Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a passing thought configuration -- nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > It is .... NOT ....a Thought ! > > > > > > > > It sure is. Otherwise, it would have no verbal meaning. > > > > > > Who said anything about about ...having Verbal meaning or Not. > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > Sorry, I thought it would be simple enough for you to realize > > that you are using words that have verbal meaning. > > What other than `words' I can use on a " text-based " forum ? > > > Should I use the words that have NO Verbal Meaning ? No, that not my point, Arvind. To further clarify: The meaning of the word " I " depends on something else that is " not-I. " Otherwise, the word has no meaning. " Am " as a form of " to be " requires " nonbeing " -- otherwise it has no meaning. Therefore, " I AM " is no answer. As an affirmation of some ultimate reality, it is released, along with thoughts that one needs or should have access to some kind of ultimate reality, or that one should be able to have a thought-construct that renders an ultimacy. > What purpose, that would serve ...? > > > > BTW, what meaning ---- I AM ---- has for you? > > > regards, > ac. An attempt to render ultimacy in terms of a personal pronoun and an assumed state of continuous being. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 --> > > BTW, what meaning ---- I AM ---- has for you? > > > > > > regards, > > ac. > > An attempt to render ultimacy in terms > of a personal pronoun and an assumed state of > continuous being. > > -- Dan nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > --> > > > BTW, what meaning ---- I AM ---- has for you? > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > ac. > > > > An attempt to render ultimacy in terms > > of a personal pronoun and an assumed state of > > continuous being. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > nice assumption Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > --> > > > > BTW, what meaning ---- I AM ---- has for you? > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > ac. > > > > > > An attempt to render ultimacy in terms > > > of a personal pronoun and an assumed state of > > > continuous being. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > nice > > assumption Lewis, Do you know what they say about assumptions? Assumptions make an ass out of Uma Thurman. t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > --> > > > > > BTW, what meaning ---- I AM ---- has for you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > ac. > > > > > > > > An attempt to render ultimacy in terms > > > > of a personal pronoun and an assumed state of > > > > continuous being. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nice > > > > assumption > > > > > > Lewis, > > > > > Do you know what they say about assumptions? No. What do they say Toom? > > Assumptions make an ass out of Uma Thurman. Ok. My assumption called you out, Toom and so Hi! It is always nice to see you as you are. Now is there something special in making assumptions, Toom? It seems that I unable not to assume stuff all the day long. How bout you Toom? Free from it, my sweetness. Are able to make a post without assuming, Toom? You may answer that if you choose or you can plead the no self. So by assuming, Uma Thurman is an ass and she is not and she is both and you know routine. Just drinking ac. and I am intoxicated with him and do not know what I am doing. Want a drink? > t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a passing thought configuration -- nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is .... NOT ....a Thought ! > > > > > > > > > > It sure is. Otherwise, it would have no verbal meaning. > > > > > > > > Who said anything about about ...having Verbal meaning or Not. > > > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > > > Sorry, I thought it would be simple enough for you to realize > > > that you are using words that have verbal meaning. > > > > What other than `words' I can use on a " text-based " forum ? > > > > > > Should I use the words that have NO Verbal Meaning ? > > No, that not my point, Arvind. > > To further clarify: > > The meaning of the word " I " depends on something else that is > " not-I. " Otherwise, the word has no meaning. > > " Am " as a form of " to be " requires " nonbeing " -- otherwise > it has no meaning. > > Therefore, " I AM " is no answer. As an affirmation of > some ultimate reality, it is released, along with thoughts > that one needs or should have access to some kind of > ultimate reality, or that one should be able to have a > thought-construct that renders an ultimacy. > > > What purpose, that would serve ...? > > > > > > > > BTW, what meaning ---- I AM ---- has for you? > > > > > > regards, > > ac. > > An attempt to render ultimacy in terms > of a personal pronoun and an assumed Any `assumption', `thought' `this', `that', ... requires ...it. EXISTING ...requires None of them. --- I AM --- requires none of them. .. .... ...... It is quite easy, Dan! .....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, Sincere and Open for a Moment. What any assuming, thinking requires. What is ...ALWAYS ...Present. What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of. WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS ? >state of > continuous being. > > -- Dan It is, --- ISNESS --- --- EXISTING --- --- BEING --- No matter, what word you use, ...it is possible to make attempt to turn it into a word-game. Play it if you like ... But, what is that, which is ...ALWAYS... there ? .....playing ...or ...Not. What is ...PRESENT ....when, assuming a Continuous Sense of Being. What is ...PRESENT ....when, assuming a Non-Continuous Sense of Being. What is ...PRESENT ....when, Not assuming anything. What is that ....which is PRESENT ...all the Time, ...without any Sadhana, inquiry, investigation, thinking, assuming, speculating, guessing ... What is that which, ...WHEN, ...doing any of the above and even ...WHEN ...NOT doing any of the Above. regards, ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a passing thought configuration -- nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is .... NOT ....a Thought ! > > > > > > > > > > > > It sure is. Otherwise, it would have no verbal meaning. > > > > > > > > > > Who said anything about about ...having Verbal meaning or Not. > > > > > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > > > > > Sorry, I thought it would be simple enough for you to realize > > > > that you are using words that have verbal meaning. > > > > > > What other than `words' I can use on a " text-based " forum ? > > > > > > > > > Should I use the words that have NO Verbal Meaning ? > > > > No, that not my point, Arvind. > > > > To further clarify: > > > > The meaning of the word " I " depends on something else that is > > " not-I. " Otherwise, the word has no meaning. > > > > " Am " as a form of " to be " requires " nonbeing " -- otherwise > > it has no meaning. > > > > Therefore, " I AM " is no answer. As an affirmation of > > some ultimate reality, it is released, along with thoughts > > that one needs or should have access to some kind of > > ultimate reality, or that one should be able to have a > > thought-construct that renders an ultimacy. > > > > > What purpose, that would serve ...? > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, what meaning ---- I AM ---- has for you? > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > ac. > > > > An attempt to render ultimacy in terms > > of a personal pronoun and an assumed > > Any `assumption', `thought' `this', `that', ... requires ...it. > > EXISTING ...requires None of them. > > --- I AM --- requires none of them. > > . > ... > ..... > > It is quite easy, Dan! > ....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, Sincere and Open > for a Moment. > > What any assuming, thinking requires. > > What is ...ALWAYS ...Present. > > What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of. > > WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS ? > > > > > >state of > > continuous being. > > > > -- Dan > > > It is, > > --- ISNESS --- > > --- EXISTING --- > > --- BEING --- > > > > > No matter, what word you use, ...it is possible to make attempt to > turn it into a word-game. > Play it if you like ... But, what is that, which is ...ALWAYS... there ? .....playing ...or ...Not. What is ...PRESENT ....when, assuming a Continuous Sense of Being. What is ...PRESENT ....when, assuming a Non-Continuous Sense of Being. What is ...PRESENT ....when, Not assuming anything. What is that ....which is PRESENT ...all the Time, ...without any Sadhana, inquiry, investigation, thinking, assuming, speculating, guessing ... What is that which is PRESENT, ...WHEN, ...doing any of the above and even ...WHEN ...NOT doing any of the Above. regards, ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a passing thought configuration -- nothing more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is .... NOT ....a Thought ! > > > > > > > > > > > > It sure is. Otherwise, it would have no verbal meaning. > > > > > > > > > > Who said anything about about ...having Verbal meaning or Not. > > > > > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > > > > > Sorry, I thought it would be simple enough for you to realize > > > > that you are using words that have verbal meaning. > > > > > > What other than `words' I can use on a " text-based " forum ? > > > > > > > > > Should I use the words that have NO Verbal Meaning ? > > > > No, that not my point, Arvind. > > > > To further clarify: > > > > The meaning of the word " I " depends on something else that is > > " not-I. " Otherwise, the word has no meaning. > > > > " Am " as a form of " to be " requires " nonbeing " -- otherwise > > it has no meaning. > > > > Therefore, " I AM " is no answer. As an affirmation of > > some ultimate reality, it is released, along with thoughts > > that one needs or should have access to some kind of > > ultimate reality, or that one should be able to have a > > thought-construct that renders an ultimacy. > > > > > What purpose, that would serve ...? > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, what meaning ---- I AM ---- has for you? > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > ac. > > > > An attempt to render ultimacy in terms > > of a personal pronoun and an assumed > > Any `assumption', `thought' `this', `that', ... requires ...it. > > EXISTING ...requires None of them. > > --- I AM --- requires none of them. > > . > ... > ..... > > It is quite easy, Dan! > ....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, Sincere and Open > for a Moment. > > What any assuming, thinking requires. > > What is ...ALWAYS ...Present. > > What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of. > > WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS ? > > > > > >state of > > continuous being. > > > > -- Dan > > > It is, > > --- ISNESS --- > > --- EXISTING --- > > --- BEING --- > > > > > No matter, what word you use, ...it is possible to make attempt to > turn it into a word-game. > > Play it if you like ... > > > > But, what is that, which is ...ALWAYS... there ? > ....playing ...or ...Not. > > What is ...PRESENT ....when, assuming a Continuous Sense of Being. > > What is ...PRESENT ....when, assuming a Non-Continuous Sense of > Being. > > What is ...PRESENT ....when, Not assuming anything. > > What is that ....which is PRESENT ...all the Time, ...without any > Sadhana, inquiry, investigation, thinking, assuming, speculating, > guessing ... > > > What is that which, ...WHEN, ...doing any of the above and > even ...WHEN ...NOT doing any of the Above. > > > > regards, > ac. No, Arvind, I'm not playing word games. We, as humans, interact here. We are not ultimate beings. When we try to present concepts of ultimacy, we lie to ourselves. We are not capable of holding a concept that represents ultimacy. And being clear about this situation, is insight. Not being clear about it, is avoidance. Which means that when human beings' spiritual practice and talk aims to convey ultimacy, the absolute -- avoidance and ignore-ance is required. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 > > No, Arvind, I'm not playing word games. > > We, as humans, interact here. > > We are not ultimate beings. > > When we try to present concepts of ultimacy, > we lie to ourselves. > > We are not capable of holding a concept that > represents ultimacy. > > And being clear about this situation, is insight. > > Not being clear about it, is avoidance. > > Which means that when human beings' spiritual practice and > talk aims to convey ultimacy, the absolute -- avoidance > and ignore-ance is required. > > -- Dan It might be much simpler than an idea or concept, Dan. As I aksed in the last ( now sniped by me ) message: -------------------- It is quite easy, Dan! .....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, Sincere and Open for a Moment. What any assuming, thinking requires. What is ...ALWAYS ...Present. What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of. WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS. --------------------- Call it anything, ...you want. Do not call it ...anything, if you don't want to. .. .... ...... People might use to talk about it, to present in a conversation. --- I AM --- is one way of calling it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > No, Arvind, I'm not playing word games. > > > > We, as humans, interact here. > > > > We are not ultimate beings. > > > > When we try to present concepts of ultimacy, > > we lie to ourselves. > > > > We are not capable of holding a concept that > > represents ultimacy. > > > > And being clear about this situation, is insight. > > > > Not being clear about it, is avoidance. > > > > Which means that when human beings' spiritual practice and > > talk aims to convey ultimacy, the absolute -- avoidance > > and ignore-ance is required. > > > > -- Dan > > It might be much simpler than an idea or concept, Dan. As I asked in the last ( now sniped by me ) message: -------------------- It is quite easy, Dan! .....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, Sincere and Open for a Moment. What any assuming, thinking requires. What is ...ALWAYS ...Present. What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of. WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS. --------------------- Call it anything, ...you want. Do not call it ...anything, if you don't want to. .. .... ...... People might use words to talk about it, to present in a conversation. --- I AM --- is one way of calling it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 > . > ... > ..... > > People might use words to talk about it, to present in a conversation. > > --- I AM --- is one way of calling it. I Am.....is the egoic dirge. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > People might use to talk about it, to present in a conversation. > > --- I AM --- is one way of calling it. They can't present it in conversation, which seems hard for you to acknowledge. There is no itness to it, so how can one refer in conversation? Whatever is referred to in human conversations is no more or less than humans conversing. And no words have any privilege to represent the absolute truth -- words can't do that. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > People might use to talk about it, to present in a conversation. > > > > --- I AM --- is one way of calling it. > >>They can't present `IT' in conversation, You can not really present `anything' in conversation, Dan ! Word `water' is NOT really ...water. Neither is word love ...LOVE. ....Nor is the word `Dan', ...Dan or word `ac' ...ac. Same goes for many other words. It is NOT possible to really present LOVE, HATE, water, moon, earths among many, many other things. Word are just symbols, pointers that point to ...them. People who engage in conversation understand that the word `water' is ...NOT really water and they can drink the ...word `water'. Same goes for many other words ... --- I AM --- >which > seems hard for you to acknowledge. > > There is no itness to it, so how can one > refer in conversation? > > Whatever is referred to in human conversations > is no more or less than humans conversing. > > And no words have any privilege to represent > the absolute truth -- words can't do that. > > -- Dan You use Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > People might use to talk about it, to present in a conversation. > > > > > > --- I AM --- is one way of calling it. > > > > > >>They can't present `IT' in conversation, > > You can not really present `anything' in conversation, Dan ! > > Word `water' is NOT really ...water. > > Neither is word love ...LOVE. > > ...Nor is the word `Dan', ...Dan or word `ac' ...ac. > > Same goes for many other words. So, why try to use words to beat a dead horse, when instead, you could get over your self? > It is NOT possible to really present LOVE, HATE, water, moon, earths > among many, many other things. > > Word are just symbols, pointers that point to ...them. > > > People who engage in conversation understand that the word `water' > is ...NOT really water and they can drink the ...word `water'. > > > Same goes for many other words ... > > > > --- I AM --- Get over yourself, Mr. the great I AM. :-) == Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > People might use to talk about it, to present in a conversation. > > > > > > > > --- I AM --- is one way of calling it. > > > > > > > > > >>They can't present `IT' in conversation, > > > > You can not really present `anything' in conversation, Dan ! > > > > Word `water' is NOT really ...water. > > > > Neither is word love ...LOVE. > > > > ...Nor is the word `Dan', ...Dan or word `ac' ...ac. > > > > Same goes for many other words. > > So, why try to use words to beat a dead horse, when > instead, you could get over your self? What a concept, Dan ! How can myself get over myself ? BTW, what and `why' are you still `debating', Dan ? regards, ac. > > > It is NOT possible to really present LOVE, HATE, water, moon, > earths > > among many, many other things. > > > > Word are just symbols, pointers that point to ...them. > > > > > > People who engage in conversation understand that the word `water' > > is ...NOT really water and they can drink the ...word `water'. > > > > > > Same goes for many other words ... > > > > > > > > --- I AM --- > > Get over yourself, Mr. the great I AM. > > :-) > > == Dan 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.