Guest guest Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 Is not the Self, but the Other, which is real. Until the Other comes to dwell, reality is but a name. The Other must be felt as Self. Only then, one plus one equals One. Pete, The mattermagician, or is it mathematician? Truly, I should give up metaphysics and study grammar. I know, I know! You couldn't agree more. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie3@e...> wrote: > Is not the Self, but the Other, which is > real. Until the Other comes to dwell, > reality is but a name. The Other must > be felt as Self. Only then, one plus one > equals One. > > Pete, The mattermagician, or is it > mathematician? Truly, I should give > up metaphysics and study grammar. > I know, I know! You couldn't agree more. ) When I am born You are born I can never be one with you When we are born They are born We can never be one with them Is there any surprise That frustration should arise When trying to make two become one? Before I am Is before you are Before two There is one Before we are Is before they are Before us and them is one Before I am All is I AM Not even one What is this I that is born? Stephen Wingate www.livinginpeace-thenaturalstate.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:22 PM Self and other 'Self' is beholden to 'other'... there is no way around it. The two arise and set in the same 'location'. Thus, any 'other' perceived, is oneself. Any 'oneself' perceived, is an other. The perceiver is the perceived. -t- I bumped into myself...and thought: who is that stranger? -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 3/9/2009 12:24:34 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:22 PM > Self and other > > > 'Self' is beholden to 'other'... there is no way around it. > > The two arise and set in the same 'location'. > > Thus, any 'other' perceived, is oneself. > > Any 'oneself' perceived, is an other. > > The perceiver is the perceived. > -t- > > I bumped into myself...and thought: who is that stranger? > -geo- That's why: " self-enquiry " ;-). One pays all their attention to 'others', eh? Taken as strangers, because 'oneself' is a stranger. As 'oneself' is less of a stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and finally both self and other merge into each other and vanish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:20 PM Re: Self and other Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:22 PM > Self and other > > > 'Self' is beholden to 'other'... there is no way around it. > > The two arise and set in the same 'location'. > > Thus, any 'other' perceived, is oneself. > > Any 'oneself' perceived, is an other. > > The perceiver is the perceived. > -t- > > I bumped into myself...and thought: who is that stranger? > -geo- That's why: " self-enquiry " ;-). One pays all their attention to 'others', eh? Taken as strangers, because 'oneself' is a stranger. -tim- Usually oneself is not a stranger to oneself but the opposite. One is familiar with the sense of a ME that is inside and real - the farthest thing from a " stranger " . -geo- As 'oneself' is less of a stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and finally both self and other merge into each other and vanish. -tim- Gradually? No. The perception of lack of the inner entity can not be gradual. You can not shrink a sense of self. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > As 'oneself' is less of a stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and > finally both self and other merge into each other and vanish. > -tim- > > Gradually? No. The perception of lack of the inner entity can not be > gradual. You can not shrink a sense of self. > -geo- When described, it sounds gradual... but nothing is gradual. Words are very deceptive. Only 'awareness' can supercede the conceptual trap of taking 'thinker' and 'thought' to be apart and separate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:47 PM Re: Self and other Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > As 'oneself' is less of a stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and > finally both self and other merge into each other and vanish. > -tim- > > Gradually? No. The perception of lack of the inner entity can not be > gradual. You can not shrink a sense of self. > -geo- When described, it sounds gradual... but nothing is gradual. Words are very deceptive. Only 'awareness' can supercede the conceptual trap of taking 'thinker' and 'thought' to be apart and separate. -t- One will have a hard time trying to read " As 'oneself' is less of a stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and finally both self and other merge into each other and vanish " without a sense of graduality. But its OK :>) -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 3/9/2009 14:56:38 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:47 PM > Re: Self and other > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > As 'oneself' is less of a stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and > > finally both self and other merge into each other and vanish. > > -tim- > > > > Gradually? No. The perception of lack of the inner entity can not be > > gradual. You can not shrink a sense of self. > > -geo- > > When described, it sounds gradual... but nothing is gradual. > > Words are very deceptive. Only 'awareness' can supercede the conceptual trap > of taking 'thinker' and 'thought' to be apart and separate. > -t- > > One will have a hard time trying to read " As 'oneself' is less of a > stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and finally both self and other > merge into each other and vanish " without a sense of graduality. But its OK > :>) > -geo- The lightning hit the tree stump. The entire farmyard was illuminated at once. But later on, the cows still mooed. And the hens still cackled. The geese flew overhead. And at night, the coyotes as usual howled in the distance. Still, the farmyard never seemed quite the same again. -- D -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:47 PM > Re: Self and other > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > As 'oneself' is less of a stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and > > finally both self and other merge into each other and vanish. > > -tim- > > > > Gradually? No. The perception of lack of the inner entity can not be > > gradual. You can not shrink a sense of self. > > -geo- > > When described, it sounds gradual... but nothing is gradual. > > Words are very deceptive. Only 'awareness' can supercede the conceptual trap > of taking 'thinker' and 'thought' to be apart and separate. > -t- > > One will have a hard time trying to read " As 'oneself' is less of a > stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and finally both self and other > merge into each other and vanish " without a sense of graduality. But its OK > :>) > -geo- It's just a descriptive thing, described as if 'gradual' in order to " point " . Isn't gradual/sudden just another duality? Just words, m'man, and words never described " it " anyhoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > fewtch > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:47 PM > > Re: Self and other > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > As 'oneself' is less of a stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and > > > finally both self and other merge into each other and vanish. > > > -tim- > > > > > > Gradually? No. The perception of lack of the inner entity can not be > > > gradual. You can not shrink a sense of self. > > > -geo- > > > > When described, it sounds gradual... but nothing is gradual. > > > > Words are very deceptive. Only 'awareness' can supercede the conceptual trap > > of taking 'thinker' and 'thought' to be apart and separate. > > -t- > > > > One will have a hard time trying to read " As 'oneself' is less of a > > stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and finally both self and other > > merge into each other and vanish " without a sense of graduality. But its OK > > :>) > > -geo- > > > The lightning hit the tree stump. > > The entire farmyard was illuminated at once. > > But later on, the cows still mooed. > > And the hens still cackled. > > The geese flew overhead. > > And at night, the coyotes as usual howled in the distance. > > Still, the farmyard never seemed quite the same again. > > > -- D -- What's astonishing here is that there doesn't seem to be any 'past farmyard' to compare with. Thus, the farmyard is neither the same, nor different than 'something else'. There simply isn't any reference point. " What is, is " . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > fewtch > > > Nisargadatta > > > Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:47 PM > > > Re: Self and other > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > As 'oneself' is less of a stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and > > > > finally both self and other merge into each other and vanish. > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > Gradually? No. The perception of lack of the inner entity can not be > > > > gradual. You can not shrink a sense of self. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > When described, it sounds gradual... but nothing is gradual. > > > > > > Words are very deceptive. Only 'awareness' can supercede the conceptual trap > > > of taking 'thinker' and 'thought' to be apart and separate. > > > -t- > > > > > > One will have a hard time trying to read " As 'oneself' is less of a > > > stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and finally both self and other > > > merge into each other and vanish " without a sense of graduality. But its OK > > > :>) > > > -geo- > > > > > > The lightning hit the tree stump. > > > > The entire farmyard was illuminated at once. > > > > But later on, the cows still mooed. > > > > And the hens still cackled. > > > > The geese flew overhead. > > > > And at night, the coyotes as usual howled in the distance. > > > > Still, the farmyard never seemed quite the same again. > > > > > > -- D -- > > What's astonishing here is that there doesn't seem to be any 'past farmyard' to compare with. > > Thus, the farmyard is neither the same, nor different than 'something else'. > > There simply isn't any reference point. " What is, is " . > yes, Tim... and also... the " enlightened " " Tim " is neither the same....nor different than " something else " .... and never will be.... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > fewtch > > > Nisargadatta > > > Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:47 PM > > > Re: Self and other > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > As 'oneself' is less of a stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and > > > > finally both self and other merge into each other and vanish. > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > Gradually? No. The perception of lack of the inner entity can not be > > > > gradual. You can not shrink a sense of self. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > When described, it sounds gradual... but nothing is gradual. > > > > > > Words are very deceptive. Only 'awareness' can supercede the conceptual trap > > > of taking 'thinker' and 'thought' to be apart and separate. > > > -t- > > > > > > One will have a hard time trying to read " As 'oneself' is less of a > > > stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and finally both self and other > > > merge into each other and vanish " without a sense of graduality. But its OK > > > :>) > > > -geo- > > > > > > The lightning hit the tree stump. > > > > The entire farmyard was illuminated at once. > > > > But later on, the cows still mooed. > > > > And the hens still cackled. > > > > The geese flew overhead. > > > > And at night, the coyotes as usual howled in the distance. > > > > Still, the farmyard never seemed quite the same again. > > > > > > -- D -- > > What's astonishing here is that there doesn't seem to be any 'past farmyard' to compare with. > > Thus, the farmyard is neither the same, nor different than 'something else'. > > There simply isn't any reference point. " What is, is " . You still know what a computer is. You still know where the letters are on the keyboard. You know your name is " Tim " and what street you live on. You know where the grocery store is and what a loaf of bread looks like. You don't need to relearn these things each day - if you did, what a mess that would be. Your memory is still operational. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > fewtch > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:47 PM > > > > Re: Self and other > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As 'oneself' is less of a stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and > > > > > finally both self and other merge into each other and vanish. > > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > > > Gradually? No. The perception of lack of the inner entity can not be > > > > > gradual. You can not shrink a sense of self. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > When described, it sounds gradual... but nothing is gradual. > > > > > > > > Words are very deceptive. Only 'awareness' can supercede the conceptual trap > > > > of taking 'thinker' and 'thought' to be apart and separate. > > > > -t- > > > > > > > > One will have a hard time trying to read " As 'oneself' is less of a > > > > stranger, 'others' are less of strangers... and finally both self and other > > > > merge into each other and vanish " without a sense of graduality. But its OK > > > > :>) > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > The lightning hit the tree stump. > > > > > > The entire farmyard was illuminated at once. > > > > > > But later on, the cows still mooed. > > > > > > And the hens still cackled. > > > > > > The geese flew overhead. > > > > > > And at night, the coyotes as usual howled in the distance. > > > > > > Still, the farmyard never seemed quite the same again. > > > > > > > > > -- D -- > > > > What's astonishing here is that there doesn't seem to be any 'past farmyard' to compare with. > > > > Thus, the farmyard is neither the same, nor different than 'something else'. > > > > There simply isn't any reference point. " What is, is " . > > You still know what a computer is. > > You still know where the letters are on the keyboard. > > You know your name is " Tim " and what street you live on. > > You know where the grocery store is and what a loaf of bread looks like. > > You don't need to relearn these things each day - if you did, what a mess that would be. > > Your memory is still operational. > > - D - Thanks for telling me what I know, what I don't have to re-learn, and reminding me that my memory is still operational. I guess I'm not your hallucination, after all. That's good to know ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Thanks for telling me what I know, what I don't have to re-learn, and reminding me that my memory is still operational. > > I guess I'm not your hallucination, after all. > > That's good to know ;-). D: I don't have a clue how anything I said manage to convince you that this is not a hallucination. But not to worry, that conviction of yours is an aspect of the hallucinating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for telling me what I know, what I don't have to re-learn, and reminding me that my memory is still operational. > > > > I guess I'm not your hallucination, after all. > > > > That's good to know ;-). > > > D: I don't have a clue how anything I said manage to convince > you that this is not a hallucination. But not to worry, > that conviction of yours is an aspect of the hallucinating. Conviction of 'yours', eh? Like, the conviction that something you said managed to convince me that this is not a hallucination? And yes... that conviction is an aspect of the hallucinating ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for telling me what I know, what I don't have to re-learn, and reminding me that my memory is still operational. > > > > > > I guess I'm not your hallucination, after all. > > > > > > That's good to know ;-). > > > > > > D: I don't have a clue how anything I said manage to convince > > you that this is not a hallucination. But not to worry, > > that conviction of yours is an aspect of the hallucinating. > > Conviction of 'yours', eh? > > Like, the conviction that something you said managed to convince me that this is not a hallucination? > > And yes... that conviction is an aspect of the hallucinating ;-). So after all you've said about " you, " you're going to bring in " yours " and put it in quotes???? Who do you think I'm talking to when I say " you " ???? Duh! - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for telling me what I know, what I don't have to re-learn, and reminding me that my memory is still operational. > > > > > > > > I guess I'm not your hallucination, after all. > > > > > > > > That's good to know ;-). > > > > > > > > > D: I don't have a clue how anything I said manage to convince > > > you that this is not a hallucination. But not to worry, > > > that conviction of yours is an aspect of the hallucinating. > > > > Conviction of 'yours', eh? > > > > Like, the conviction that something you said managed to convince me that this is not a hallucination? > > > > And yes... that conviction is an aspect of the hallucinating ;-). > > > So after all you've said about " you, " you're going to bring in > > " yours " and put it in quotes???? > > > > Who do you think I'm talking to when I say " you " ???? > > > > Duh! > > > - Dan - Well, who do you think *I'm* talking to? Heck, I say we dispense with the word 'you' altogether... it's outlived it's usefulness. Everyone refers to themselves as " I " , so why not just use " I " instead? " Would I like to go to the store with me " ? " Sure! " ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Well, who do you think *I'm* talking to? > > Heck, I say we dispense with the word 'you' altogether... it's outlived it's usefulness. > > Everyone refers to themselves as " I " , so why not just use " I " instead? > > " Would I like to go to the store with me " ? > " Sure! " > ;-). Rastafarians say, " I and I go to the store. " Maybe that's what happen when you smoke tons of pot every day. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > Everyone refers to themselves as " I " , so why not just use " I " > > instead? > > > > " Would I like to go to the store with me " ? > > " Sure! " > > ;-). > > Rastafarians say, " I and I go to the store. " > > Maybe that's what happen when you smoke tons of pot every day. > > > - D - Smoking pot made them steal my idea! Durn it! Mad reefer junkies! ;-). 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.