Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Stacking shadows......adds nothing to their height. > > > toombaru Nice one, T.! I can stack that quote on top of this one: " The shadow moving upon the stairs, stirs no dust. " -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > Stacking shadows......adds nothing to their height. > > toombaru It changes the shape of the shadow quite effectively however, or... did you miss that distinction? > > Nice one, T.! > I can stack that quote on top of this one: > " The shadow moving upon the stairs, stirs no dust. " > -- D. Cute, sweet as sugar - quotation marks or no quotation marks - yet incorrect (couldn't fire up your electron microscope in time, to get this pith into the morning's mail?) Piles and piles of one-line no-brainers - even when supported by stacks and stacks of similar one-liners - still amounts to a very thin soup indeed, hardly enough to keep an inmate alive. If that's all you're subsisting on, no wonder you're gonna die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Stacking shadows......adds nothing to their height. > > > toombaru > > It changes the shape of the shadow quite effectively however, or... > did you miss that distinction? > Some are inclined to change the shape of shadows..... .....a few.......are not. toombaru > > > > Nice one, T.! > > I can stack that quote on top of this one: > > " The shadow moving upon the stairs, stirs no dust. " > > -- D. > > Cute, sweet as sugar - quotation marks or no quotation marks - yet > incorrect (couldn't fire up your electron microscope in time, to get > this pith into the morning's mail?) > > Piles and piles of one-line no-brainers - even when supported by > stacks and stacks of similar one-liners - still amounts to a very > thin soup indeed, hardly enough to keep an inmate alive. If that's > all you're subsisting on, no wonder you're gonna die. And you intend to avoid death? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Stacking shadows......adds nothing to their height. > > > > toombaru > > > > It changes the shape of the shadow quite effectively however, or... > > did you miss that distinction? > > > > > > > Some are inclined to change the shape of shadows..... > ....a few.......are not. > toombaru > Nice dodge, but the ball still hit you. You lay down a riff, you change the shape of the tune - like it or be inclined to it, or not. If " the few " are not inclined to change the shape of the tune, then " the few " don't engage in such mind-numbing banter as you're inclined to do here, there, and a couple other places a " few of us " know. > > > > > > > > Nice one, T.! > > > I can stack that quote on top of this one: > > > " The shadow moving upon the stairs, stirs no dust. " > > > -- D. > > > > Cute, sweet as sugar - quotation marks or no quotation marks - yet > > incorrect (couldn't fire up your electron microscope in time, to get > > this pith into the morning's mail?) > > > > Piles and piles of one-line no-brainers - even when supported by > > stacks and stacks of similar one-liners - still amounts to a very > > thin soup indeed, hardly enough to keep an inmate alive. If that's > > all you're subsisting on, no wonder you're gonna die. > > > > And you intend to avoid death? > toombaru Intention is not at issue, anymore than HEIGHT was at issue before. You add an element to the tune which was not present before, and it sounds cacophonous, not melodious. Continuing to react - chime in - to these writings written on your mind's eye by an author you don't control, changes nothing. You're still a reactionary, and as such, are being bled to death by your own inattentiveness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stacking shadows......adds nothing to their height. > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > It changes the shape of the shadow quite effectively however, > or... > > > did you miss that distinction? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some are inclined to change the shape of shadows..... > > ....a few.......are not. > > toombaru > > > > Nice dodge, but the ball still hit you. > You lay down a riff, you change the shape of the tune - like it or be > inclined to it, or not. > > If " the few " are not inclined to change the shape of the tune, then > " the few " don't engage in such mind-numbing banter as you're inclined > to do here, there, and a couple other places a " few of us " know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice one, T.! > > > > I can stack that quote on top of this one: > > > > " The shadow moving upon the stairs, stirs no dust. " > > > > -- D. > > > > > > Cute, sweet as sugar - quotation marks or no quotation marks - yet > > > incorrect (couldn't fire up your electron microscope in time, to > get > > > this pith into the morning's mail?) > > > > > > Piles and piles of one-line no-brainers - even when supported by > > > stacks and stacks of similar one-liners - still amounts to a very > > > thin soup indeed, hardly enough to keep an inmate alive. If that's > > > all you're subsisting on, no wonder you're gonna die. > > > > > > > > And you intend to avoid death? > > toombaru > > Intention is not at issue, anymore than HEIGHT was at issue before. > > You add an element to the tune which was not present before, and it > sounds cacophonous, not melodious. > > Continuing to react - chime in - to these writings written on your > mind's eye by an author you don't control, changes nothing. You're > still a reactionary, and as such, are being bled to death by your own > inattentiveness. Do you believe that there is some-thing here that can die? Do the people in your dream last night....bleed out....and die? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > Do you believe that there is some-thing here that can die? > Do the people in your dream last night....bleed out....and die? > Who wants to know? Asking such inane questions of yourself results in nothing but more questions. 'Death', 'dreams', 'blood', 'people', just words you can't comprehend so why use them? Here's a question for you: what is the precise relationship in realtime of dreams, death, and blood - that is, how do they fit together in " you " to produce the " YOU " that is now preparing " your " next riff for this list, and the several others " you " live upon? Don't dodge, think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Do you believe that there is some-thing here that can die? > > Do the people in your dream last night....bleed out....and die? > > > > Who wants to know? > Asking such inane questions of yourself results in nothing but more > questions. 'Death', 'dreams', 'blood', 'people', just words you can't > comprehend so why use them? Is there an implication that there is someone here that has a choice? > > Here's a question for you: what is the precise relationship in > realtime of dreams, death, and blood - that is, how do they fit > together in " you " to produce the " YOU " that is now preparing " your " > next riff for this list, and the several others " you " live upon? > > Don't dodge, think. Ok.....You asked for IT. (You'd better sit down.) The neurons in frontal cortex..........become aware of themselves (no one knows how)....create a salamanderian chimaera.........it wiggles for a while in the darkness of its own memory...creates a secondary dream world........and evaporates in the light of awareness. Well.....that's about as close as words can get....... Now: Read this two or three times. sit back....and wait for the wrecking ball. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Do you believe that there is some-thing here that can die? > > > Do the people in your dream last night....bleed out....and die? > > > > > > > Who wants to know? > > Asking such inane questions of yourself results in nothing but more > > questions. 'Death', 'dreams', 'blood', 'people', just words you can't > > comprehend so why use them? > > > Is there an implication that there is someone here that has a choice? It's never a question of " if " , but " when " . When you don't have a choice, you don't have a choice. When you do, you do. The inability to keep this distinction in your awareness, leads to the disability you exhibit. > > > > > > Here's a question for you: what is the precise relationship in > > realtime of dreams, death, and blood - that is, how do they fit > > together in " you " to produce the " YOU " that is now preparing " your " > > next riff for this list, and the several others " you " live upon? > > > > Don't dodge, think. > > > > > Ok.....You asked for IT. > (You'd better sit down.) > Funny - your " setup " makes me laugh. I'll stand up to see if the presumed " impact " is as crucial as your dream tells you it is... (I should need to sit down after reading your pithiness, right?) > > The neurons in frontal cortex... .become aware of themselves (no one knows how) NOR - the part you left out - why they do it. How is not the issue - they do, that's all that's necessary to know. WHY the brain becomes intermittently aware, then unaware, then aware, then unaware, is the mystery some know, most don't. And further, WHY humans are virtually totally unaware for most of the day, yet, the opposite would seem to be not only in their own best interest, but their friends, family, and neighbors, the planet, the solar system, the universe... uh, unless, NOT!!! So, sir, WHY? >....create a salamanderian chimaera.........it wiggles for a while in the darkness of its > own memory...creates a secondary dream world........and evaporates in the light of > awareness. > > Not that what you write is invalid - or even valid, being just empty, slightly poetical words, pouring into the void - but apparently the " light of awareness " failed miserably to evaporate your vaporousness above, in time to realize the NEXT thought, which you did not write above, but had to wait 15 seconds or more to write the next bit below. Why is that? > > > Well.....that's about as close as words can get....... Mister, they can get a helluva lot closer and in-YOUR-face than that! And a lot more blood-and-gutsy, than some description of where " you " think words emerge and how they interact like salamanders. > > Now: > Read this two or three times. > sit back....and wait for the wrecking ball. THAT is your punchline?!? " Take these words and call me in the morning. " ? Come on, sir, you can dodge my questions to you much better than THAT, if'n you only... think, instead of react. (Can you tell the difference?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you believe that there is some-thing here that can die? > > > > Do the people in your dream last night....bleed out....and die? > > > > > > > > > > Who wants to know? > > > Asking such inane questions of yourself results in nothing but > more > > > questions. 'Death', 'dreams', 'blood', 'people', just words you > can't > > > comprehend so why use them? > > > > > > Is there an implication that there is someone here that has a > choice? > > It's never a question of " if " , but " when " . > When you don't have a choice, you don't have a choice. > When you do, you do. > > The inability to keep this distinction in your awareness, leads to > the disability you exhibit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a question for you: what is the precise relationship in > > > realtime of dreams, death, and blood - that is, how do they fit > > > together in " you " to produce the " YOU " that is now preparing > " your " > > > next riff for this list, and the several others " you " live upon? > > > > > > Don't dodge, think. > > > > > > > > > > Ok.....You asked for IT. > > (You'd better sit down.) > > > > Funny - your " setup " makes me laugh. > I'll stand up to see if the presumed " impact " is as crucial as your > dream tells you it is... (I should need to sit down after reading > your pithiness, right?) > > > > > > The neurons in frontal cortex... .become aware of themselves (no > one knows how) > > > NOR - the part you left out - why they do it. > How is not the issue - they do, that's all that's necessary to know. > WHY the brain becomes intermittently aware, then unaware, then aware, > then unaware, is the mystery some know, most don't. > And further, WHY humans are virtually totally unaware for most of the > day, yet, the opposite would seem to be not only in their own best > interest, but their friends, family, and neighbors, the planet, the > solar system, the universe... uh, unless, NOT!!! > > So, sir, WHY? > > >....create a salamanderian chimaera.........it wiggles for a while > in the darkness of its > > own memory...creates a secondary dream world........and evaporates > in the light of > > awareness. > > > > > > Not that what you write is invalid - or even valid, being just empty, > slightly poetical words, pouring into the void - but apparently the > " light of awareness " failed miserably to evaporate your vaporousness > above, in time to realize the NEXT thought, which you did not write > above, but had to wait 15 seconds or more to write the next bit > below. > > Why is that? > > > > > > > Well.....that's about as close as words can get....... > > Mister, they can get a helluva lot closer and in-YOUR-face than that! > And a lot more blood-and-gutsy, than some description of where " you " > think words emerge and how they interact like salamanders. > > > > > > > > Now: > > Read this two or three times. > > sit back....and wait for the wrecking ball. > > THAT is your punchline?!? > > " Take these words and call me in the morning. " ? > > Come on, sir, you can dodge my questions to you much better than > THAT, if'n you only... think, instead of react. > > (Can you tell the difference?) " Thinking " is merely reaction....... And: What is the nature of this " you " that you refer to? Do you think of if as a psychological center?......an autonomous entity? You seem to think of it as some kind of separate thing......separate from other things....... What say you? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > " Thinking " is merely reaction....... > Yes, as far as it can be seen from your myriads of posts across myriads of daze, your " thinking " is merely reactionary. But, what you call " my thinking " (that which pumps out your pablum day after day) is not thinking, it's the pushing around of words by words into different contexts and orderings which impart nothing meaningful... pablum. > > And: > What is the nature of this " you " that you refer to? > Do you think of if as a psychological center?......an autonomous entity? The nature of the " you " you are referring to is that reaction you continually have when being poked from outside by someone's words, you start staring into your crt and words start flowing forth, for no other reason than to " hold up your end of the pointless, meaningless conversation " in order to pass the time... again. The nature of " you " is as a big-time time-waster, with nobody home - like a TV set left on after all the lights go out, giving " the impression " somebody is up watching it, but alas, no. > > You seem to think of it as some kind of separate thing......separate from other things....... > What say you? > What is this " you " that you refer to? Do you think of it as a psychological center?......an autonomous entity? Your riff is continually impertinent - separateness is not the issue, autonomy is not the issue. It's not that the one writing this sentence is separate from the one reading it, it's that there's no one home on both sides of the apparent conversation, and no one aware of that. (Well, in your case, that is.) How will he react... next time? Does he know? In advance? Or does he have to wait for it, wait for it, wait for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > " Thinking " is merely reaction....... > > > > Yes, as far as it can be seen from your myriads of posts across > myriads of daze, your " thinking " is merely reactionary. But, what you > call " my thinking " (that which pumps out your pablum day after day) > is not thinking, it's the pushing around of words by words into > different contexts and orderings which impart nothing meaningful... > pablum. > > > > > > And: > > What is the nature of this " you " that you refer to? > > Do you think of if as a psychological center?......an autonomous > entity? > > The nature of the " you " you are referring to is that reaction you > continually have when being poked from outside by someone's words, > you start staring into your crt and words start flowing forth, for no > other reason than to " hold up your end of the pointless, meaningless > conversation " in order to pass the time... again. > > The nature of " you " is as a big-time time-waster, with nobody home - > like a TV set left on after all the lights go out, giving " the > impression " somebody is up watching it, but alas, no. > > > > > > > You seem to think of it as some kind of separate > thing......separate from other things....... > > What say you? > > > > What is this " you " that you refer to? > Do you think of it as a psychological center?......an autonomous > entity? > > Your riff is continually impertinent - separateness is not the issue, > autonomy is not the issue. It's not that the one writing this > sentence is separate from the one reading it, it's that there's no > one home on both sides of the apparent conversation, and no one aware > of that. (Well, in your case, that is.) > > How will he react... next time? > Does he know? > In advance? > Or does he have to wait for it, wait for it, wait for it? Is it your belief that you are awake? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > " Thinking " is merely reaction....... > > > > > > > Yes, as far as it can be seen from your myriads of posts across > > myriads of daze, your " thinking " is merely reactionary. But, what you > > call " my thinking " (that which pumps out your pablum day after day) > > is not thinking, it's the pushing around of words by words into > > different contexts and orderings which impart nothing meaningful... > > pablum. > > > > > > > > > > And: > > > What is the nature of this " you " that you refer to? > > > Do you think of if as a psychological center?......an autonomous > > entity? > > > > The nature of the " you " you are referring to is that reaction you > > continually have when being poked from outside by someone's words, > > you start staring into your crt and words start flowing forth, for no > > other reason than to " hold up your end of the pointless, meaningless > > conversation " in order to pass the time... again. > > > > The nature of " you " is as a big-time time-waster, with nobody home - > > like a TV set left on after all the lights go out, giving " the > > impression " somebody is up watching it, but alas, no. > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to think of it as some kind of separate > > thing......separate from other things....... > > > What say you? > > > > > > > What is this " you " that you refer to? > > Do you think of it as a psychological center?......an autonomous > > entity? > > > > Your riff is continually impertinent - separateness is not the issue, > > autonomy is not the issue. It's not that the one writing this > > sentence is separate from the one reading it, it's that there's no > > one home on both sides of the apparent conversation, and no one aware > > of that. (Well, in your case, that is.) > > > > How will he react... next time? > > Does he know? > > In advance? > > Or does he have to wait for it, wait for it, wait for it? > > > > Is it your belief that you are awake? > > You claim to be able to sort through concepts that appear to come from " others " and determine which are true and which are false. Do you believe that this thing that you think of as your self has been gifted with the ultimate wisdom? toombaru > toombaru 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.