Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > 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 ? You can't, that's the point. You can't transcend yourself. You can only die, give way, dissolve. And talk about being the great " I AM " only continues the futile attempt. So, thanks for asking that question. It's right on. The constructor is the contruction. They are not separate. Including the construction of the great I AM. I is a center. Am is an attempt to exist. I AM gives way, dies, opens, dissolves. So, the constructor and construction dissolve together, a mere transitory event that can't maintain localization. Including the great I AM. > BTW, what and `why' are you still `debating', Dan ? > > regards, > ac. It's not a debate Arvind. It's a dialogue in which I am providing the NO to your AFFIRMATION, the NOT-I and NONBEING to your great I AM. It's poetry more than debate, at least in my eyes. And, by the way, there is no territory that the words indicate, but which aren't the words. Words only indicate other words. Just like self can only indicate self. That is why the NO to the YES works so well. Thanks for the dialogue! -- Dan (nothing new below) > > > > > > 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 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 [........] >>> BTW, what and `why' are you still `debating', Dan ? This is why, I asked you this question, Dan. About 3 messages ago in the same thread, I asked you perhaps, a Very Simple question and then I even repeated it. You haven't answered it. Yet, you have been presenting your ideas on ...assumes sense, inability of words ... Whereas, answer to the question might be pretty simple and straight and might require No elaborate logic. Just little Courage should be enough. If you can NOT try to honestly and sincerely this question in straight and simple terms, I ask ....Why, you are still `debating', Dan. Here is the question again: ============ 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 ? =========== [........] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 [...........] I AM. Knowing it requires ...Nothing, No Effort, no external aid ... But, to deny and repeatedly argue against it, ...might require something. Let us examine, few of them. Please allow me to present few possibilities in very straight way. I am discussing in just a `general' term and they may or may not be related to you, Dan. I AM .....to keep trying to present arguments and arguments after it might require: --------- a Severely MANIPULATIVE Mind. One that will try its best to twist, spin everything possible in an effort to get its goal. ----------- a COWARD, that would do anything to Save its face, which it might view as losing if it accepts it. ----------- a LOST philosopher who has got so lost in his philosophy that it automatically start repeating few words such as ...assumption, thinking, words, affirmation, negation, die, ...in varied order. No matter what is being discussed and how greatly simple or complex it might be. --------- a Manipulative mind HOPING to win a debate by making it too Time Consuming, boring, frustrating by arguing against extremely simple and self-evident facts or by drawing irrelevant repeated philosophical circles one after the other. ---------- a person who is Stupid beyond stupidity. A person who just automatically hears and mouths few words but ....understands nothing. Consider the case of trying to argue with a electronic toy which can not hear or understand. It has about 100 phrases that would say in a random No matter what is said. In all the above cases, ...any Honest, Sincere, Open, real discussion is Not possible. ...... .... .. However, it is possible that you have some other reason to keep arguing against it and I would be very glad and interested in hearing them. With warm regards, ac. [.......] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 [..........] > > >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 ? >You can't, that's the point. >You can't transcend yourself. >You can only die, give way, dissolve. .....and, why would I have ANY Interest in dying, Dan ? Even if it was a possibility ...? Or, are assuming or talking about some `special' philosophical kind of bizarre dying, ...in which, I would die but still live ... So, I think a natural to ask would be: ---- Are you DEAD, Dan? If No, ...why do you advise me to die. If Yes, ... [............] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > [........] > > > >>> BTW, what and `why' are you still `debating', Dan ? > > This is why, I asked you this question, Dan. > > About 3 messages ago in the same thread, I asked you perhaps, a Very > Simple question and then I even repeated it. > > You haven't answered it. Yet, you have been presenting your ideas > on ...assumes sense, inability of words ... > > Whereas, answer to the question might be pretty simple and straight > and might require No elaborate logic. Just little Courage should be > enough. > > If you can NOT try to honestly and sincerely this question in > straight and simple terms, I ask ....Why, you are still `debating', > Dan. Here is the question again: > > ============ > > 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 ? > > =========== > > [........] ** It's a set-up. Your so-called questions come from the answers (you imagine) you have. It's a pointless exercise, since Arvind is really the question/problem/dilemma for you. Your struggle to have answers, to have continuity/ permanence/location... ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > [...........] > > > I AM. > > Knowing it requires ...Nothing, No Effort, no external aid ... > > But, to deny and repeatedly argue against it, ...might require > something. Let us examine, few of them. > > Please allow me to present few possibilities in very straight way. I > am discussing in just a `general' term and they may or may not be > related to you, Dan. > > I AM > > ....to keep trying to present arguments and arguments after it might > require: > > > --------- a Severely MANIPULATIVE Mind. One that will try its best to > twist, spin everything possible in an effort to get its goal. > > > ----------- a COWARD, that would do anything to Save its face, which > it might view as losing if it accepts it. > > > ----------- a LOST philosopher who has got so lost in his philosophy > that it automatically start repeating few words such > as ...assumption, thinking, words, affirmation, negation, die, ...in > varied order. No matter what is being discussed and how greatly > simple or complex it might be. > > > > --------- a Manipulative mind HOPING to win a debate by making it too > Time Consuming, boring, frustrating by arguing against extremely > simple and self-evident facts or by drawing irrelevant repeated > philosophical circles one after the other. > > > ---------- a person who is Stupid beyond stupidity. A person who just > automatically hears and mouths few words but ....understands nothing. > > Consider the case of trying to argue with a electronic toy which can > not hear or understand. > > It has about 100 phrases that would say in a random No matter what is > said. > > > > > In all the above cases, ...any Honest, Sincere, Open, real discussion > is Not possible. > > ..... > ... > . > > However, it is possible that you have some other reason to keep > arguing against it and I would be very glad and interested in hearing > them. > > > With warm regards, > ac. *** getting desparate, hmmm? Good! keep accusing others of what you're in fact doing.... keep repeating 'I AM'...ad nauseum. BE that nausea.... notice that it's the *un*-reality that requires repeated attempts...ongoing investments of energy... investments believed to be 'effortless'... how many posts a day...to how many lists? how much 'attention'? is Arvind fully 'established' yet? ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 [......] > > > *** getting desparate, hmmm? Good! > > keep accusing others of what you're in fact doing.... > > keep repeating 'I AM'...ad nauseum. > BE that nausea.... > > notice that it's the *un*-reality that requires repeated > attempts...ongoing investments of energy... > > investments believed to be 'effortless'... > > how many posts a day...to how many lists? > how much 'attention'? > is Arvind fully 'established' yet? I am NOT discussing ...'Arvind' in this thread, Kenji. `Arvind' might be an interesting thing to discuss but, it is not the topic, I am discussing in this thread. ...... .... .. Are you `worried' about something or somebody getting established, ...somewhere, Kenji? Because, by its very definition, ...if an `establishment', `established' has to be ...Temporary. What can be `established' can be also ...'un-established'. .. .... ...... BTW, if you want to say something about what is discussed, then, it might be a good idea to read the entire thread and understand WHAT ...is that, which is discussed. ..... .... .. Understanding, what and where Arvind might want to `end' something might be much, much simpler than you think. He might wish to spend only limited hours ---say, two on the Net and he might need to what is ...'useful', `honest', `sincere', and ...what is just `futile', `drawing circles and trying to make something very simple, ...complex', ... > > > ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > [..........] > > > > > >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 ? > > >You can't, that's the point. > > >You can't transcend yourself. > > >You can only die, give way, dissolve. > > ....and, why would I have ANY Interest in dying, Dan ? Even if it was > a possibility ...? > > > Or, are assuming or talking about some `special' philosophical kind > of bizarre dying, ...in which, I would die but still live ... > > So, I think a natural to ask would be: > > ---- Are you DEAD, Dan? > > If No, ...why do you advise me to die. > > > If Yes, ... ** Haven't you noticed? Each and every moment dies...now. And (...) Lives. yes, we imagine we could be outside of ...this moment...this dying...but... > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > [........] > > > > > > >>> BTW, what and `why' are you still `debating', Dan ? > > > > This is why, I asked you this question, Dan. > > > > About 3 messages ago in the same thread, I asked you perhaps, a > Very > > Simple question and then I even repeated it. > > > > You haven't answered it. Yet, you have been presenting your ideas > > on ...assumes sense, inability of words ... > > > > Whereas, answer to the question might be pretty simple and > straight > > and might require No elaborate logic. Just little Courage should > be > > enough. > > > > If you can NOT try to honestly and sincerely this question in > > straight and simple terms, I ask ....Why, you are still > `debating', > > Dan. Here is the question again: > > > > ============ > > > > 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 ? > > > > =========== > > > > [........] > > ** It's a set-up. > > Your so-called questions come from the > answers (you imagine) you have. > > It's a pointless exercise, Or, is the Above just a blank, Very COMMONN and Cowardice way to respond to any question, ...that you do NOT want to answer ? Haven't we all heard this sort of remarks over and over again many politicians and ...other CHEATS, Dear Kenji ? Just a question, dear Kenji ... What you think ? >since Arvind is > really the question/problem/dilemma for you. > > Your struggle to have answers, to have continuity/ > permanence/location... > > ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > [..........] > > > > > > > > >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 ? > > > > >You can't, that's the point. > > > > >You can't transcend yourself. > > > > >You can only die, give way, dissolve. > > > > ....and, why would I have ANY Interest in dying, Dan ? Even if it > was > > a possibility ...? > > > > > > Or, are assuming or talking about some `special' philosophical > kind > > of bizarre dying, ...in which, I would die but still live ... > > > > So, I think a natural to ask would be: > > > > ---- Are you DEAD, Dan? > > > > If No, ...why do you advise me to die. > > > > > > If Yes, ... > > > ** Haven't you noticed? > > Each and every moment dies...now. > And (...) Lives. Who notices it, ...dear Kenji? > > yes, we imagine we could be outside > of ...this moment...this dying...but... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> wrote: > > > ** Haven't you noticed? > > Each and every moment dies...now. > And (...) Lives. > > yes, we imagine we could be outside > of ...this moment...this dying...but... and yes, we imagine that we are only inside...this moment...this dying...but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > [......] > > > > > > > > *** getting desparate, hmmm? Good! > > > > keep accusing others of what you're in fact doing.... > > > > keep repeating 'I AM'...ad nauseum. > > BE that nausea.... > > > > notice that it's the *un*-reality that requires repeated > > attempts...ongoing investments of energy... > > > > investments believed to be 'effortless'... > > > > how many posts a day...to how many lists? > > how much 'attention'? > > is Arvind fully 'established' yet? > > I am NOT discussing ...'Arvind' in this thread, Kenji. > > `Arvind' might be an interesting thing to discuss but, it is not the > topic, I am discussing in this thread. ** That's all you can do, Arvind...examine what you're up to... or, " know thyself. " You'll never know reality, or experience it. You can't even become aware-of what is never not 'so.' > > ..... > ... > . > > Are you `worried' about something or somebody getting > established, ...somewhere, Kenji? > > Because, by its very definition, ...if > an `establishment', `established' has to be ...Temporary. > > What can be `established' can be also ...'un-established'. ** Well, that's the point: nothing is ever established... even temporally. Where would it be established, when would it be? Time and space and Arvind/Ken are just constructs. > > . > ... > ..... > > BTW, if you want to say something about what is discussed, then, it > might be a good idea to read the entire thread and understand > WHAT ...is that, which is discussed. ** I was addressing what underlies all your 'discussions.' > What all your 'interpretations' revolve around...sorry. ;D > > .... > ... > . > > Understanding, what and where Arvind might want to `end' something > might be much, much simpler than you think. > > He might wish to spend only limited hours ---say, two on the Net and > he might need to what is ...'useful', `honest', `sincere', > and ...what is just `futile', `drawing circles and trying to make > something very simple, ...complex', ... ** I'm sure you can find a way to manage, so you can 'get out of it what you want'...in two hours...lol. > > > > > > > > ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > [..........] > > > > > > > > > > > >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 ? > > > > > > >You can't, that's the point. > > > > > > >You can't transcend yourself. > > > > > > >You can only die, give way, dissolve. > > > > > > ....and, why would I have ANY Interest in dying, Dan ? Even if it > > was > > > a possibility ...? > > > > > > > > > Or, are assuming or talking about some `special' philosophical > > kind > > > of bizarre dying, ...in which, I would die but still live ... > > > > > > So, I think a natural to ask would be: > > > > > > ---- Are you DEAD, Dan? > > > > > > If No, ...why do you advise me to die. > > > > > > > > > If Yes, ... > > > > > > ** Haven't you noticed? > > > > Each and every moment dies...now. > > And (...) Lives. > > Who notices it, ...dear Kenji? ** Find out!! Nobody's got anything but concepts to dispense here... ;D > > > > > > > > yes, we imagine we could be outside > > of ...this moment...this dying...but... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > > > > >>> BTW, what and `why' are you still `debating', Dan ? > > > > > > This is why, I asked you this question, Dan. > > > > > > About 3 messages ago in the same thread, I asked you perhaps, a > > Very > > > Simple question and then I even repeated it. > > > > > > You haven't answered it. Yet, you have been presenting your ideas > > > on ...assumes sense, inability of words ... > > > > > > Whereas, answer to the question might be pretty simple and > > straight > > > and might require No elaborate logic. Just little Courage should > > be > > > enough. > > > > > > If you can NOT try to honestly and sincerely this question in > > > straight and simple terms, I ask ....Why, you are still > > `debating', > > > Dan. Here is the question again: > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > 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 ? > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > [........] > > > > ** It's a set-up. > > > > Your so-called questions come from the > > answers (you imagine) you have. > > > > It's a pointless exercise, > > > Or, is the Above just a blank, Very COMMONN and Cowardice way to > respond to any question, ...that you do NOT want to answer ? ** I've got nothing ultimate to say, Arvind. There's no answer-word for " what is always? " I ain't avoiding... > > > Haven't we all heard this sort of remarks over and over again many > politicians and ...other CHEATS, Dear Kenji ? > > > Just a question, dear Kenji ... > > What you think ? ** > > > > >since Arvind is > > really the question/problem/dilemma for you. > > > > Your struggle to have answers, to have continuity/ > > permanence/location... > > > > ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 >>** That's all you can do, Arvind...examine what you're up to... or, " know thyself. " NOT ...knowing myself is ...NOT ...a Possibility ! >>You'll never know reality, or experience it. You can't even become aware-of what is never not 'so.' ....and, if you read the message, you might see, I am not talking about some reality, ...or un-reality which might require theory, concepts, words, thinking, imagination, senses, feeling, ...whatever, But, ---- I AM ---- that ALWAYS ....IS. Which requires No proof, but, ---- I AM --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 > > > Each and every moment dies...now. > > >And (...) Lives. >> Who notices it, ...dear Kenji? >** Find out!! Should I ** Find out!!** for you, dear Kenji ? Since, you were making statement about dies and lives ..., shouldn't you take responsibility to letting us know, ...HOW YOU KNOW THAT ? WHO notices it? I already expressed some of what, ...I have found out ... I might express little more... But, should not you answer, about the basis and source of your statement ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 [.....] > > > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > > > 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 ? > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > ** It's a set-up. > > > > > > Your so-called questions come from the > > > answers (you imagine) you have. > > > > > > It's a pointless exercise, > > > > > > Or, is the Above just a blank, Very COMMONN and Cowardice way to > > respond to any question, ...that you do NOT want to answer ? > > ** I've got nothing ultimate to say, Arvind. > There's no answer-word for " what is always? " ....Well then, for you, perhaps, it might be ok to wait UNTIL you find out, ....What is Always. I on the other hand, can say with complete honesty, truthfulness and confidence and I know of NO Moment when there is no ... ---- I AM ---- [.......] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > [.....] > > > > > > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > > > > > 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 ? > > > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > > > ** It's a set-up. > > > > > > > > Your so-called questions come from the > > > > answers (you imagine) you have. > > > > > > > > It's a pointless exercise, > > > > > > > > > Or, is the Above just a blank, Very COMMONN and Cowardice way to > > > respond to any question, ...that you do NOT want to answer ? > > > > ** I've got nothing ultimate to say, Arvind. > > There's no answer-word for " what is always? " > > ...Well then, for you, perhaps, it might be ok to wait UNTIL you find > out, ....What is Always. > > I on the other hand, can say with complete honesty, truthfulness and > confidence and I know of NO Moment when there is no ... > > ---- I AM ---- > > > > [.......] When you look in a mirror.....is there ever a time when you do not see your own image? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 > > When you look in a mirror.....is there ever a time when you do not see your own image? > Yes. If I close my eyes ... ...... .... .. BTW, I am talking about that, which might ...*LOOK* into the mirror ! ....Not about the shadow or ...the mirror. .. .... ...... ---- I AM --- ....that might look into mirror. that may not ...look into the mirror. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > When you look in a mirror.....is there ever a time when you do not > see your own image? > > > Yes. If I close my eyes ... If you close your eyes....you are not looking into the mirror. t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " > <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So now what do I do with this information that you claim > > > > > does not/cannot exist because according to your rules it > can't > > > be > > > > > done? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the end of most satsangs...........after the mandatory > quiet > > > time........someone in the > > > > back row holds up their hand and says........ sheepishly, > > > > > > > > " I understand what you are saying.....but what do you suggest > that > > > I do? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The teacher smiles.....and heads toward the table where the > books > > > are being sold. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > ------------------ > > > > > > oooooh, I get it now, you do/come on a computer forum/board > and > > > play a different kind of a game with little typing fingers. > > > > > > are you having fun yet? > > > > > > you have mental gymnastics 101 almost down pat. twisting words > back > > > and forth upon each other until they make no sense at all. but > then > > > again, but then again, I forgot, there is no such thing as > common > > > sense. > > > > > > Again, toombaru you have not so cleverly side-tracked the issue > by > > > diverting the issue. The question was: You've made up different > > > rules to your game and decide that's how it shall be played. > > > > > > You are still playing a game, but now you feel very high and > mighty > > > and consider yourself to be going to the almighty table where > *your* > > > books are being sold. These books are very special because in > them > > > hold *your* rules to *your* game. > > > > > > Alas, if I don't play it I'm considered the stupid student who > > > doesn't get it. > > > > > > lol > > > > > > ~G. > > > --------------- > > > > > > > > Not at all. > > > > > > > > This bloody ground terrifies all but the few....the most > courageous...... > > > > > > > toombaru > ---------------------------- Actually, how can it be " bloody " if it doesn't exist for the non- dual practitioners/devotees? One persons bloody is another persons beauty...it all depends on which side of the coin one is viewing it from. Hence the rules begin to emit to help one cope through the bloodiness and experience more of the beauty stuff. When one takes into account both sides of the coin and then views them together at the same time, separate and together one can see beyond the need for identifying the real or the un. hence, Judi Rhodes version that her rules of the game are *thee* ones to adhere to and everybody else's are only pathetic clearly shows that she is playing a game too. None better or worse,,,,just different sides of the coin. (well, except that she's all for blowing peoples brains out with a gun, hey whatever floats your boat.) Hence y'all make up your rules and hide behind the non-rules and pretend there are no rules and that there is no game because everything is only illusion and yadda, yadda, yadda, on and on it goes. Your rules toombaru aren't so difficult to see through. your skirt is not so hard to pull up. It's always easier to see up somebody elses skirt but if your very double jointed you can eventually see up your own. You cling to a rule now that says you can't *know* yourself (paraphrasing).... just a not-so-clever way of hiding so you never really confront and that way get to play the on-going game that you really won't claim your playing. perhaps non-duality religion is one of the more difficult **illusions** to identify of all. ~G. ------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 > ---------------------------- > > Actually, how can it be " bloody " if it doesn't exist for the non- > dual practitioners/devotees? > > One persons bloody is another persons beauty...it all depends on > which side of the coin one is viewing it from. Hence the rules > begin to emit to help one cope through the bloodiness and experience > more of the beauty stuff. > > When one takes into account both sides of the coin and then views > them together at the same time, separate and together one can see > beyond the need for identifying the real or the un. > > hence, Judi Rhodes version that her rules of the game are *thee* > ones to adhere to and everybody else's are only pathetic clearly > shows that she is playing a game too. None better or worse,,,,just > different sides of the coin. (well, except that she's all for > blowing peoples brains out with a gun, hey whatever floats your > boat.) > > Hence y'all make up your rules and hide behind the non-rules and > pretend there are no rules and that there is no game because > everything is only illusion and yadda, yadda, yadda, on and on it > goes. > > Your rules toombaru aren't so difficult to see through. your skirt > is not so hard to pull up. It's always easier to see up somebody > elses skirt but if your very double jointed you can eventually see > up your own. You cling to a rule now that says you can't *know* > yourself (paraphrasing).... > just a not-so-clever way of hiding so you never really confront and > that way get to play the on-going game that you really won't claim > your playing. > > perhaps non-duality religion is one of the more difficult > **illusions** to identify of all. > > > ~G. > ------------- Well,,,,,that and love....now don't get me started on love....whew! what an illusion that one is. And yet it can feel so nice to be loved. I love you too toombaru. What would humans do without that ole emotion of love. Not that it necessarily teaches them anything that evolves them past war but it sure can feel nice and fuzzy and people do like those warm fuzzy sweaters to cling on to. ~G. ----- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > > ---------------------------- > > > > Actually, how can it be " bloody " if it doesn't exist for the non- > > dual practitioners/devotees? > > > > One persons bloody is another persons beauty...it all depends on > > which side of the coin one is viewing it from. Hence the rules > > begin to emit to help one cope through the bloodiness and > experience > > more of the beauty stuff. > > > > When one takes into account both sides of the coin and then views > > them together at the same time, separate and together one can see > > beyond the need for identifying the real or the un. > > > > hence, Judi Rhodes version that her rules of the game are *thee* > > ones to adhere to and everybody else's are only pathetic clearly > > shows that she is playing a game too. None better or worse,,,,just > > different sides of the coin. (well, except that she's all for > > blowing peoples brains out with a gun, hey whatever floats your > > boat.) > > > > Hence y'all make up your rules and hide behind the non-rules and > > pretend there are no rules and that there is no game because > > everything is only illusion and yadda, yadda, yadda, on and on it > > goes. > > > > Your rules toombaru aren't so difficult to see through. your skirt > > is not so hard to pull up. It's always easier to see up somebody > > elses skirt but if your very double jointed you can eventually see > > up your own. You cling to a rule now that says you can't *know* > > yourself (paraphrasing).... > > just a not-so-clever way of hiding so you never really confront and > > that way get to play the on-going game that you really won't claim > > your playing. > > > > perhaps non-duality religion is one of the more difficult > > **illusions** to identify of all. > > > > > > ~G. > > ------------- > > Well,,,,,that and love....now don't get me started on love....whew! > what an illusion that one is. And yet it can feel so nice to be > loved. > > I love you too toombaru. What would humans do without that ole > emotion of love. Not that it necessarily teaches them anything that > evolves them past war but it sure can feel nice and fuzzy and people > do like those warm fuzzy sweaters to cling on to. > > ~G. > ----- yes........love is good. thank you toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > >>** That's all you can do, Arvind...examine what you're up to... > or, " know thyself. " > > NOT ...knowing myself is ...NOT ...a Possibility ! > > > >>You'll never know reality, or experience it. You can't even > become aware-of what is never not 'so.' > > ...and, if you read the message, you might see, I am not talking > about some reality, ...or un-reality which might require theory, > concepts, words, thinking, imagination, senses, feeling, ...whatever, > > But, > > > ---- I AM ---- > > > that ALWAYS ....IS. > > > > > Which requires No proof, but, > > ---- I AM --- ** Still an investment in a conceptual reality. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > Each and every moment dies...now. > > > >And (...) Lives. > > >> Who notices it, ...dear Kenji? > > >** Find out!! > > Should I ** Find out!!** for you, dear Kenji ? > > > > Since, you were making statement about dies and lives ..., shouldn't > you take responsibility to letting us know, ...HOW YOU KNOW THAT ? > WHO notices it? > > I already expressed some of what, ...I have found out ... > > I might express little more... > > > But, should not you answer, about the basis and source of your > statement ? ** Inquiry, Arvind. No need for infinite regression on the " who " business. It's already contained in (non-dual) inquiry, where it's not me/you as inquirer or my/your inquiry. ken 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.