Guest guest Posted May 9, 2005 Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 " Vanity, vanity! Said the preacher, All is vanity " The Old Testament. To think we own anything is vanity. To believe we own a body, a mind, consciousness, beauty, wisdom, to even think we own our faults is vanity. The owner of tangibles and intangibles (the person) is a legal, social. Linguistic fiction. No more real than a corporation. A person is a useful misunderstanding of sensory data. Only the sense of existing moment by moment is there, and on that tenuous screen memory projects that great epic movie, that ticket office blockbuster called " Me and My Life. " Of course, a vain person isn't going to agree with this. A vain person loves the illusion of possessing a pretty face, a wonderful mind, a realized self. Never mind if the picture is 20 years old, that was her face then, and that somehow is still her, she thinks. And on seeing her picture other vain people (people deluded by ownership) fall for the trick that they saw her, when they only saw some pixels on a screen. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 In a message dated 5/9/05 6:03:05 PM, Nisargadatta writes: P: My god, child! You wrote all that confused verbiage to tell us you believe that you are consciousness. Because it's only a believe, and we knew already that, that is your believe. Furthermore we know you believe this consciousness is eternal. But this is a half baked belief with you because you think you are a pretty face too. If you really truly believed that you were consciousness you could have posted a dog face. So the fact remains, you are the vain owner of a pretty face. And I noticed the pose too, in profile with eyes turned to heaven with an angelic stare. Very Christ like. LOL > sam: YOU/consciousness own it, are it, and operate through it. > Whether you are an ego state or not, it is all YOU. You can deny > it, refuse it, fight against it, wrap words around it by saying your > non-dualist and know that this idea is separated, but actually, > eventually, you may accept that you are YOU/IT/Consciousness. There > is nothing else but YOU -- with all IT's dream stuff, IT's body > stuff and that All that is is only YOU -- consciousness. That there > is no division, although you continuously obsessively chat about > this division as being not real, the fact is, you don't believe it, > because you still insist on saying that you are not IT. If you are > not IT/consciousness in all it's nothingness and it's dreamness and > it's somethingness and complexities thereof, then what are you? As > the movie called I Heart Huckabees says, " How can I not be me? " > Whatever you are YOU are consciousness - darkly, brightly, fighting, > loving, screaming, singing --- IT's All You. Perhaps if you, > toombaru, etc, accepted that you are IT then you would have Nothing > left to fight about. Then perhaps you would accept that YOU are > all of the little bodies typing. But cleverly you focus on saying > that there is no one typing. That's not the point. The point is > that consciousness is having an experience (who cares if it's an > illusory one?) and IT's ALL just fine. A person is a useful > understanding of YOU data. > > Yes, the sense of existing moment by moment is there. You sense it > as a fight which must reject things that are illusory by saying they > don't exist. Some sense it by peace in accepting that They/IT IS > the illusory and the non-illusory and anything/everything/nothing in > between, up/down/sideways and creates a perception of > up/down/sideways just to sense it all. Consciousness is funny that > way. Consciousness does what it likes/wants/chooses and hence > there's a Pete, a Toombaru, a Sam, an Al and it doesn't matter if > you perceive it as a fragment because it really is not. and you > will not know that because you are so busy fighting against what you > are by fighting about what you are not. And yet, you are it all - > Consciousness. If you accept - then you accept All that You Are and > flow in and out, around and through the dream - or not. As you > (gasp) choose based on what you (gasp) decide. You don't believe > you can do that, and so you remain not doing that. If you accepted > that YOU could then you wouldn't remain in suffering.....YOU'D > choose/decide differently....and in that choosing it would all be > fine. IT doesn't care if it's a dream...that's where you get > tangled up, in the dream and identification of illusion. Pete, if > you truly were in the moment, this moment, you would know that, and > YOU wouldn't fight against what you are, rather pick and choose and > release and let go of things back into the void of nothingness, or > conversely create and choose and pick from the void of nothingness - > as YOUR consciousness imagines, (and there is only YOUR's). > > > > > > Of course, a vain person isn't going to agree with this. A vain > person loves > > the illusion of possessing a pretty face, a wonderful mind, a > realized self. > > Never mind if the picture is 20 years old, that was her face then, > and > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > " Vanity, vanity! Said the preacher, All is vanity " The Old Testament. > > To think we own anything is vanity. To believe we own a body, > a mind, consciousness, beauty, wisdom, to even think we own our > faults is vanity. The owner of tangibles and intangibles (the person) > is a legal, social. Linguistic fiction. No more real than a corporation. > A person is a useful misunderstanding of sensory data. Only the > sense of existing moment by moment is there, and on that tenuous screen > memory projects that great epic movie, that ticket office blockbuster > called " Me and My Life. " sam: YOU/consciousness own it, are it, and operate through it. Whether you are an ego state or not, it is all YOU. You can deny it, refuse it, fight against it, wrap words around it by saying your non-dualist and know that this idea is separated, but actually, eventually, you may accept that you are YOU/IT/Consciousness. There is nothing else but YOU -- with all IT's dream stuff, IT's body stuff and that All that is is only YOU -- consciousness. That there is no division, although you continuously obsessively chat about this division as being not real, the fact is, you don't believe it, because you still insist on saying that you are not IT. If you are not IT/consciousness in all it's nothingness and it's dreamness and it's somethingness and complexities thereof, then what are you? As the movie called I Heart Huckabees says, " How can I not be me? " Whatever you are YOU are consciousness - darkly, brightly, fighting, loving, screaming, singing --- IT's All You. Perhaps if you, toombaru, etc, accepted that you are IT then you would have Nothing left to fight about. Then perhaps you would accept that YOU are all of the little bodies typing. But cleverly you focus on saying that there is no one typing. That's not the point. The point is that consciousness is having an experience (who cares if it's an illusory one?) and IT's ALL just fine. A person is a useful understanding of YOU data. Yes, the sense of existing moment by moment is there. You sense it as a fight which must reject things that are illusory by saying they don't exist. Some sense it by peace in accepting that They/IT IS the illusory and the non-illusory and anything/everything/nothing in between, up/down/sideways and creates a perception of up/down/sideways just to sense it all. Consciousness is funny that way. Consciousness does what it likes/wants/chooses and hence there's a Pete, a Toombaru, a Sam, an Al and it doesn't matter if you perceive it as a fragment because it really is not. and you will not know that because you are so busy fighting against what you are by fighting about what you are not. And yet, you are it all - Consciousness. If you accept - then you accept All that You Are and flow in and out, around and through the dream - or not. As you (gasp) choose based on what you (gasp) decide. You don't believe you can do that, and so you remain not doing that. If you accepted that YOU could then you wouldn't remain in suffering.....YOU'D choose/decide differently....and in that choosing it would all be fine. IT doesn't care if it's a dream...that's where you get tangled up, in the dream and identification of illusion. Pete, if you truly were in the moment, this moment, you would know that, and YOU wouldn't fight against what you are, rather pick and choose and release and let go of things back into the void of nothingness, or conversely create and choose and pick from the void of nothingness - as YOUR consciousness imagines, (and there is only YOUR's). > > Of course, a vain person isn't going to agree with this. A vain person loves > the illusion of possessing a pretty face, a wonderful mind, a realized self. > Never mind if the picture is 20 years old, that was her face then, and > that somehow is still her, she thinks. And on seeing her picture other vain > > people (people deluded by ownership) fall for the trick that they saw her, > when they only saw some pixels on a screen. > > Pete > > sam: of course a person who really likes their illusion of what their doing is not going to agree with this because they love love the chat of non-reality and the never-realized self. There's nothing wrong with it - even in rejecting that this is what you do, rather than accepting that this is what you do as you type and yet speak with a forked tongue. I don't care to speak with a fork tongue becuz there's nothing to deny or reject -- only to accept as I/consciousness in this moment. That is enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > " Vanity, vanity! Said the preacher, All is vanity " The Old > Testament. > > > > To think we own anything is vanity. To believe we own a body, > > a mind, consciousness, beauty, wisdom, to even think we own our > > faults is vanity. The owner of tangibles and intangibles (the > person) > > is a legal, social. Linguistic fiction. No more real than a > corporation. > > A person is a useful misunderstanding of sensory data. Only the > > sense of existing moment by moment is there, and on that tenuous > screen > > memory projects that great epic movie, that ticket office > blockbuster > > called " Me and My Life. " > > > sam: YOU/consciousness own it, are it, and operate through it. > Whether you are an ego state or not, it is all YOU. You can deny > it, refuse it, fight against it, wrap words around it by saying your > non-dualist and know that this idea is separated, but actually, > eventually, you may accept that you are YOU/IT/Consciousness. There > is nothing else but YOU -- with all IT's dream stuff, IT's body > stuff and that All that is is only YOU -- consciousness. That there > is no division, although you continuously obsessively chat about > this division as being not real, the fact is, you don't believe it, > because you still insist on saying that you are not IT. If you are > not IT/consciousness in all it's nothingness and it's dreamness and > it's somethingness and complexities thereof, then what are you? As > the movie called I Heart Huckabees says, " How can I not be me? " > Whatever you are YOU are consciousness - darkly, brightly, fighting, > loving, screaming, singing --- IT's All You. Perhaps if you, > toombaru, etc, accepted that you are IT then you would have Nothing > left to fight about. Then perhaps you would accept that YOU are > all of the little bodies typing. But cleverly you focus on saying > that there is no one typing. That's not the point. The point is > that consciousness is having an experience (who cares if it's an > illusory one?) and IT's ALL just fine. A person is a useful > understanding of YOU data. > > Yes, the sense of existing moment by moment is there. You sense it > as a fight which must reject things that are illusory by saying they > don't exist. Some sense it by peace in accepting that They/IT IS > the illusory and the non-illusory and anything/everything/nothing in > between, up/down/sideways and creates a perception of > up/down/sideways just to sense it all. Consciousness is funny that > way. Consciousness does what it likes/wants/chooses and hence > there's a Pete, a Toombaru, a Sam, an Al and it doesn't matter if > you perceive it as a fragment because it really is not. and you > will not know that because you are so busy fighting against what you > are by fighting about what you are not. And yet, you are it all - > Consciousness. If you accept - then you accept All that You Are and > flow in and out, around and through the dream - or not. As you > (gasp) choose based on what you (gasp) decide. You don't believe > you can do that, and so you remain not doing that. If you accepted > that YOU could then you wouldn't remain in suffering.....YOU'D > choose/decide differently....and in that choosing it would all be > fine. IT doesn't care if it's a dream...that's where you get > tangled up, in the dream and identification of illusion. Pete, if > you truly were in the moment, this moment, you would know that, and > YOU wouldn't fight against what you are, rather pick and choose and > release and let go of things back into the void of nothingness, or > conversely create and choose and pick from the void of nothingness - > as YOUR consciousness imagines, (and there is only YOUR's). > > > > > > Of course, a vain person isn't going to agree with this. A vain > person loves > > the illusion of possessing a pretty face, a wonderful mind, a > realized self. > > Never mind if the picture is 20 years old, that was her face then, > and > > that somehow is still her, she thinks. And on seeing her picture > other vain > > > > people (people deluded by ownership) fall for the trick that they > saw her, > > when they only saw some pixels on a screen. > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > sam: of course a person who really likes their illusion of what > their doing is not going to agree with this because they love love > the chat of non-reality and the never-realized self. There's > nothing wrong with it - even in rejecting that this is what you do, > rather than accepting that this is what you do as you type and yet > speak with a forked tongue. I don't care to speak with a fork > tongue becuz there's nothing to deny or reject -- only to accept as > I/consciousness in this moment. That is enough. Wellllll..........you'll haaave ta let us know how thaaaaaaat works out forya. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 > > > Wellllll..........you'll haaave ta let us know how thaaaaaaat works out forya. > > > > > > toombaru sam: I can't really say it in words. How's yours working out for you? Sounds like your living a nightmare that you don't like. You certainly complain about it enough. How's thaaaat workin for ya? You're 2 legs are being pulled like a wishbone and one of them and that hurts the croch. But you must like it since you engage in it. If you didn't like it you would end this particular toombaru human fantasy. Therefore, don't complain about it anymore. you love it, this thing you despise. It's a love hate thang I know becuz...well...I been there done that. (for werner the word thang is a slang meaning thing.) You love to hate and hate to love all while cleverly making yourself look enlightenend with the non- dual/advaidta words and terminology. Since you don't exist you can't be helped. Since there is no one to help I will leave you to your suffering. I will not hear your cries. When I was a kid I used to wake myself up from dreams that I didn't like. But, I will let you keep dreaming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > > > > > > Wellllll..........you'll haaave ta let us know how thaaaaaaat > works out forya. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > sam: I can't really say it in words. How's yours working out for > you? Sounds like your living a nightmare that you don't like. You > certainly complain about it enough. How's thaaaat workin for ya? > You're 2 legs are being pulled like a wishbone and one of them and > that hurts the croch. But you must like it since you engage in it. > If you didn't like it you would end this particular toombaru human > fantasy. Therefore, don't complain about it anymore. you love it, > this thing you despise. It's a love hate thang I know > becuz...well...I been there done that. (for werner the word thang is > a slang meaning thing.) You love to hate and hate to love all while > cleverly making yourself look enlightenend with the non- > dual/advaidta words and terminology. Since you don't exist you > can't be helped. Since there is no one to help I will leave you to > your suffering. I will not hear your cries. When I was a kid I > used to wake myself up from dreams that I didn't like. But, I will > let you keep dreaming. Ok.....you asked for it. I'm gona let Judi in the room. sorry. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > " Vanity, vanity! Said the preacher, All is vanity " The Old > Testament. > > > > To think we own anything is vanity. To believe we own a body, > > a mind, consciousness, beauty, wisdom, to even think we own our > > faults is vanity. The owner of tangibles and intangibles (the > person) > > is a legal, social. Linguistic fiction. No more real than a > corporation. > > A person is a useful misunderstanding of sensory data. Only the > > sense of existing moment by moment is there, and on that tenuous > screen > > memory projects that great epic movie, that ticket office > blockbuster > > called " Me and My Life. " > > > sam: YOU/consciousness own it, are it, and operate through it. > Whether you are an ego state or not, it is all YOU. You can deny > it, refuse it, fight against it, wrap words around it by saying your > non-dualist and know that this idea is separated, but actually, > eventually, you may accept that you are YOU/IT/Consciousness. There > is nothing else but YOU -- with all IT's dream stuff, IT's body > stuff and that All that is is only YOU -- consciousness. That there > is no division, although you continuously obsessively chat about > this division as being not real, the fact is, you don't believe it, > because you still insist on saying that you are not IT. If you are > not IT/consciousness in all it's nothingness and it's dreamness and > it's somethingness and complexities thereof, then what are you? As > the movie called I Heart Huckabees says, " How can I not be me? " > Whatever you are YOU are consciousness - darkly, brightly, fighting, > loving, screaming, singing --- IT's All You. Perhaps if you, > toombaru, etc, accepted that you are IT then you would have Nothing > left to fight about. Then perhaps you would accept that YOU are > all of the little bodies typing. But cleverly you focus on saying > that there is no one typing. That's not the point. The point is > that consciousness is having an experience (who cares if it's an > illusory one?) and IT's ALL just fine. A person is a useful > understanding of YOU data. > > Yes, the sense of existing moment by moment is there. You sense it > as a fight which must reject things that are illusory by saying they > don't exist. Some sense it by peace in accepting that They/IT IS > the illusory and the non-illusory and anything/everything/nothing in > between, up/down/sideways and creates a perception of > up/down/sideways just to sense it all. Consciousness is funny that > way. Consciousness does what it likes/wants/chooses and hence > there's a Pete, a Toombaru, a Sam, an Al and it doesn't matter if > you perceive it as a fragment because it really is not. and you > will not know that because you are so busy fighting against what you > are by fighting about what you are not. And yet, you are it all - > Consciousness. If you accept - then you accept All that You Are and > flow in and out, around and through the dream - or not. As you > (gasp) choose based on what you (gasp) decide. You don't believe > you can do that, and so you remain not doing that. If you accepted > that YOU could then you wouldn't remain in suffering.....YOU'D > choose/decide differently....and in that choosing it would all be > fine. IT doesn't care if it's a dream...that's where you get > tangled up, in the dream and identification of illusion. Pete, if > you truly were in the moment, this moment, you would know that, and > YOU wouldn't fight against what you are, rather pick and choose and > release and let go of things back into the void of nothingness, or > conversely create and choose and pick from the void of nothingness - > as YOUR consciousness imagines, (and there is only YOUR's). > > > > > > Of course, a vain person isn't going to agree with this. A vain > person loves > > the illusion of possessing a pretty face, a wonderful mind, a > realized self. > > Never mind if the picture is 20 years old, that was her face then, > and > > that somehow is still her, she thinks. And on seeing her picture > other vain > > > > people (people deluded by ownership) fall for the trick that they > saw her, > > when they only saw some pixels on a screen. > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > sam: of course a person who really likes their illusion of what > their doing is not going to agree with this because they love love > the chat of non-reality and the never-realized self. There's > nothing wrong with it - even in rejecting that this is what you do, > rather than accepting that this is what you do as you type and yet > speak with a forked tongue. I don't care to speak with a fork > tongue becuz there's nothing to deny or reject -- only to accept as > I/consciousness in this moment. That is enough. Hi Sam, I have been reading your posts here in this a other threads. And this one made me curious. I have a load of questions. Do you imagine " Toombaru? " The name appearing under the words does not exist as a person. And the words are not what they seem and are not alive either. This has been repeated over and over. make up on a corpse and so on. And in fact, that is always the case for " everyone " in this. Is is possible that Toombaru, the incessant salamander tail chopper, is an alias, a fiction, sort of robot like creation giving one liners and sometimes more that is merely assumed identity? Sam are you being led by an assumption, a puppet operated by a puppet master? Would it be too hard to believe that it could be? That a misapprehension has occurred? Also, is it possible that all has been done already, all the things you have said are fully realized and has gone far beyond that of merely accepting what is commonplace in the department of being-awareness? And is it possible that, if you have indeed been talking to a ventriloquist's dummy, as if it was existing, that you may have missed the dummy's message and seeing what it is not? How could you tell? Questions have not been asked? Just some questions that popped up. Just curious. Love, Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: >snip>> > > sam: of course a person who really likes their illusion of what > > their doing is not going to agree with this because they love love > > the chat of non-reality and the never-realized self. There's > > nothing wrong with it - even in rejecting that this is what you do, > > rather than accepting that this is what you do as you type and yet > > speak with a forked tongue. I don't care to speak with a fork > > tongue becuz there's nothing to deny or reject -- only to accept as > > I/consciousness in this moment. That is enough. ******** > Wellllll..........you'll haaave ta let us know how thaaaaaaat works out forya. > > > toombaru>> ******* Duh! It's perfectly obvious that it works for her just FINE! What dream are you dreaming? Baba G 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.