooooh god i'm confused! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 In a message dated 1/20/05 11:36:38 PM, cptc writes: > The word.......creates the thing. > Mind and things and not different. > Things exist only in mind. > > > t. > > P: And where does mind exist? Inside of a turtle? And what is outside of that turtle? or is it turtles inside turtles ad infinitum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > There was a tribe.....in Micronesia that never developed a > spoken > > > > > language. The anthropologists named the Kaepson group. > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of verbalizations....they carved little figures to > represent > > > > > different aspects of their reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > The figure for monkey....was shaped like a little > monkey........The > > > > > figure for a little tree was always smaller then the figure > carved to > > > > > represent a big tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was general agreement and harmony when converstions > evolved > > > > > around the areas of procuring food and shelter.......but there was > > > > > always some stress whenever they tried to discuss things like > > > > > God.....truth.....and love...... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They never were able to agree on what the figures for these > things > > > > > should be shaped like........... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its a shame....they are no longer with us........They were sweet > > > > > little people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Why did'nt they carve an alphabet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well...... then all they would have would be symbols for symbols. > > > > > > as opposed to symbols for realities? > > > > > > > > The only reality that some thing has to the > > mind resides in the symbol that represents it. > > > > It may have a reality outside of mind....but mind can never " know " > it in any form other then as a symbol. > > > > > > The word.......creates the thing. > > Mind and things and not different. > > Things exist only in mind. > > > > > > t. > > did you say > " may have a reality outside the mind " > or > " exist only in mind " > ? > ooooooh god i'm confused! mind and objects.......are the same do you see why mind has a hard time finding or defining itself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a tribe.....in Micronesia that never developed a > > spoken > > > > > > language. The anthropologists named the Kaepson group. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of verbalizations....they carved little figures to > > represent > > > > > > different aspects of their reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The figure for monkey....was shaped like a little > > monkey........The > > > > > > figure for a little tree was always smaller then the figure > > carved to > > > > > > represent a big tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was general agreement and harmony when converstions > > evolved > > > > > > around the areas of procuring food and shelter.......but there was > > > > > > always some stress whenever they tried to discuss things like > > > > > > God.....truth.....and love...... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They never were able to agree on what the figures for these > > things > > > > > > should be shaped like........... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its a shame....they are no longer with us........They were sweet > > > > > > little people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > Why did'nt they carve an alphabet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well...... then all they would have would be symbols for symbols. > > > > > > > > as opposed to symbols for realities? > > > > > > > > > > > > The only reality that some thing has to the > > > mind resides in the symbol that represents it. > > > > > > It may have a reality outside of mind....but mind can never " know " > > it in any form other then as a symbol. > > > > > > > > > The word.......creates the thing. > > > Mind and things and not different. > > > Things exist only in mind. > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > did you say > > " may have a reality outside the mind " > > or > > " exist only in mind " > > ? > > ooooooh god i'm confused! > > > mind and objects.......are the same > > > do you see why mind has a hard time finding or defining itself? it has made itself into an object....and then goes searching for itself....... kinda funny .......huh?.... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a tribe.....in Micronesia that never developed a > > spoken > > > > > > language. The anthropologists named the Kaepson group. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of verbalizations....they carved little figures to > > represent > > > > > > different aspects of their reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The figure for monkey....was shaped like a little > > monkey........The > > > > > > figure for a little tree was always smaller then the figure > > carved to > > > > > > represent a big tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was general agreement and harmony when converstions > > evolved > > > > > > around the areas of procuring food and shelter.......but there was > > > > > > always some stress whenever they tried to discuss things like > > > > > > God.....truth.....and love...... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They never were able to agree on what the figures for these > > things > > > > > > should be shaped like........... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its a shame....they are no longer with us........They were sweet > > > > > > little people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > Why did'nt they carve an alphabet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well...... then all they would have would be symbols for symbols. > > > > > > > > as opposed to symbols for realities? > > > > > > > > > > > > The only reality that some thing has to the > > > mind resides in the symbol that represents it. > > > > > > It may have a reality outside of mind....but mind can never " know " > > it in any form other then as a symbol. > > > > > > > > > The word.......creates the thing. > > > Mind and things and not different. > > > Things exist only in mind. > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > did you say > > " may have a reality outside the mind " > > or > > " exist only in mind " > > ? > > ooooooh god i'm confused! > > > mind and objects.......are the same > > > do you see why mind has a hard time finding or defining itself? nope because my mind has no hard time defining anything at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > .... > > do you see why mind has a hard time finding or defining itself? > > > it has made itself into an object....and then goes searching for itself....... > > > kinda funny .......huh?.... > > > toombaru and whatta yo planna do abouta itta? (Zippo Marx?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/20/05 11:36:38 PM, cptc@w... writes: > > > > The word.......creates the thing. > > Mind and things and not different. > > Things exist only in mind. > > > > > > t. > > > > > > P: And where does mind exist? Inside of a turtle? > And what is outside of that turtle? or is it > turtles inside turtles ad infinitum. A: And where does the turtle exist? Is the image of the turtle in one's eyes, one's mind, or in the turtle? 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.