Wordless Wonder

[Guest guest]

>>Michael: Try the

>> affirmation 'Everything I know is wrong'

 

 

Ven. Niz: All these ideas of yours are binding you.

Once you understand there is no knowledge, that

it is all ignorance, you are on your proper

level.

 

 

You have the idea that I have this knowledge;

this is only an idea. Honestly speaking, there

is no knowledge whatsoever. It is beyond all

imagination, It has no attributes. It cannot

be imagined at all.

 

 

Without knowledge I am really very happy.

By entertaining the idea " I have all the knowledge, "

it increases day by day, but that knowledge has

no peace, no pleasure whatsoever. With several

attributes that knowledge is swimming about,

but I am not that knowledge. Every human being

is told that it is his bounden duty to

gain knowledge, but he will come to understand

that this knowledge is of no use at all

to gain his ultimate goal.

 

 

Making a bundle of your concepts.

you are busy in the world. Go beyond

the concepts and become idea-less.

 

 

Thousands of people come here; they will

utilize this knowledge as it suits them

only. This is not THE truth; it is the

Truth seen through their own concepts,

according to their own point of view.

This knowledge filtered through their own

point of view, is not knowledge, it

is only a point of view. "

-Seeds of Consciousness

[Guest guest]

Lewis wrote:

 

Have you prematurely closed your account

> with reality?

 

No. I do not have a view of reality at

all. It is beyond me. Simple

ignorance is a way of life for me. I

experience and go on. What I

experience is simple. The complexity is

only in the talking of it. And

the talking of it is only to give an

understanding and to that any

story will do, depending on what stories

are useful or accepted or

proffered at the moment, that which comes

out.

 

Your story is essentially

> a self referential one and is therefore

> closed in on itself.

 

Self-referential what does that mean? Does

it mean the use of " I " in

relating the story. Then of course it is.

That is for you to think or

not to think of in your way and in your

experience of my words. What

you read in them is what you are. You do

not know me. I have been here

long enough for you to know what " I " and

" me " stands for. I have said

it many times. That you do not believe it

or know it is

understandable. You make of what is said

as you do as others will do.

That it is closed in on itself or not

makes no difference.

 

You need an

> innoculation of doubt.

 

What doubt is necessary when nothing is

known except as an experience

without thought, Michael. There is nothing

to doubt. I know nothing

really. Because I can present material

does this means I know

something? This means I know how to use

words to say this or that.

Tell me what do you think I know? I know

and tell stories and these

are not to be believed. I do not believe

them or invest in them or do

anyhting with them but present them as the

case may be. For others to

believe is error.

 

If one believes these stories than one may

have doubt about their

story. Is there anything to believe in

what has been said here and

then to doubt it if someone disagrees? And

can it not go side by side

with an opposing or different view so that

there are multiple views?

 

Is someone losing something here that

needs to be defended? Is there

something lost or unrecognized? You are

not at stake, Michael. Your

image is not at stake. Your view is not at

stake. I am not at stake.

The ideas are not at stake. Yours nor

mine. I may not disagree? I may

not oppose for the sake of opposing so

that there are many views? Is

there one upmanship here? Is someone

right? I cannot present boldly?

Why is it so difficult to have different

views at the moment and to

let them be together as it is?

 

We respond as we go as we are. The whole

thing can be stood on its

head and presented in any number of ways

similar or contradictory or

nonsensically. What is the concern about

inoculations?

 

Ok. Lets look at it from another

perspective. The little minds of men

try to fathom the mysteries of God and in

doing so trip all over

themselves and make fools of themselves at

every moment that they

allow their personal will not be aligned

with His. If their will was

aligned with His they would automatically

know that God saved the tree

and that God blessed the Christian

householders because of their

faith. It was His hand that did so for his

unfathomable reasons and

how it was done is not known by humanity

for they cannot fathom the

ways of God. Now to seek to understand

what happens instead of holding

fast in faith is a sign of arrogance and

pride in man's own will and

works. Lewis here is a prime example of

such arrogance and pride in

what he has said, since he holds no

beliefs and has no faith. Michael

on the other hand is a different story.

For God favors his words over

Lewis.'

 

This indeed may be the case, given the

writer thinks of me in that way

and you in the other. Does not matter? I

may damned if I do not choose

the right way and you have less to be

concerned about if we are to

believe who wrote that.

 

You approach with reason, Michael, so

reason is returned. Some here

approach with reason or experience or

emotion or will or whatever and

vituperation is returned by others being

what they are at the moment

and incapable of responding in any other

way to that which offends

them. It is a behavior here that will

continue as long as jnana is the

focus. I suppose a focus on mind and

knowing and knowledge sacrifices

other aspects of knowing in the human

appearances. You mentioned that,

something about humility, a lesson not

learned by the reasoned ones.

 

Try the

> affirmation 'Everything I know is wrong'

>

> Michael.

 

I am incapable of being otherwise,

Michael.

 

Lewis

 

& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &

Hi Lewis,

Of course you have a view of

reality. It's called perspectivism so

stop playing the ingenue with me. You

defend this position in all dangers,

temptations and afflictions and why not

if you think it's right. How is it self-

referential? If all stories are really

the world as I see it then my reference

to reality is a reference to my reality

or my self created reality. Ergo self-

reference. There's more than a taint of

Subjective Idealism to this position or

perhaps you are halted at a caravansarai

on the road to the golden city of Solus

Ipse.

 

But take courage all is not lost, you do

believe in objective reality to the

degree that you are prepared to change

Lewis money into Newton money. Leaving

aside my small change would you accept a

Niz? Try some sortilege with his writing

and come back with a reflection on it. In

this list that may be more respectful of

the majority of the members.

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/24/05 6:29:55 AM, ombhurbhuva writes:

 

 

> Hi Lewis,

>  > Michael: Of course you have a view of

> reality.  It's called perspectivism so

> >stop playing the ingenue with me. 

>

P: You sure are right about that,Michael!

He has a view, and he is here selling it

nonstop like a used carsalesman.

And for a guy who claims to know nothing

he sure talks a storm. But, of course, it's not

him, but his beloved darkness talking. That darkness

must have a lot of green in it. I think it's full

of parrots, the way it talks and talks and repeats

and repeats. Lewis parrot-like brain masquerading as

the unknowing infallible darkness. What a blast!

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Lewis wrote:

>

> Have you prematurely closed your account

>

>>with reality?

>

>

> No. I do not have a view of reality at

> all. It is beyond me. Simple

> ignorance is a way of life for me. I

> experience and go on. What I

> experience is simple. The complexity is

> only in the talking of it. And

> the talking of it is only to give an

> understanding and to that any

> story will do, depending on what stories

> are useful or accepted or

> proffered at the moment, that which comes

> out.

>

> Your story is essentially

>

>>a self referential one and is therefore

>>closed in on itself.

>

>

> Self-referential what does that mean? Does

> it mean the use of " I " in

> relating the story. Then of course it is.

> That is for you to think or

> not to think of in your way and in your

> experience of my words. What

> you read in them is what you are. You do

> not know me. I have been here

> long enough for you to know what " I " and

> " me " stands for. I have said

> it many times. That you do not believe it

> or know it is

> understandable. You make of what is said

> as you do as others will do.

> That it is closed in on itself or not

> makes no difference.

>

> You need an

>

>>innoculation of doubt.

>

>

> What doubt is necessary when nothing is

> known except as an experience

> without thought, Michael. There is nothing

> to doubt. I know nothing

> really. Because I can present material

> does this means I know

> something? This means I know how to use

> words to say this or that.

> Tell me what do you think I know? I know

> and tell stories and these

> are not to be believed. I do not believe

> them or invest in them or do

> anyhting with them but present them as the

> case may be. For others to

> believe is error.

>

> If one believes these stories than one may

> have doubt about their

> story. Is there anything to believe in

> what has been said here and

> then to doubt it if someone disagrees? And

> can it not go side by side

> with an opposing or different view so that

> there are multiple views?

>

> Is someone losing something here that

> needs to be defended? Is there

> something lost or unrecognized? You are

> not at stake, Michael. Your

> image is not at stake. Your view is not at

> stake. I am not at stake.

> The ideas are not at stake. Yours nor

> mine. I may not disagree? I may

> not oppose for the sake of opposing so

> that there are many views? Is

> there one upmanship here? Is someone

> right? I cannot present boldly?

> Why is it so difficult to have different

> views at the moment and to

> let them be together as it is?

>

> We respond as we go as we are. The whole

> thing can be stood on its

> head and presented in any number of ways

> similar or contradictory or

> nonsensically. What is the concern about

> inoculations?

>

> Ok. Lets look at it from another

> perspective. The little minds of men

> try to fathom the mysteries of God and in

> doing so trip all over

> themselves and make fools of themselves at

> every moment that they

> allow their personal will not be aligned

> with His. If their will was

> aligned with His they would automatically

> know that God saved the tree

> and that God blessed the Christian

> householders because of their

> faith. It was His hand that did so for his

> unfathomable reasons and

> how it was done is not known by humanity

> for they cannot fathom the

> ways of God. Now to seek to understand

> what happens instead of holding

> fast in faith is a sign of arrogance and

> pride in man's own will and

> works. Lewis here is a prime example of

> such arrogance and pride in

> what he has said, since he holds no

> beliefs and has no faith. Michael

> on the other hand is a different story.

> For God favors his words over

> Lewis.'

>

> This indeed may be the case, given the

> writer thinks of me in that way

> and you in the other. Does not matter? I

> may damned if I do not choose

> the right way and you have less to be

> concerned about if we are to

> believe who wrote that.

>

> You approach with reason, Michael, so

> reason is returned. Some here

> approach with reason or experience or

> emotion or will or whatever and

> vituperation is returned by others being

> what they are at the moment

> and incapable of responding in any other

> way to that which offends

> them. It is a behavior here that will

> continue as long as jnana is the

> focus. I suppose a focus on mind and

> knowing and knowledge sacrifices

> other aspects of knowing in the human

> appearances. You mentioned that,

> something about humility, a lesson not

> learned by the reasoned ones.

>

> Try the

>

>>affirmation 'Everything I know is wrong'

>>

>>Michael.

>

>

> I am incapable of being otherwise,

> Michael.

>

> Lewis

>

> & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &

> Hi Lewis,

> Of course you have a view of

> reality. It's called perspectivism so

> stop playing the ingenue with me.

 

This is new on this list. For the first time I am now perspectivist or a

perhaps [Nietzschean?] perspectivist? There are many kinds of

perspectivists. Which kind do you mean?

 

Also, Michael, as you assert and label, please demonstrate that this is so.

 

 

You

> defend this position in all dangers,

> temptations and afflictions and why not

> if you think it's right.

 

 

 

There is nothing to defend. Have your way with what is said.

 

 

 

How is it self-

> referential? If all stories are really

> the world as I see it then my reference

> to reality is a reference to my reality

> or my self created reality. Ergo self-

> reference.

 

 

 

 

I agreed and you and others may take that view or any view. It means

nothing in general. I said above:

 

" Self-referential what does that mean? Does

it mean the use of " I " in

relating the story. Then of course it is.

That is for you to think or

not to think of in your way and in your

experience of my words. What

you read in them is what you are. "

 

Now let's take another view. If I read an Aesop's fable here, or a

passage from " I am That " is this self-referential? What is the

difference? Both may have some usefulnesss, regardless of whether it is

animals talking or humans, or it is fiction to tell a moral tale, or a

Master's words, or an experience recounted and described for comparison.

 

 

 

There's more than a taint of

> Subjective Idealism to this position or

> perhaps you are halted at a caravansarai

> on the road to the golden city of Solus

> Ipse.

 

 

The allegation of solipsism has been lodged before. You are not the

first to do so or the last, probably.

 

 

 

 

>

> But take courage all is not lost, you do

> believe in objective reality to the

> degree that you are prepared to change

> Lewis money into Newton money.

 

 

What is objective about that? It is simply living. Call it what you

will, reason on it as you will.

 

 

Leaving

> aside my small change would you accept a

> Niz? Try some sortilege with his writing

> and come back with a reflection on it. In

> this list that may be more respectful of

> the majority of the members.

>

> Michael

>

 

 

No need for sortilege, Mike.

 

" All you can teach is understanding, the rest comes on it's own. "

 

Nisargadatta

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...>

wrote:

>Try some sortilege with his writing

>and come back with a reflection on it. In

>this list that may be more respectful of

>the majority of the members.

 

Haha, this is funny, dear Michael.

 

You ask for respectfulness, do you feel that you are respectful? I

rather suspect that something is going on your nerves, something has

hit your head. And you should check out what it was and come back with

a reflection of it.

 

I follow this list for about 6 month or more now. I came here because

the header of the group says " Nisargadatta · Advaita Vedanta Jnana

Yoga, Nisargadatta " . I have only met one guy who was seriously on

topic, interested in Nisargadatta and the Vedantic tradition. He was

an Indian guy, from Dheli I think. It seemed nobody was interested in

what he had to say, people started to argue and fight against

everything he posted and he left frustrated after a few weeks. I tried

to make him stay but he was already off.

 

Nisargadatta himself would surely not be welcome on this list. Some of

the most active members here do not even know the difference betseen

" awareness " and " consciousness " . Or advocate the theory that

" everything is in the head " . They propagate and defend nihilistic

selfmade philosophical constructions, at all costs. They are not

interested in being questioned. I wonder what they have read of

Nisargadatta. At the most a few lines here and there then they

already " got it " .

 

It is also common here to call Nisargadatta simply an idiot. Moreover,

the idea of the surrender to a spiritual " master " seems to be a red

flag to most.

 

Well, but although I was insulted and swared in the rudest way I

stayed, but I stopped to participate for a while. I was about to leave

but one good soul and Greek hero on this list gave me reason to stay.

 

And I am also happy I stayed because so I met Lewis. Lewis is closer

to the spirit of Nisargadatta than you think. What he says he says

with honesty, humbleness and respect. He is following the simple

principle that the truth is found only by checking with your own

experience what is true.

 

Michael, you will not find the truth in Nisargadattas books. The truth

is what you already have. You just have to quest, even if others will

call you " self referential " . Tell me, Michael: was Nisargadatta

" self-referential " too, in your rigorous view? What do you think? What

would he say regarding this issue?

 

I dont know you, Michael. Should you be a true expert in Nisargadatta,

welcome, I am eager to hear what you have to say. And if you are, you

know already that Nisargadatta was not interested in teoretical,

philosophical or religious debates. What do you think he interested

in? Why did he talk all this talk to the people who came to him? Any

idea?

 

Greetings

Stefan

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/24/05 4:35:00 PM, lbb10 writes:

 

 

> >Is there something inherently wrong with repetition or what appears

> contradictory? Below Nisargadatta speaks repetitiously and

> >contradictorily. And on the surface, he contradicts most of what Pete

> says. I neither find contradiction or irritation in what he says no

> >matter how many times he says it nor contradiction of what Pete says.

> >Do you find his repetition and contradiction unpleasant, Pete?

>

Lewis, you have repeated several times that you came here to be confronted,

and to learn about yourself through the words of others because you find it

impossible to think about yourself. Is that correct? If it is, then I 'm

telling you, Lewis, you are repeating these basic themes:

You act from the darkness. You do as you do.

You don't know, or think of anything on

your own, but act and think as

required by circumstances

and those thoughts or

actions come from

the darkness and

are forgotten.

 

Well, and good, we are happy for you. We got it. Let's

move on. You are no Nisargadatta Lewis.

You need to be more direct and

brief in your messages. Of

course, you will say you do

as you, and that's fine,

but then don't say you

came here to be

confronted, yet

act affronted.

 

I really enjoyed reading your stuff till recently,

and I thank you for the good times, but

I feel my eyes glazing after two

paragraph now. Maybe I'm

getting old and tired, or

maybe your stuff is.

 

Pete

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/24/05 6:29:55 AM, ombhurbhuva@e... writes:

>

>

> > Hi Lewis,

> > > Michael: Of course you have a view of

> > reality. It's called perspectivism so

> > >stop playing the ingenue with me.

> >

> P: You sure are right about that,Michael!

> He has a view, and he is here selling it

> nonstop like a used carsalesman.

> And for a guy who claims to know nothing

> he sure talks a storm. But, of course, it's not

> him, but his beloved darkness talking. That darkness

> must have a lot of green in it. I think it's full

> of parrots, the way it talks and talks and repeats

> and repeats. Lewis parrot-like brain masquerading as

> the unknowing infallible darkness. What a blast!

 

 

Is there something inherently wrong with repetition or what appears

contradictory? Below Nisargadatta speaks repetitiously and

contradictorily. And on the surface, he contradicts most of what Pete

says. I neither find contradiction or irritation in what he says no

matter how many times he says it nor contradiction of what Pete says.

Do you find his repetition and contradiction unpleasant, Pete? Do you

find these words contradictory to yours? Does he disagree with you? Or

is it the same as you? Do these words also agree with Odysseus and

others who say as they do and whom you disagree with.

 

I am not selling, Pete. I am doing as I am. Am I allowed to do this? I

am allowed to inquire? To question, to expand. I am allowed to explore

and to share my experience as it is?

 

Is Nisargadatta selling something? Is he right? Is he wrong? Is there

anything I do here or say here out of line with these words? In the

spirit of this list? I do not know him and this is what he says.

 

Nisargadatta said:

 

~~~When the mind stays in the 'I am', without moving, you enter a

state that cannot be verbalized but can be experienced. " Take the

first step first.

 

~~~All blessings come from within. Turn within. 'I am' you know.

Be with it all the time you can spare, until you revert to it

spontaneously. There is no simpler and easier way. "

 

~~~ " Refuse all thoughts except one: the thought 'I am'. The mind will

rebel in the beginning, but with patience and perseverance it will

yield and keep quiet. "

 

~~~ " Use your mind. Remember. Observe. You are not different from

others. Most of their experiences are valid for you too. Think clearly

and deeply, go into the structure of your desires and their

ramifications. They are a most important part of your mental and

emotional make-up and powerfully affect your actions. Remember, you

cannot abandon what you do not know. To go beyond yourself, you must

know yourself. "

 

~~~

Questioner: " What about witnessing the witness. "

 

Nisargadatta: " Putting words together will not take you far. Go within

and discover what you are not. Nothing else matters. "

~~~

 

~~~ " Realization is but the opposite of ignorance. To take the world as

real and one's self as unreal is ignorance, the cause of sorrow. To

know the self as the only reality and all else as temporal and

transient is freedom, peace and joy. It is all very simple instead of

seeing things as imagined, learn to see them as they are. When you can

see everything as it is, you will also see yourself as you are.

 

~~~It is like cleansing a mirror. The same mirror that shows you the

world as it is, will also show you your own face. The thought 'I am'

is the polishing cloth. Use it. "

 

~~~ " ...in reality only the Ultimate is. The rest is a matter of name

and form. And as long as you cling to the idea that only what has name

and shape exists, the Supreme will appear to you non-existing. When

you understand that names and shapes are hollow shells without any

content whatsoever, and what is real is nameless and formless, pure

energy of life and light of consciousness, you will be at peace --

immersed in the deep silence of reality. "

 

~~~ " Just keep in mind the feeling 'I am', merge in it, till your mind

and feeling become one. By repeated attempts you will stumble on the

right balance of attention and affection and your mind will be firmly

established in the thought-feeling 'I am'. "

 

~~~

Questioner: " Then what is needed? "

 

Nisargadatta: " Distrust your mind, and go beyond. "

 

Questioner: " What shall I find beyond the mind? "

 

Nisargadatta: " The direct experience of being, knowing and loving. "

 

Questioner: " How does one go beyond the mind? "

 

Nisargadatta: " There are many starting points - they all lead to the

same goal. You may begin with selfless work, abandoning the fruits of

action; you may then give up thinking and in the end give up all

desires. Here, giving up (tyaga) is the operational factor. Or you may

not bother about anything you want, or think, or do and just stay put

in the thought and feeling 'I am " , focussing 'I am " firmly in your

mind. All kind of experience may come to you -- remain unmoved in the

knowledge that all perceivable is transient, and only the 'I am' endures. "

~~~

 

~~~

Questioner: " The inner teacher is not easily reached. "

 

Nisargadatta: " Since he is in you and with you, the difficulty cannot

be serious. Look within and you will find him. "

 

Questioner: " When I look within, I find sensations and perceptions,

thoughts and feelings, desires and fears, memories and expectations. I

am immersed in this cloud and see nothing else. "

 

Nisargadatta: " That which sees all this, and the nothing too, is the

inner teacher. He alone is, all else only appears to be. He is your

own self (swarupa), your hope and assurance of freedom; find him and

cling to him and you will be saved and safe. "

~~~

 

~~~ " Establish yourself in the awareness of 'I am'. This is the

beginning and also the end of all endeavour. "

 

~~~ " To know what you are, you must first investigate and know what you

are not. And to know what you are not you must watch yourself

carefully, rejecting all that does not necessarily go with the basic

fact: 'I am'. The ideas: I am born at a given place, at a given time,

from my parents and now I am so-and-so, living at, married to, father

of, employed by, and so on, are not inherent in the sense 'I am'.

Our usual attitude is of 'I am this'. Separate consistently and

perseveringly the 'I am' from 'this' or 'that', and try to feel what

it means to be, just to be, without being 'this' or 'that'. All our

habits go against it and the task of fighting them is long and hard

sometimes, but clear understanding helps a lot. The clearer you

understand that on the level of the mind you can be described in

negative terms only, the quicker you will come to the end of your

search and realize your limitless being. "

 

~~~ " 'I am' itself is God. The seeking itself is God. In seeking you

discover that you are neither the body nor the mind, and the love of

the self in you is for the self in all. The two are one. The

consciousness in you and the consciousness in me, apparently two,

really one, seek unity and that is love. "

 

~~~ " See your world as it is, not as you imagine it to be.

Discrimination will lead to detachment; detachment will ensure right

action, right action will build the inner bridge to your real being. "

 

~~~ " ...sorting out and discarding (viveka-vairagya) are absolutely

necessary. Everything must be scrutinized and the unnecessary

ruthlessly destroyed. Believe me, there cannot be too much

destruction. For in reality nothing is of value. Be passionately

dispassionate - that is all. "

 

~~~ " Be fully aware of your own being and you will be in bliss

consciously. Because you take your mind off yourself and make it dwell

on what you are not, you lose your sense of well-being, of being well. "

 

~~~ " Be attentive, enquire ceaselessly. That is all. "

 

~~~ " As long as we delude ourselves by what we imagine ourselves to be,

to know, to have, to do, we are in a sad plight indeed. Only in

complete self-negation there is a chance to discover our real being.

The false self must be abandoned before the real self can be found. "

 

~~~ " You must be serious, intent, truly interested. You must be full of

goodwill for yourself. "

 

~~~

Questioner: I may be fully aware of what is going on, and yet quite

unable to influence it in any way. "

 

Nisargadatta: " You are mistaken. What is going on is a projection of

your mind. A weak mind cannot control its own projections. Be aware,

therefore, of your mind and its projections. You cannot control what

you do not know. On the other hand, knowledge gives power. In practice

it is very simple. To control yourself - know yourself. "

~~~

 

~~~

Questioner: " You advise us to concentrate on 'I am'. Is this too a

form of attention? "

 

~~~Nisargadatta: " What else? Give your undivided attention to the most

important in your life - yourself. Of your personal universe you are

the center - without knowing the center what else can you know. "

~~~

 

~~~ " Perceptions based on sensations and shaped by memory imply a

perceiver, whose nature you never cared to examine. Give it your full

attention, examine it with loving care and you will discover heights

and depths of being which you did not dream of, engrossed as you are

in your puny image of yourself. "

 

~~~ " Is not meanness also a form of madness? And is not madness the

misuse of the mind? Humanity's problem lies in this misuse of the mind

only. All treasures of nature and spirit are open to man who will use

his mind rightly. "

 

~~~ " Fear and greed cause the misuse of the mind. The right use of mind

is the service of love, life, of truth, of beauty. "

 

~~~ " Have your Guru always in your heart and remember his instructions

- this is real abidance with the true. "

 

~~~ " You are the god of your world and you are both stupid and cruel.

Let God be a concept - your own creation. Find out who you are, how

did you come to live, longing for truth, goodness and beauty in a

world full of evil. Of what use is your arguing for or against God,

when you just do not know who is God and what you are talking about.

The God born of fear and hope, shaped by desire and imagination,

cannot be the Power That is, the Mind and Heart of the universe. "

 

~~~ " This is childishness, clinging to the toys, to your desires and

fears, opinions and ideas. Give it all up and be ready for the real to

assert itself. This self-assertion is best expressed in the words: 'I

am'. "

 

~~~ " So far you took yourself to be the movable and overlooked the

immovable. Turn your mind inside out. Overlook the movable and you

will find yourself to be the ever-present, changeless reality,

inexpressible, but solid like a rock. "

 

~~~ " In witnessing, in awareness, self-consciousness, the sense of

being this or that, is not. Unidentified being remains. "

 

~~~ " No need of faith which is but expectation of results. Here the

action only counts. Whatever you do for the sake of truth, will take

you to truth. Only be earnest and honest. The shape it takes hardly

matters. "

 

~~~ " Meet your own self. Be with your own self, listen to it, obey it,

cherish it, keep it in mind endlessly. You need no other guide. As

long as your urge for truth affects your daily life, all is well with

you. Live your life without hurting anybody. Harmlessness is a most

powerful form of Yoga and it will take you speedily to your goal. This

is what I call nisarga yoga, the Natural yoga. It is the art of living

in peace and harmony, in friendliness and love. The fruit of it is

happiness, uncaused and endless. "

 

~~~

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

 

>I really enjoyed reading your stuff till recently,

>and I thank you for the good times, but

>I feel my eyes glazing after two

>paragraph now. Maybe I'm

>getting old and tired, or

>maybe your stuff is.

 

pete has run out of arguments

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

 

Hi Lewis,

 

Michael: Of course you have a view of

reality. It's called perspectivism so

stop playing the ingenue with me.

 

P: You sure are right about that,Michael!

He has a view, and he is here selling it

nonstop like a used carsalesman.

And for a guy who claims to know nothing

he sure talks a storm. But, of course, it's not

him, but his beloved darkness talking. That darkness

must have a lot of green in it. I think it's full

of parrots, the way it talks and talks and repeats

and repeats. Lewis parrot-like brain masquerading as

the unknowing infallible darkness. What a blast!>

 

In a message dated 2/24/05 4:35:00 PM, and snipped by Pete lbb10@c...

writes:

 

 

Lewis: Is there something inherently wrong with repetition or what

appears contradictory? Below Nisargadatta speaks repetitiously and

contradictorily. And on the surface, he contradicts most of what Pete

says. I neither find contradiction or irritation in what he says no

matter how many times he says it nor contradiction of what Pete says.

Do you find his repetition and contradiction unpleasant, Pete?

 

[in a message dated Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:14 pm Pedsie2:]

 

Pete: Lewis, you have repeated several times that you came here to be

confronted, and to learn about yourself through the words of others

because you find it impossible to think about yourself. Is that correct?

 

Lewis: Yes. The word was conned, Pete. Confronation is also useful in

its way and there is no aversion to it. Don't remember repeating that

I sought confrontation. Perhaps you can show where that was said,

repeatedly.

 

Pete: If it is, then I 'm telling you, Lewis, you are repeating these

basic themes:

You act from the darkness. You do as you do.

You don't know, or think of anything on

your own, but act and think as

required by circumstances

and those thoughts or

actions come from

the darkness and

are forgotten.

 

Lewis: These are not themes. These are my experiences put into words.

It is understandable if it is experienced, otherwise it can mean anything.

 

Pete: Well, and good, we are happy for you. We got it. Let's

move on.

 

Lewis: To what? Shall I move on to other equally " dark " indescribables

and unexplainables in words and concepts such as God, SELF, What is,

Beyond I Am, *This* " Sunyata, the human appearance or a dissected part

of the human appearance called the brain? Do we all have to move on

from these? Where would you move on to Pete if asked to do so?

 

 

Pete: You are no Nisargadatta Lewis.

 

Lewis: Of course I am not Nisargadatta or a master or any such who or

what.

 

Pete: You need to be more direct and brief in your messages.

 

Lewis: Is this the list rule? If that is the rule then please make it

the same for all. Have it set in the list home page. Set the length

and standard for all to follow. In that case, compliance is yours

without question. Set the rule.

 

Pete: Of course, you will say you do

as you, and that's fine,

but then don't say you

came here to be

confronted, yet

act affronted.

 

Lewis: There was no confrontation. There was no affront. You were

speaking to Michael. You did not confront or affront. There was no

sense of that. The questions are to the expressions made. These

questions were not answered directly, not here or in the previous post.

 

Pete: I really enjoyed reading your stuff till recently,

and I thank you for the good times, but

I feel my eyes glazing after two

paragraph now. Maybe I'm

getting old and tired, or

maybe your stuff is.

 

Pete

 

 

Lewis: No more good times possible Pete?

 

How about we dissect the brain and consciousness together? Or we can

forget the brain and consciousness and go into the " no who domain "

(another darkness) and be silent together and then do as we are

incapable or capable of when called out from it.

 

Or just do as we have been doing all along (it seems to be the same)

seeing that all are as lords of our created worlds.

 

Is it not a good lesson that in experience and fact we remain and do

as we are, which is always the case until new capabilities and

incabilities occur in the way that they do?

 

If one learns this lesson, one could see the futility of trying to

directly correct and control the behavior of others with commands and

admonitions, words. We are incorrigble in one way and then

incorrigible in another as something is dropped and other behavior

appears in its place as that happens from time to time or not at all.

 

Is it not obvious that all are incorrigible being what we are in this

moment? This can be fully realized and newness appears following it or

it can remain an oblivion, an incapability, that allows a the

repeating of a behavior over and over again. No appearance is immune.

 

Nisargadatta seems to be incorrigible, stuck as he was in his

undefined being. The whole of all the Masters seem to be incorrigible.

All of us seem to be incorrigible as we are at the moment and then a

change, small, medium, large, etc., and than incorrigible in that and

so on. How can it be explained? Does it need to be explained?

 

Lewis