Guest guest Posted April 18, 2005 Report Share Posted April 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " > <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Advaita means not two. Not two is not two, so advaita includes not > > not > > > two, but that is two, and yet advaita means not two. I can't get this > > > logic to compute. > > > > > > al. > > > > A-dvaita means not(a) divided(dvaited). That which is, is not > > divided, although it sure as hell seems that way most of the time. > > That's called maya. It's also called paradox, to which logic does not > > apply. > > > > In other words, al, you can't get here from there, computer or no > > computer. > > > > In other words, al, pack it in, give it up, take a break, enjoy the > > mochachino, quit worrying, cause...... " you " ain't gonna get it anyhow. > > > I can divide myself into three me:s: (1) past me, (2) present me, and > (3) future me. And that's a miracle, because who is doing the > dividing? There must be a fourth (4) me! > > Me 4 operates in the now because that's where change happens, and that > means me 4 and me 2 (the present me) are the same me. So the present > me is a divider! The present me cannot act in the future and cannot > act in the past. But the present me can divide myself into a future > me, and that futute me can act in the future! > > Only the present me can worry. But the present me can only about the > future. So the present me is worried that the future me will mess it > up for the present me in the future. The present me can actually never > be in the future but it can pretend, and so it can worry in the > present moment about a future which it will never experience. > > al. That's it in a nutshell. The #2 you, in league with you #4(misery loves company!), is the dvaiter. If you can just get you #1 and the #3 you to combine forces and nudge the #2 and the #4 you aside, you will be a wholistic as you were the day you went to the Health & Healing Expo in your last incarnation. It's very simple al, once you get the hang of it. The only problem might be You #5 or the Silent Witness you which is taking your split drama in, but non-judgementally, to be sure. As you go further down this path you also might want to consider You #6, the Absolute You, which, as I was telling my wife the other night, " is necessarily devoid of any kind of objective existence whatever, other than that of the totality of all possible phenomena which constitute its relative appearance. " Hope this helps. Wei Wu E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2005 Report Share Posted April 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " > > <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Advaita means not two. Not two is not two, so advaita includes > not > > > not > > > > two, but that is two, and yet advaita means not two. I can't > get this > > > > logic to compute. > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > A-dvaita means not(a) divided(dvaited). That which is, is not > > > divided, although it sure as hell seems that way most of the time. > > > That's called maya. It's also called paradox, to which logic > does not > > > apply. > > > > > > In other words, al, you can't get here from there, computer or no > > > computer. > > > > > > In other words, al, pack it in, give it up, take a break, enjoy > the > > > mochachino, quit worrying, cause...... " you " ain't gonna get it > anyhow. > > > > > > I can divide myself into three me:s: (1) past me, (2) present me, > and > > (3) future me. And that's a miracle, because who is doing the > > dividing? There must be a fourth (4) me! > > > > Me 4 operates in the now because that's where change happens, and > that > > means me 4 and me 2 (the present me) are the same me. So the present > > me is a divider! The present me cannot act in the future and cannot > > act in the past. But the present me can divide myself into a future > > me, and that futute me can act in the future! > > > > Only the present me can worry. But the present me can only about the > > future. So the present me is worried that the future me will mess it > > up for the present me in the future. The present me can actually > never > > be in the future but it can pretend, and so it can worry in the > > present moment about a future which it will never experience. > > > > al. > > That's it in a nutshell. The #2 you, in league with you #4(misery > loves company!), is the dvaiter. If you can just get you #1 and the > #3 you to combine forces and nudge the #2 and the #4 you aside, you > will be a wholistic as you were the day you went to the Health & > Healing Expo in your last incarnation. > > It's very simple al, once you get the hang of it. > > The only problem might be You #5 or the Silent Witness you which is > taking your split drama in, but non-judgementally, to be sure. > > As you go further down this path you also might want to consider You > #6, the Absolute You, which, as I was telling my wife the other > night, " is necessarily devoid of any kind of objective existence > whatever, other than that of the totality of all possible phenomena > which constitute its relative appearance. " > > Hope this helps. > > Wei Wu E Advaita means that there can be me #1, and me #2, #3, #4, #5,... But there can never be me #2. The One - not two - and Many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2005 Report Share Posted April 18, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Monday, April 18, 2005 5:45 PM Re: Nutshell Case Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " > > <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Advaita means not two. Not two is not two, so advaita includes > not > > > not > > > > two, but that is two, and yet advaita means not two. I can't > get this > > > > logic to compute. > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > A-dvaita means not(a) divided(dvaited). That which is, is not > > > divided, although it sure as hell seems that way most of the time. > > > That's called maya. It's also called paradox, to which logic > does not > > > apply. > > > > > > In other words, al, you can't get here from there, computer or no > > > computer. > > > > > > In other words, al, pack it in, give it up, take a break, enjoy > the > > > mochachino, quit worrying, cause...... " you " ain't gonna get it > anyhow. > > > > > > I can divide myself into three me:s: (1) past me, (2) present me, > and > > (3) future me. And that's a miracle, because who is doing the > > dividing? There must be a fourth (4) me! > > > > Me 4 operates in the now because that's where change happens, and > that > > means me 4 and me 2 (the present me) are the same me. So the present > > me is a divider! The present me cannot act in the future and cannot > > act in the past. But the present me can divide myself into a future > > me, and that futute me can act in the future! > > > > Only the present me can worry. But the present me can only about the > > future. So the present me is worried that the future me will mess it > > up for the present me in the future. The present me can actually > never > > be in the future but it can pretend, and so it can worry in the > > present moment about a future which it will never experience. > > > > al. > > That's it in a nutshell. The #2 you, in league with you #4(misery > loves company!), is the dvaiter. If you can just get you #1 and the > #3 you to combine forces and nudge the #2 and the #4 you aside, you > will be a wholistic as you were the day you went to the Health & > Healing Expo in your last incarnation. > > It's very simple al, once you get the hang of it. > > The only problem might be You #5 or the Silent Witness you which is > taking your split drama in, but non-judgementally, to be sure. > > As you go further down this path you also might want to consider You > #6, the Absolute You, which, as I was telling my wife the other > night, " is necessarily devoid of any kind of objective existence > whatever, other than that of the totality of all possible phenomena > which constitute its relative appearance. " > > Hope this helps. > > Wei Wu E Advaita means that there can be me #1, and me #2, #3, #4, #5,... But there can never be me #2. The One - not two - and Many. Hi Al, er, One as the Many, no? anna ** 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 18, 2005 Report Share Posted April 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Monday, April 18, 2005 5:45 PM > Re: Nutshell Case > > > > Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " > <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " > > > <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Advaita means not two. Not two is not two, so advaita includes > > not > > > > not > > > > > two, but that is two, and yet advaita means not two. I can't > > get this > > > > > logic to compute. > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > A-dvaita means not(a) divided(dvaited). That which is, is not > > > > divided, although it sure as hell seems that way most of the time. > > > > That's called maya. It's also called paradox, to which logic > > does not > > > > apply. > > > > > > > > In other words, al, you can't get here from there, computer or no > > > > computer. > > > > > > > > In other words, al, pack it in, give it up, take a break, enjoy > > the > > > > mochachino, quit worrying, cause...... " you " ain't gonna get it > > anyhow. > > > > > > > > > I can divide myself into three me:s: (1) past me, (2) present me, > > and > > > (3) future me. And that's a miracle, because who is doing the > > > dividing? There must be a fourth (4) me! > > > > > > Me 4 operates in the now because that's where change happens, and > > that > > > means me 4 and me 2 (the present me) are the same me. So the present > > > me is a divider! The present me cannot act in the future and cannot > > > act in the past. But the present me can divide myself into a future > > > me, and that futute me can act in the future! > > > > > > Only the present me can worry. But the present me can only about the > > > future. So the present me is worried that the future me will mess it > > > up for the present me in the future. The present me can actually > > never > > > be in the future but it can pretend, and so it can worry in the > > > present moment about a future which it will never experience. > > > > > > al. > > > > That's it in a nutshell. The #2 you, in league with you #4(misery > > loves company!), is the dvaiter. If you can just get you #1 and the > > #3 you to combine forces and nudge the #2 and the #4 you aside, you > > will be a wholistic as you were the day you went to the Health & > > Healing Expo in your last incarnation. > > > > It's very simple al, once you get the hang of it. > > > > The only problem might be You #5 or the Silent Witness you which is > > taking your split drama in, but non-judgementally, to be sure. > > > > As you go further down this path you also might want to consider You > > #6, the Absolute You, which, as I was telling my wife the other > > night, " is necessarily devoid of any kind of objective existence > > whatever, other than that of the totality of all possible phenomena > > which constitute its relative appearance. " > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > Wei Wu E > > > Advaita means that there can be me #1, and me #2, #3, #4, #5,... But > there can never be me #2. > > The One - not two - and Many. > > Hi Al, > > er, One as the Many, no? > > anna Yes, the not two points to the fact that for there to be two separate things there must be something that seemingly creates the split which means a third thing must be in operation for the two to appear. al. ** > > 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 18, 2005 Report Share Posted April 18, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Monday, April 18, 2005 6:55 PM Re: Nutshell Case Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Monday, April 18, 2005 5:45 PM > Re: Nutshell Case > > > > Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " > <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " > > > <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Advaita means not two. Not two is not two, so advaita includes > > not > > > > not > > > > > two, but that is two, and yet advaita means not two. I can't > > get this > > > > > logic to compute. > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > A-dvaita means not(a) divided(dvaited). That which is, is not > > > > divided, although it sure as hell seems that way most of the time. > > > > That's called maya. It's also called paradox, to which logic > > does not > > > > apply. > > > > > > > > In other words, al, you can't get here from there, computer or no > > > > computer. > > > > > > > > In other words, al, pack it in, give it up, take a break, enjoy > > the > > > > mochachino, quit worrying, cause...... " you " ain't gonna get it > > anyhow. > > > > > > > > > I can divide myself into three me:s: (1) past me, (2) present me, > > and > > > (3) future me. And that's a miracle, because who is doing the > > > dividing? There must be a fourth (4) me! > > > > > > Me 4 operates in the now because that's where change happens, and > > that > > > means me 4 and me 2 (the present me) are the same me. So the present > > > me is a divider! The present me cannot act in the future and cannot > > > act in the past. But the present me can divide myself into a future > > > me, and that futute me can act in the future! > > > > > > Only the present me can worry. But the present me can only about the > > > future. So the present me is worried that the future me will mess it > > > up for the present me in the future. The present me can actually > > never > > > be in the future but it can pretend, and so it can worry in the > > > present moment about a future which it will never experience. > > > > > > al. > > > > That's it in a nutshell. The #2 you, in league with you #4(misery > > loves company!), is the dvaiter. If you can just get you #1 and the > > #3 you to combine forces and nudge the #2 and the #4 you aside, you > > will be a wholistic as you were the day you went to the Health & > > Healing Expo in your last incarnation. > > > > It's very simple al, once you get the hang of it. > > > > The only problem might be You #5 or the Silent Witness you which is > > taking your split drama in, but non-judgementally, to be sure. > > > > As you go further down this path you also might want to consider You > > #6, the Absolute You, which, as I was telling my wife the other > > night, " is necessarily devoid of any kind of objective existence > > whatever, other than that of the totality of all possible phenomena > > which constitute its relative appearance. " > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > Wei Wu E > > > Advaita means that there can be me #1, and me #2, #3, #4, #5,... But > there can never be me #2. > > The One - not two - and Many. > > Hi Al, > > er, One as the Many, no? > > anna Yes, the not two points to the fact that for there to be two separate things there must be something that seemingly creates the split which means a third thing must be in operation for the two to appear. al. and that 3rd aspect would be Being, since there is only Now, it would have to occur in the present, therefore, One <is> Being <the> Many )) Now, one question Sir, Intelligence, Knowledge need (?) a ground of being, as I have said once or twice, (dunno if it was here, though) It needs glue to hold it together. Can we call that E-motion, Love.(not the comes and goes kind) That which allows All That Is To Be As It Is ie. The One Being the Many. Too cut and dried, Lifeless so to speak. The One Being The Many is Alive... Love, Anna > > > > > > > ** > > 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 18, 2005 Report Share Posted April 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Monday, April 18, 2005 6:55 PM > Re: Nutshell Case > > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > - > > anders_lindman > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, April 18, 2005 5:45 PM > > Re: Nutshell Case > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " > > <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " > > > > <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Advaita means not two. Not two is not two, so advaita > includes > > > not > > > > > not > > > > > > two, but that is two, and yet advaita means not two. I can't > > > get this > > > > > > logic to compute. > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > A-dvaita means not(a) divided(dvaited). That which is, is not > > > > > divided, although it sure as hell seems that way most of the > time. > > > > > That's called maya. It's also called paradox, to which logic > > > does not > > > > > apply. > > > > > > > > > > In other words, al, you can't get here from there, computer > or no > > > > > computer. > > > > > > > > > > In other words, al, pack it in, give it up, take a break, enjoy > > > the > > > > > mochachino, quit worrying, cause...... " you " ain't gonna get it > > > anyhow. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can divide myself into three me:s: (1) past me, (2) present me, > > > and > > > > (3) future me. And that's a miracle, because who is doing the > > > > dividing? There must be a fourth (4) me! > > > > > > > > Me 4 operates in the now because that's where change happens, and > > > that > > > > means me 4 and me 2 (the present me) are the same me. So the > present > > > > me is a divider! The present me cannot act in the future and > cannot > > > > act in the past. But the present me can divide myself into a > future > > > > me, and that futute me can act in the future! > > > > > > > > Only the present me can worry. But the present me can only > about the > > > > future. So the present me is worried that the future me will > mess it > > > > up for the present me in the future. The present me can actually > > > never > > > > be in the future but it can pretend, and so it can worry in the > > > > present moment about a future which it will never experience. > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > That's it in a nutshell. The #2 you, in league with you #4(misery > > > loves company!), is the dvaiter. If you can just get you #1 and > the > > > #3 you to combine forces and nudge the #2 and the #4 you aside, you > > > will be a wholistic as you were the day you went to the Health & > > > Healing Expo in your last incarnation. > > > > > > It's very simple al, once you get the hang of it. > > > > > > The only problem might be You #5 or the Silent Witness you which is > > > taking your split drama in, but non-judgementally, to be sure. > > > > > > As you go further down this path you also might want to consider > You > > > #6, the Absolute You, which, as I was telling my wife the other > > > night, " is necessarily devoid of any kind of objective existence > > > whatever, other than that of the totality of all possible phenomena > > > which constitute its relative appearance. " > > > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > > > Wei Wu E > > > > > > Advaita means that there can be me #1, and me #2, #3, #4, #5,... But > > there can never be me #2. > > > > The One - not two - and Many. > > > > Hi Al, > > > > er, One as the Many, no? > > > > anna > > > Yes, the not two points to the fact that for there to be two separate > things there must be something that seemingly creates the split which > means a third thing must be in operation for the two to appear. > > al. > > > and that 3rd aspect would be Being, since there is only Now, it would have to occur in the present, therefore, > > One <is> Being <the> Many > > )) > > Now, one question Sir, Intelligence, Knowledge need (?) a ground of being, as I have said once or twice, (dunno if it was here, though) It needs glue to hold it together. Can we call that E-motion, Love.(not the comes and goes kind) That which allows All That Is To Be As It Is ie. The One Being the Many. > > Too cut and dried, Lifeless so to speak. > > The One Being The Many is Alive... > > Love, > Anna > Yes, I think it important to point out the aliveness aspect of reality. We tend to think in terms of things, objects and separate events without realizing that it is aliveness that makes all of this possible. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2005 Report Share Posted April 18, 2005 Man. You're killing me. This last one made me laugh so hard I went into one of them coughing fits. This stuff is hilarious. Thanks. fuzzie Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " > > <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Advaita means not two. Not two is not two, so advaita includes > not > > > not > > > > two, but that is two, and yet advaita means not two. I can't > get this > > > > logic to compute. > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > A-dvaita means not(a) divided(dvaited). That which is, is not > > > divided, although it sure as hell seems that way most of the time. > > > That's called maya. It's also called paradox, to which logic > does not > > > apply. > > > > > > In other words, al, you can't get here from there, computer or no > > > computer. > > > > > > In other words, al, pack it in, give it up, take a break, enjoy > the > > > mochachino, quit worrying, cause...... " you " ain't gonna get it > anyhow. > > > > > > I can divide myself into three me:s: (1) past me, (2) present me, > and > > (3) future me. And that's a miracle, because who is doing the > > dividing? There must be a fourth (4) me! > > > > Me 4 operates in the now because that's where change happens, and > that > > means me 4 and me 2 (the present me) are the same me. So the present > > me is a divider! The present me cannot act in the future and cannot > > act in the past. But the present me can divide myself into a future > > me, and that futute me can act in the future! > > > > Only the present me can worry. But the present me can only about the > > future. So the present me is worried that the future me will mess it > > up for the present me in the future. The present me can actually > never > > be in the future but it can pretend, and so it can worry in the > > present moment about a future which it will never experience. > > > > al. > > That's it in a nutshell. The #2 you, in league with you #4(misery > loves company!), is the dvaiter. If you can just get you #1 and the > #3 you to combine forces and nudge the #2 and the #4 you aside, you > will be a wholistic as you were the day you went to the Health & > Healing Expo in your last incarnation. > > It's very simple al, once you get the hang of it. > > The only problem might be You #5 or the Silent Witness you which is > taking your split drama in, but non-judgementally, to be sure. > > As you go further down this path you also might want to consider You > #6, the Absolute You, which, as I was telling my wife the other > night, " is necessarily devoid of any kind of objective existence > whatever, other than that of the totality of all possible phenomena > which constitute its relative appearance. " > > Hope this helps. > > Wei Wu E 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.