Guest guest Posted April 17, 2005 Report Share Posted April 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > Hi, Dan: > > I'm not sure about the translation of these texts, whether or not the > term " consciousness " therein designates " mind " or whether it > designates " being " . When I talk about the " I AM " , I am referring to > " being " , not a mental or intellectual construct. My posts are not > necessarily an interpretation of Sri Nisargadatta, but, more an > expression of my own understanding. Maybe if you could express your > understanding in your own words, the discrepancy to which you allude > could be more readily clarified. > > Thanks for responding. > > Yours, > > fuzzie Direct knowing is all that matters. I posted those quotes only to show there was more to Niz's teachings, and one needs to take in the whole of his thought, not bits that fit with what one believes. My understanding is that iam is not a landing place, is not worth trying to make into an ultimacy. Allow it to evaporate between one's fingers, and allow the fingers to evaporate. Now " allowing " evaporates as well. No affirmation, no negation *here* -- yet the world of communication, affirmations and negations, relationships, spins on in its spinning -- as *this* having no negating or affirming quality won't negate the mental-emotionally wrought world of relating and communicating, nor the felt sense of being or iamness. Yet, this instant all evaporates. As Niz said, it all goes, and even being aware of the going - goes. Now, nothing can be said about *this* ... ;-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2005 Report Share Posted April 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > Direct knowing is all that matters. > > I posted those quotes only to show there was more to Niz's teachings, > and one needs to take in the whole of his thought, not bits > that fit with what one believes. > > My understanding is that iam is not a landing place, is not > worth trying to make into an ultimacy. > > Allow it to evaporate between one's fingers, and allow the > fingers to evaporate. Now " allowing " evaporates as well. > > No affirmation, no negation *here* -- yet the world of > communication, affirmations and negations, relationships, > spins on in its spinning -- as *this* having no negating > or affirming quality won't negate the mental-emotionally > wrought world of relating and communicating, nor the > felt sense of being or iamness. > > Yet, this instant all evaporates. > > As Niz said, it all goes, and even being aware of the going - goes. > > Now, nothing can be said about *this* ... > > ;-) > > -- Dan Alright, Dan: " Nothing can be said about *this*... " But, I bet you say a whole lot more about *this*, and, I bet you I still am, no matter how many people are in denial. There's too much 'appeal to authority' on here. You and Toombaru tend to 'appeal to authority' to justify your beliefs. This is a common fallacy in logic and should be avoided unless one wants to fall into a kind of dogmatic, tautological circular logic. Most religions tend to follow that trend. Beware. I AM is self-evident. You don't need a holy man to confirm it for you. You know it automatically; without trying; no effort. Anyone with any sincerity can realize that they are, that they exist. That is self-realization. Subsequently, along with this being-ness is the accompanying awareness that one exists. And, that's all there is; being-awareness. Everything else is just icing on the cake, so to speak. I know, you'll say that some old holy man in Bombay said something to somebody sometime before he died and, therefore, a school of thought has been cultivated around him and you must not betray your faith and self-investment in this particular belief system and so on. But, I am just asking you to look at the evidence. Forget about the ideology. Look at the evidence: You are. You are aware. That's all you know. The rest is just the myriad " ten thousand things " , the eternal dance of Shiva, the illusory world of samsara, etc., etc. I AM what I AM and that's all that I AM. (Popeye had it right). Yours, fuzzie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > > > Direct knowing is all that matters. > > > > I posted those quotes only to show there was more to Niz's teachings, > > and one needs to take in the whole of his thought, not bits > > that fit with what one believes. > > > > My understanding is that iam is not a landing place, is not > > worth trying to make into an ultimacy. > > > > Allow it to evaporate between one's fingers, and allow the > > fingers to evaporate. Now " allowing " evaporates as well. > > > > No affirmation, no negation *here* -- yet the world of > > communication, affirmations and negations, relationships, > > spins on in its spinning -- as *this* having no negating > > or affirming quality won't negate the mental-emotionally > > wrought world of relating and communicating, nor the > > felt sense of being or iamness. > > > > Yet, this instant all evaporates. > > > > As Niz said, it all goes, and even being aware of the going - goes. > > > > Now, nothing can be said about *this* ... > > > > ;-) > > > > -- Dan > > > Alright, Dan: > > " Nothing can be said about *this*... " But, I bet you say a whole lot > more about *this*, and, I bet you I still am, no matter how many > people are in denial. There's too much 'appeal to authority' on here. > You and Toombaru tend to 'appeal to authority' to justify your > beliefs. This is a common fallacy in logic and should be avoided > unless one wants to fall into a kind of dogmatic, tautological > circular logic. Most religions tend to follow that trend. Beware. > > I AM is self-evident. You don't need a holy man to confirm it for you. > You know it automatically; without trying; no effort. Anyone with any > sincerity can realize that they are, that they exist. That is > self-realization. Subsequently, along with this being-ness is the > accompanying awareness that one exists. And, that's all there is; > being-awareness. Everything else is just icing on the cake, so to > speak. I know, you'll say that some old holy man in Bombay said > something to somebody sometime before he died and, therefore, a school > of thought has been cultivated around him and you must not betray your > faith and self-investment in this particular belief system and so on. > But, I am just asking you to look at the evidence. Forget about the > ideology. Look at the evidence: You are. You are aware. That's all you > know. The rest is just the myriad " ten thousand things " , the eternal > dance of Shiva, the illusory world of samsara, etc., etc. > > I AM what I AM and that's all that I AM. > > (Popeye had it right). > > > > Yours, > > fuzzie No authority here to appeal to, Fuzz. Nothing to assert, no feeling of ongoing existing or that anything doesn't exist. Nor is there any lack or anything missing or absent. Positive language and assertions about being reach their end and dissolve as never having been. Affirmation and negation don't apply. Thought doesn't add anything nor take anything away. There's no need to affirm something about an imagined iam. Nothing needs to be established or affirmed, as an existing affirmer isn't imagined. Anything I've said about this is merely in the context of ongoing conversations, not to be held as some kind of ultimately true statement about the way things actually are. Same is true of anything you've said. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:12 AM Re: Niz's teaching / Fuzzy Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > > > Direct knowing is all that matters. > > > > I posted those quotes only to show there was more to Niz's teachings, > > and one needs to take in the whole of his thought, not bits > > that fit with what one believes. > > > > My understanding is that iam is not a landing place, is not > > worth trying to make into an ultimacy. > > > > Allow it to evaporate between one's fingers, and allow the > > fingers to evaporate. Now " allowing " evaporates as well. > > > > No affirmation, no negation *here* -- yet the world of > > communication, affirmations and negations, relationships, > > spins on in its spinning -- as *this* having no negating > > or affirming quality won't negate the mental-emotionally > > wrought world of relating and communicating, nor the > > felt sense of being or iamness. > > > > Yet, this instant all evaporates. > > > > As Niz said, it all goes, and even being aware of the going - goes. > > > > Now, nothing can be said about *this* ... > > > > ;-) > > > > -- Dan > > > Alright, Dan: > > " Nothing can be said about *this*... " But, I bet you say a whole lot > more about *this*, and, I bet you I still am, no matter how many > people are in denial. There's too much 'appeal to authority' on here. > You and Toombaru tend to 'appeal to authority' to justify your > beliefs. This is a common fallacy in logic and should be avoided > unless one wants to fall into a kind of dogmatic, tautological > circular logic. Most religions tend to follow that trend. Beware. > > I AM is self-evident. You don't need a holy man to confirm it for you. > You know it automatically; without trying; no effort. Anyone with any > sincerity can realize that they are, that they exist. That is > self-realization. Subsequently, along with this being-ness is the > accompanying awareness that one exists. And, that's all there is; > being-awareness. Everything else is just icing on the cake, so to > speak. I know, you'll say that some old holy man in Bombay said > something to somebody sometime before he died and, therefore, a school > of thought has been cultivated around him and you must not betray your > faith and self-investment in this particular belief system and so on. > But, I am just asking you to look at the evidence. Forget about the > ideology. Look at the evidence: You are. You are aware. That's all you > know. The rest is just the myriad " ten thousand things " , the eternal > dance of Shiva, the illusory world of samsara, etc., etc. > > I AM what I AM and that's all that I AM. > > (Popeye had it right). > > > > Yours, > > fuzzie No authority here to appeal to, Fuzz. Nothing to assert, no feeling of ongoing existing or that anything doesn't exist. Nor is there any lack or anything missing or absent. Positive language and assertions about being reach their end and dissolve as never having been. Affirmation and negation don't apply. Thought doesn't add anything nor take anything away. There's no need to affirm something about an imagined iam. Nothing needs to be established or affirmed, as an existing affirmer isn't imagined. Anything I've said about this is merely in the context of ongoing conversations, not to be held as some kind of ultimately true statement about the way things actually are. Same is true of anything you've said. -- Dan the only 'conversation' ever being spoken is with 'one-self'. Right fuzzy Dan? ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 fuzzie_wuz <fuzzie_wuz wrote: I AM is self-evident. You don't need a holy man to confirm it for you. You know it automatically; without trying; no effort. Anyone with any sincerity can realize that they are, that they exist. That is self-realization. Subsequently, along with this being-ness is the accompanying awareness that one exists. And, that's all there is; being-awareness. Everything else is just icing on the cake, so to speak. I know, you'll say that some old holy man in Bombay said something to somebody sometime before he died and, therefore, a school of thought has been cultivated around him and you must not betray your faith and self-investment in this particular belief system and so on. But, I am just asking you to look at the evidence. Forget about the ideology. Look at the evidence: You are. You are aware. That's all you know. The rest is just the myriad " ten thousand things " , the eternal dance of Shiva, the illusory world of samsara, etc., etc. I AM what I AM and that's all that I AM. (Popeye had it right). Yours, fuzzie ------------------------ fuzz: yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes love c. www.awakeningtotheeternal.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , Charlie Hayes <chreiki3> wrote: > > fuzzie_wuz <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > I AM is self-evident. You don't need a holy man to confirm it for you. You know it automatically; without trying; no effort. Anyone with any sincerity can realize that they are, that they exist. That is self-realization. Subsequently, along with this being-ness is the > accompanying awareness that one exists. And, that's all there is; > being-awareness. Everything else is just icing on the cake, so to > speak. I know, you'll say that some old holy man in Bombay said > something to somebody sometime before he died and, therefore, a school of thought has been cultivated around him and you must not betray your faith and self-investment in this particular belief system and so on. But, I am just asking you to look at the evidence. Forget about the ideology. Look at the evidence: You are. You are aware. That's all you know. The rest is just the myriad " ten thousand things " , the eternal dance of Shiva, the illusory world of samsara, etc., etc. > > I AM what I AM and that's all that I AM. > > (Popeye had it right). > > > > Yours, > > fuzzie > " Self " awareness is awareness of nothing. " I am " is door into the dream of separation. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Direct knowing is all that matters. > > > > > > I posted those quotes only to show there was more to Niz's > teachings, > > > and one needs to take in the whole of his thought, not bits > > > that fit with what one believes. > > > > > > My understanding is that iam is not a landing place, is not > > > worth trying to make into an ultimacy. > > > > > > Allow it to evaporate between one's fingers, and allow the > > > fingers to evaporate. Now " allowing " evaporates as well. > > > > > > No affirmation, no negation *here* -- yet the world of > > > communication, affirmations and negations, relationships, > > > spins on in its spinning -- as *this* having no negating > > > or affirming quality won't negate the mental-emotionally > > > wrought world of relating and communicating, nor the > > > felt sense of being or iamness. > > > > > > Yet, this instant all evaporates. > > > > > > As Niz said, it all goes, and even being aware of the going - > goes. > > > > > > Now, nothing can be said about *this* ... > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > Alright, Dan: > > > > " Nothing can be said about *this*... " But, I bet you say a whole > lot > > more about *this*, and, I bet you I still am, no matter how many > > people are in denial. There's too much 'appeal to authority' on > here. > > You and Toombaru tend to 'appeal to authority' to justify your > > beliefs. This is a common fallacy in logic and should be avoided > > unless one wants to fall into a kind of dogmatic, tautological > > circular logic. Most religions tend to follow that trend. Beware. > > > > I AM is self-evident. You don't need a holy man to confirm it for > you. > > You know it automatically; without trying; no effort. Anyone with > any > > sincerity can realize that they are, that they exist. That is > > self-realization. Subsequently, along with this being-ness is the > > accompanying awareness that one exists. And, that's all there is; > > being-awareness. Everything else is just icing on the cake, so to > > speak. I know, you'll say that some old holy man in Bombay said > > something to somebody sometime before he died and, therefore, a > school > > of thought has been cultivated around him and you must not betray > your > > faith and self-investment in this particular belief system and so > on. > > But, I am just asking you to look at the evidence. Forget about the > > ideology. Look at the evidence: You are. You are aware. That's all > you > > know. The rest is just the myriad " ten thousand things " , the > eternal > > dance of Shiva, the illusory world of samsara, etc., etc. > > > > I AM what I AM and that's all that I AM. > > > > (Popeye had it right). > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > fuzzie > > No authority here to appeal to, Fuzz. > > Nothing to assert, no feeling of ongoing existing > or that anything doesn't exist. > > Nor is there any lack or anything missing or absent. > > Positive language and assertions about being reach their > end and dissolve as never having been. > > Affirmation and negation don't apply. > > Thought doesn't add anything nor take anything away. > > There's no need to affirm something about an imagined iam. > > Nothing needs to be established or affirmed, as an existing > affirmer isn't imagined. > > Anything I've said about this is merely in the context of > ongoing conversations, not to be held as some kind of > ultimately true statement about the way things actually are. > Same is true of anything you've said. > > -- Dan Hi, Dan: Your post is like some kind of disclaimer. I don't know. Maybe I misunderstood where you were coming from. It's just that everybody has a different spin on what a particular guru said or did. Do you know what I mean? I was doing laundry down in the Hood this morning and I grabbed a copy of I Am That because I wanted to check into it and remember what the Maharaj was saying. I thought I knew, but, I thought maybe I'd double-check it again, just to be sure. Sure enough, I scanned a few chapters and he's saying the same thing I'm saying: remain in the I AM and it resolves itself and that's all you have to do and anything else is just a matter of preference. Ramana said the same thing, too. Now, some people say, no, that nothing exists and that Ramana and Nisargadatta didn't really mean that and, yes, there are times when they said don't get hung up on the words or the process or making it into a formula and all that kind of thing. Just get into the " sense " of I AM, they would always stress. Too many people want to make it into a formula, a doctrine, a theory and they want to organize it and start mass marketing it and they want to save the world and be all holy and pious and everything and Ramana and Nisargadatta tended to turn people away from those kinds of ego trips. And, that's good. They were right. I love those guys. I'm right with them. I'm saying the same thing, not because they said it, necessarily, but, because it is true. You can say, well, nothing is true, and, then, here we go again, around and around on some kind of circular logical mind warp, but, sooner or later you got to just let it go and let it be. I can't deny it any longer. A person can 'nyeti-nyeti' themselves silly. I AM is all there is. It's sweet. Just be. That's all. Yours, fuzzie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:12 AM > Re: Niz's teaching / Fuzzy > > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Direct knowing is all that matters. > > > > > > I posted those quotes only to show there was more to Niz's > teachings, > > > and one needs to take in the whole of his thought, not bits > > > that fit with what one believes. > > > > > > My understanding is that iam is not a landing place, is not > > > worth trying to make into an ultimacy. > > > > > > Allow it to evaporate between one's fingers, and allow the > > > fingers to evaporate. Now " allowing " evaporates as well. > > > > > > No affirmation, no negation *here* -- yet the world of > > > communication, affirmations and negations, relationships, > > > spins on in its spinning -- as *this* having no negating > > > or affirming quality won't negate the mental-emotionally > > > wrought world of relating and communicating, nor the > > > felt sense of being or iamness. > > > > > > Yet, this instant all evaporates. > > > > > > As Niz said, it all goes, and even being aware of the going - > goes. > > > > > > Now, nothing can be said about *this* ... > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > Alright, Dan: > > > > " Nothing can be said about *this*... " But, I bet you say a whole > lot > > more about *this*, and, I bet you I still am, no matter how many > > people are in denial. There's too much 'appeal to authority' on > here. > > You and Toombaru tend to 'appeal to authority' to justify your > > beliefs. This is a common fallacy in logic and should be avoided > > unless one wants to fall into a kind of dogmatic, tautological > > circular logic. Most religions tend to follow that trend. Beware. > > > > I AM is self-evident. You don't need a holy man to confirm it for > you. > > You know it automatically; without trying; no effort. Anyone with > any > > sincerity can realize that they are, that they exist. That is > > self-realization. Subsequently, along with this being-ness is the > > accompanying awareness that one exists. And, that's all there is; > > being-awareness. Everything else is just icing on the cake, so to > > speak. I know, you'll say that some old holy man in Bombay said > > something to somebody sometime before he died and, therefore, a > school > > of thought has been cultivated around him and you must not betray > your > > faith and self-investment in this particular belief system and so > on. > > But, I am just asking you to look at the evidence. Forget about the > > ideology. Look at the evidence: You are. You are aware. That's all > you > > know. The rest is just the myriad " ten thousand things " , the > eternal > > dance of Shiva, the illusory world of samsara, etc., etc. > > > > I AM what I AM and that's all that I AM. > > > > (Popeye had it right). > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > fuzzie > > No authority here to appeal to, Fuzz. > > Nothing to assert, no feeling of ongoing existing > or that anything doesn't exist. > > Nor is there any lack or anything missing or absent. > > Positive language and assertions about being reach their > end and dissolve as never having been. > > Affirmation and negation don't apply. > > Thought doesn't add anything nor take anything away. > > There's no need to affirm something about an imagined iam. > > Nothing needs to be established or affirmed, as an existing > affirmer isn't imagined. > > Anything I've said about this is merely in the context of > ongoing conversations, not to be held as some kind of > ultimately true statement about the way things actually are. > Same is true of anything you've said. > > -- Dan > > > > > > the only 'conversation' ever being spoken is with 'one-self'. > Right fuzzy Dan? Yep. You got it. You are right on. Thanks. fuzzie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 I can't deny it any longer. A person can 'nyeti-nyeti' themselves silly. I AM is all there is. It's sweet. Just be. That's all. Lovely. thanks, cheers, the Cadillac Salesman Charlie Hayes www.AwakeningToTheEternal.org Telephone 1-714-708-2311 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Charlie Hayes <chreiki3> wrote: > > > > fuzzie_wuz <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > > > I AM is self-evident. You don't need a holy man to confirm it for you. You know it > automatically; without trying; no effort. Anyone with any sincerity can realize that they are, > that they exist. That is self-realization. Subsequently, along with this being-ness is the > > accompanying awareness that one exists. And, that's all there is; > > being-awareness. Everything else is just icing on the cake, so to > > speak. I know, you'll say that some old holy man in Bombay said > > something to somebody sometime before he died and, therefore, a school of thought > has been cultivated around him and you must not betray your faith and self-investment in > this particular belief system and so on. But, I am just asking you to look at the evidence. > Forget about the ideology. Look at the evidence: You are. You are aware. That's all you > know. The rest is just the myriad " ten thousand things " , the eternal dance of Shiva, the > illusory world of samsara, etc., etc. > > > > I AM what I AM and that's all that I AM. > > > > (Popeye had it right). > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > " Self " awareness is awareness of nothing. > > " I am " is door into the dream of separation. > > > toombaru What are your proofs for your argument? Or, is yours one of those " faith-based " religions I've been hearing so much about these days? You make these broad, sweeping statements, but, you never offer any evidence to back it up. Are we supposed to take your word for it? Or, what? Sincerely, fuzzie P.S. Don't cut and paste quotes. Just give me the evidence to back up your propositions in the above post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Charlie Hayes <chreiki3> > wrote: > > > > > > fuzzie_wuz <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > > > > > I AM is self-evident. That sentence says it all. Because the supposed self believes that it has an automomous existential reality......it accepts the belief as true. What is.....in fact occuring....is a self-referential feed back loop. ......a phantom....whose only existence lies within its own memory. There is no separate self..... " It " is no more substantial then the people in night time dreams. You don't need a holy man to confirm it for > you. Indeed......all you need is you........but are you really sure that this " youness " can be trusted to be a non-biased observer? Do you really think that " you " are able to determine the truthfulness of your own personal " reality " or " unreality " ? Can " It " see its self at all? In order to " see " itself...It would have to split itself in to two.....a seer and a seen...... Are you getting a hint where this is going? You know it > > automatically; without trying; no effort. Anyone with any sincerity > can realize that they are, > > that they exist. That is self-realization. Subsequently, along with > this being-ness is the > > > accompanying awareness that one exists. And, that's all there is; > > > being-awareness. Everything else is just icing on the cake, so to > > > speak. I know, you'll say that some old holy man in Bombay said > > > something to somebody sometime before he died and, therefore, a > school of thought > > has been cultivated around him and you must not betray your faith > and self-investment in > > this particular belief system and so on. But, I am just asking you > to look at the evidence. > > Forget about the ideology. Look at the evidence: You are. You are > aware. That's all you > > know. The rest is just the myriad " ten thousand things " , the eternal > dance of Shiva, the > > illusory world of samsara, etc., etc. > > > > > > I AM what I AM and that's all that I AM. > > > > > > (Popeye had it right). > > > Popeye did not have it right. He....like this " you " that struts around whining " I am....I am......I really really am. " ...is merely a cartoon character.....a dancing little meat-puppet...a memory...destined to disappear back into the dream. > > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Self " awareness is awareness of nothing. > > > > " I am " is door into the dream of separation. > > > > > > toombaru > > > What are your proofs for your argument? One cannot proove that the water in a mirage is not wet. Or, is yours one of those > " faith-based " religions I've been hearing so much about these days? > You make these broad, sweeping statements, but, you never offer any > evidence to back it up. Are we supposed to take your word for it? Or, > what? > > Sincerely, > > fuzzie If your present belief system makes you happy......... Keep it. (If you can) toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , Charlie Hayes <chreiki3> wrote: > > I can't deny it any longer. A person can 'nyeti-nyeti' themselves silly. I AM is all there is. It's sweet. Just be. That's all. > Well.......you can try. ........................... but: .....another thirty.......forty years........you're outta here. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , Charlie Hayes <chreiki3> wrote: > > I can't deny it any longer. A person can 'nyeti-nyeti' themselves silly. I AM is all there is. It's sweet. Just be. That's all. > > > Lovely. > > thanks, > > cheers, > > the Cadillac Salesman > > > > Charlie Hayes I like them old Cadillacs from around the late 50's up into the early 60's; with the fins and all the chrome and stuff. They were something. What'd them suckers get? About 8 miles to the gallon? Yours, fuzzie P.S. I was checking your website out the other night. There's some good stuff on there. Good one liners from Nisargadatta. He could cut through the BS, couldn't he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Charlie Hayes <chreiki3> wrote: > > > > I can't deny it any longer. A person can 'nyeti-nyeti' themselves silly. I AM is all there is. It's sweet. Just be. That's all. > > > > > > Well.......you can try. > .......................... > > > but: > > > ....another thirty.......forty years........you're outta here. > > > > toombaru What's up, toombaru: You're still hung up on the body. That's the problem. You are not your body. The self is aware of the body. If you notice, you will see that you are aware of the body. Hence, you are not the body, but, the body is merely an activity, among many, that occurs in your awareness. It's the same with the mind. The body and the mind are essentially the same. Thought is a physiological process that occurs in the brain and nervous system. It is a bodily function. You are aware of all of this body-mind functioning, but, you are not this body-mind. You are the awareness of that. None of these " things " that you are aware of are You, the Self. You are simply the awareness in which all of these " things " occur. Identifying the Self with the body-mind is the biggest obstacle to self-realization. But, it can be overcome by earnestly and seriously seeing for yourself. Then, you will know without trying. Yours, fuzzie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Charlie Hayes <chreiki3> > wrote: > > > > > > I can't deny it any longer. A person can 'nyeti-nyeti' themselves > silly. I AM is all there is. It's sweet. Just be. That's all. > > > > > > > > > > > Well.......you can try. > > .......................... > > > > > > but: > > > > > > ....another thirty.......forty years........you're outta here. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > What's up, toombaru: > > You're still hung up on the body. That's the problem. You are not your > body. The self is aware of the body. If you notice, you will see that > you are aware of the body. Hence, you are not the body, but, the body > is merely an activity, among many, that occurs in your awareness. It's > the same with the mind. The body and the mind are essentially the > same. Thought is a physiological process that occurs in the brain and > nervous system. It is a bodily function. You are aware of all of this > body-mind functioning, but, you are not this body-mind. You are the > awareness of that. > > None of these " things " that you are aware of are You, the Self. You > are simply the awareness in which all of these " things " occur. > > Identifying the Self with the body-mind is the biggest obstacle to > self-realization. But, it can be overcome by earnestly and seriously > seeing for yourself. Then, you will know without trying. > > Yours, > > fuzzie Fuzzie.................That's a load of crap. Egoic grandiosity.....gone amuck. You gota stop reading that spiritual stuff. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > Snipped>> > Hi, Dan: > > Your post is like some kind of disclaimer. > > I don't know. Maybe I misunderstood where you were coming from. It's > just that everybody has a different spin on what a particular guru > said or did. Do you know what I mean? I was doing laundry down in the > Hood this morning and I grabbed a copy of I Am That because I wanted > to check into it and remember what the Maharaj was saying. I thought I > knew, but, I thought maybe I'd double-check it again, just to be sure. > Sure enough, I scanned a few chapters and he's saying the same thing > I'm saying: remain in the I AM and it resolves itself and that's all > you have to do and anything else is just a matter of preference. > Ramana said the same thing, too. Now, some people say, no, that > nothing exists and that Ramana and Nisargadatta didn't really mean > that and, yes, there are times when they said don't get hung up on the > words or the process or making it into a formula and all that kind of > thing. Just get into the " sense " of I AM, they would always stress. > Too many people want to make it into a formula, a doctrine, a theory > and they want to organize it and start mass marketing it and they want > to save the world and be all holy and pious and everything and Ramana > and Nisargadatta tended to turn people away from those kinds of ego > trips. And, that's good. They were right. I love those guys. I'm right > with them. I'm saying the same thing, not because they said it, > necessarily, but, because it is true. You can say, well, nothing is > true, and, then, here we go again, around and around on some kind of > circular logical mind warp, but, sooner or later you got to just let > it go and let it be. > > I can't deny it any longer. A person can 'nyeti-nyeti' themselves > silly. I AM is all there is. It's sweet. Just be. That's all. > > > > Yours, > > fuzzie ** Hi Fuzzie, I think I see what you're saying here. I've read over that, too, and I'm acquainted with Stephen Wolinsky's elaboration of the idea. Which is basically, the idea of a 'return.' That supposed statement of Ramana's " go back the way you came " refers to dropping all the predicates that follow after " I am, " which is not unlike " neti neti " in seeking to de-objectivize self, by abstaining from predicating or describing any qualities to mere being, mere awareness, etc. That is considered to be a practice, or sadhana-- as there is some kind of intention or deliberateness involved with it. So in a sense it's an activity which is still constructed on the assumption of a discrete 'self' or ego that is trying to effect something or eliminate something, such as the (false) objectivity. I recall that Niz said that that was all one could 'do'--the idea being that something beyond or greater would dissolve first the " I " in " I am " --leaving just " am-ness " -- a kind of pure subjectivity. That would eliminate any objectivity in " I " and also the pseudo-subjectivity of " I " as a supposed source/center of awareness or being, and then take away the am-ness too-- to what he called The Supreme The idea of 'return' could go a little further to say that the " am-ness " is biologically-based. The biological level depends on the chemical, which is prior; the chemical is preceded by the atomic, atomic by subatomic, subatomic by quantum, and quantum by ____. Beyond or 'prior' to biological or organism- level, it's non-temporal, non-describable, and asserting or negating anything couldn't apply. That was Wolinsky's addition, contemporary updating, etc. In Zen, they talk about The Unconscious. It's a contemplation that this 'level' business is now-- all of it, in this-moment, and never not the case. Hmmm? Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Charlie Hayes <chreiki3> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I can't deny it any longer. A person can 'nyeti-nyeti' themselves > > silly. I AM is all there is. It's sweet. Just be. That's all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well.......you can try. > > > .......................... > > > > > > > > > but: > > > > > > > > > ....another thirty.......forty years........you're outta here. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > What's up, toombaru: > > > > You're still hung up on the body. That's the problem. You are not your > > body. The self is aware of the body. If you notice, you will see that > > you are aware of the body. Hence, you are not the body, but, the body > > is merely an activity, among many, that occurs in your awareness. It's > > the same with the mind. The body and the mind are essentially the > > same. Thought is a physiological process that occurs in the brain and > > nervous system. It is a bodily function. You are aware of all of this > > body-mind functioning, but, you are not this body-mind. You are the > > awareness of that. > > > > None of these " things " that you are aware of are You, the Self. You > > are simply the awareness in which all of these " things " occur. > > > > Identifying the Self with the body-mind is the biggest obstacle to > > self-realization. But, it can be overcome by earnestly and seriously > > seeing for yourself. Then, you will know without trying. > > > > Yours, > > > > fuzzie > > > > > Fuzzie.................That's a load of crap. > > Egoic grandiosity.....gone amuck. > > > You gota stop reading that spiritual stuff. > > toombaru What's a load of crap? Do you mean the body-mind-ego? Well, I guess it could be portrayed as " a load of crap " in one sense, but, are you saying that my fallacy is all wrong? What gives? Yours, fuzzie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > > Snipped>> > > > > Hi, Dan: > > > > Your post is like some kind of disclaimer. > > > > I don't know. Maybe I misunderstood where you were coming from. > It's > > just that everybody has a different spin on what a particular guru > > said or did. Do you know what I mean? I was doing laundry down in > the > > Hood this morning and I grabbed a copy of I Am That because I > wanted > > to check into it and remember what the Maharaj was saying. I > thought I > > knew, but, I thought maybe I'd double-check it again, just to be > sure. > > Sure enough, I scanned a few chapters and he's saying the same > thing > > I'm saying: remain in the I AM and it resolves itself and that's > all > > you have to do and anything else is just a matter of preference. > > Ramana said the same thing, too. Now, some people say, no, that > > nothing exists and that Ramana and Nisargadatta didn't really mean > > that and, yes, there are times when they said don't get hung up on > the > > words or the process or making it into a formula and all that kind > of > > thing. Just get into the " sense " of I AM, they would always stress. > > Too many people want to make it into a formula, a doctrine, a > theory > > and they want to organize it and start mass marketing it and they > want > > to save the world and be all holy and pious and everything and > Ramana > > and Nisargadatta tended to turn people away from those kinds of ego > > trips. And, that's good. They were right. I love those guys. I'm > right > > with them. I'm saying the same thing, not because they said it, > > necessarily, but, because it is true. You can say, well, nothing is > > true, and, then, here we go again, around and around on some kind > of > > circular logical mind warp, but, sooner or later you got to just > let > > it go and let it be. > > > > I can't deny it any longer. A person can 'nyeti-nyeti' themselves > > silly. I AM is all there is. It's sweet. Just be. That's all. > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > fuzzie > > ** Hi Fuzzie, > > I think I see what you're saying here. I've read over that, too, > and I'm acquainted with Stephen Wolinsky's elaboration > of the idea. > > Which is basically, the idea of a 'return.' That supposed > statement of Ramana's " go back the way you came " refers to dropping > all the predicates that follow after " I am, " which is not unlike > " neti neti " in seeking to de-objectivize self, by abstaining > from predicating or describing any qualities to mere being, > mere awareness, etc. > > That is considered to be a practice, or sadhana-- as there is > some kind > of intention or deliberateness involved with it. So in a sense > it's an activity which is still constructed on the assumption > of a discrete 'self' or ego that is trying to effect something > or eliminate something, such as the (false) objectivity. > > > I recall that Niz said that that was all one could 'do'--the > idea being that something beyond or greater would dissolve first > the " I " in " I am " --leaving just " am-ness " -- a kind of > pure subjectivity. That would eliminate any objectivity in > " I " and also the pseudo-subjectivity of " I " as a supposed > source/center of awareness or being, and then take away > the am-ness too-- to what he called The Supreme > > The idea of 'return' could go a little further to say that the > " am-ness " is biologically-based. The biological level depends > on the chemical, which is prior; the chemical is preceded > by the atomic, atomic by subatomic, subatomic by quantum, and > quantum by ____. Beyond or 'prior' to biological or organism- > level, it's non-temporal, non-describable, and asserting or > negating anything couldn't apply. That was Wolinsky's addition, > contemporary updating, etc. > > In Zen, they talk about The Unconscious. It's a contemplation > that this 'level' business is now-- all of it, in this-moment, > and never not the case. > > > Hmmm? > > Ken Hi, Ken: I like some of those Zen people. But, I am not familiar with Stephen Wolinsky. As far as Ramana is concerned, when he advocated " returning " back the way you came, he wasn't saying that somebody should go from point A to point B, from here to there, but, he was saying turn the focus of the mind back onto itself. Find the " I " , he would say. The attention of the mind is habitually turned outward. He was saying turn the current of attention back upon itself. See the source. Who am I?, he would inquire. Classic stuff. Older than the Gita. It's so simple, that, it is hard to understand. There is existence. Existence is the awareness that there is existence. That is all there is: Being-awareness; I AM. Everything else is just effluvia. Yours, fuzzie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Charlie Hayes <chreiki3> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I can't deny it any longer. A person can 'nyeti-nyeti' themselves > > > silly. I AM is all there is. It's sweet. Just be. That's all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well.......you can try. > > > > .......................... > > > > > > > > > > > > but: > > > > > > > > > > > > ....another thirty.......forty years........you're outta here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > What's up, toombaru: > > > > > > You're still hung up on the body. That's the problem. You are not your > > > body. The self is aware of the body. If you notice, you will see that > > > you are aware of the body. Hence, you are not the body, but, the body > > > is merely an activity, among many, that occurs in your awareness. It's > > > the same with the mind. The body and the mind are essentially the > > > same. Thought is a physiological process that occurs in the brain and > > > nervous system. It is a bodily function. You are aware of all of this > > > body-mind functioning, but, you are not this body-mind. You are the > > > awareness of that. > > > > > > None of these " things " that you are aware of are You, the Self. You > > > are simply the awareness in which all of these " things " occur. > > > > > > Identifying the Self with the body-mind is the biggest obstacle to > > > self-realization. But, it can be overcome by earnestly and seriously > > > seeing for yourself. Then, you will know without trying. > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > Fuzzie.................That's a load of crap. > > > > Egoic grandiosity.....gone amuck. > > > > > > You gota stop reading that spiritual stuff. > > > > toombaru > > > What's a load of crap? Do you mean the body-mind-ego? Well, I guess it > could be portrayed as " a load of crap " in one sense, but, are you > saying that my fallacy is all wrong? What gives? > > Yours, > > fuzzie fuzzie: " Identifying the Self with the body-mind is the biggest obstacle to self-realization. But, it can be overcome by earnestly and seriously seeing for yourself. Then, you will know without trying. " To whom is the above statement addressed? Are you talking to the assumed self? Are you assuming that this phantom can somehow become aware of itself? ....and then somehow transcend its own personal reality? ....That the " self " is an autonomous entity that can learn about its true condition and somehow benefit from that knowledge? Are you saying that the " self " or " Self " are somehow separate form the body-mind?.....and can somehow....through its own efforts ..reunite these separate " things " ? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 In a message dated 4/21/05 6:37:41 AM, dan330033 writes: > fuzzie_wuz <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > > > snip > > > > > > It's so simple, that, it is hard to understand. There is > existence. Existence is the awareness that there is existence. That > is all there is: Being-awareness; I AM. Everything else is just > effluvia. > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > fuzzie > > It's even simpler. > > There's much less to it than that. > > > Dan > > P: Yes, much less to know. When people talk, or think, they don't realize they are dealing out only language cards in an association game. So Fuzzy got the card labeled existence, and associated that card with two other cards: Being and awareness. Another might associate them with sufffering, another with bliss. All three might think their meaning of existence is the only one, and that the other two players must per force agree with him. Language is circular, and points only to more words. True knowing is walking a tightrope in complete darkness, trusting the infallibility of your feet. Absorbed in the verbal card game, the players think they are dispensing clarity, while only a fuzziness more confusing than darkness pervades the game. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 BINGO. love c fuzzie_wuz <fuzzie_wuz wrote: snip It's so simple, that, it is hard to understand. There is existence. Existence is the awareness that there is existence. That is all there is: Being-awareness; I AM. Everything else is just effluvia. Yours, fuzzie ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , Charlie Hayes <chreiki3> wrote: > BINGO. > love > c > > fuzzie_wuz <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > snip > > > It's so simple, that, it is hard to understand. There is existence. Existence is the awareness that there is existence. That is all there is: Being-awareness; I AM. Everything else is just effluvia. > > > > Yours, > > fuzzie It's even simpler. There's much less to it than that. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 <laughing out loud inside> gate' gate' dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: It's even simpler. There's much less to it than that. Dan ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 I LOVE this line... " Pure being, filling all and beyond all, is not existence, which is limited. All limitation is imaginary, only the unlimited is real. " ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: Nisargadatta , Charlie Hayes <chreiki3> wrote: > BINGO. > love > c > > fuzzie_wuz <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > snip > > > It's so simple, that, it is hard to understand. There is existence. Existence is the awareness that there is existence. That is all there is: Being-awareness; I AM. Everything else is just effluvia. > > > > Yours, > > fuzzie It's even simpler. There's much less to it than that. Dan ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , Charlie Hayes <chreiki3> wrote: > BINGO. > love > c > > fuzzie_wuz <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > snip > > > It's so simple, that, it is hard to understand. There is existence. Existence is the awareness that there is existence. That is all there is: Being-awareness; I AM. Everything else is just effluvia. > > > > Yours, > > fuzzie > > > > ...there is nothing else...... 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.