Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/21/2006 7:02:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > > > Re: everything Is....fine (Peace) > > > > > > > > Mark, you say that you have no problem to accept duality... then... > > > > why do you deny it? > > > > > > > > And as far as understanding is concerned: the laws of duality are > > very > > > > strict and it is only your vivid wishful fantasy that believes one > > > > could bend it to any direction as pleased. > > > > > > > > Greetings > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One doesn't bend the rules of the dualistic dream. Rather, 'one' > > wakes up to > > > > Reality. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > There in no one asleep. > > > > > > The 'one' that wants to wake up...is the dream itself. > > > > > > 'Waking up'...is the annihilation of the one seeking it. > > > > > > > > > It's all very simple. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hmmmm... that almost works, Toomb... > > but, hmmm.... > > > > not sold on it tho... > > > > Cuz the way you put it the annihilation is *of* one > > that isn't there? > > > > Ok.....How about... The annihilation of the one that isn't there. > > > Last night upon the stair > > I saw a little man > > that wasn't there. > > He wasn't there > > again today. > > Gee......I wish he'd go away. > > > toombaru > Yep! Now it works Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 In a message dated 2/22/2006 6:54:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " Stefan " <s.petersilge Re: everything Is....fine (Peace) Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: >P: A quality is an attribute or trait or character (according to my >funk & wagnals). Must this be applied to an object? Can divinity >have an attribute? Can a feeling have a characteristic? These are >not objects. Dear Phil. When you say " divinity is peaceful " then the quality " peaceful " is an attribute of " divinity " . This is duality in action. But meaningful use of language cannot be non-dual. >The wise don't feel the need to deny the reality of suffering with >mental concepts. Nor do I (although I dont call myself " wise " ...haha!). >P: Ultimate Reality is not the center point between the extremes of >duality because the duality itself is a perceptual illusion created >by mind. I would not use the word " ultimate reality " , why again an atribute? But basically I agree and I have never said otherwise. I wanted to show that some are using the extremes of the pendulum to describe non-duality. But this unfortunately means maintaining duality, deepening the illusion, the split. >One polarity of the duality is an illusion. In the relative, there is >not a substance called light and another substance called darkness. No, both polarities are illusions, conceptualizations. >Conceptually, the Absolute is love, joy and peace without the >QUALITY of unlove, unjoy and unpeace. The uncola versions are >dualistic creations of mind only, which has the nasty habbit of >perceiving lack. Every atribute is " one side of the coin " . To associate one side with the absolute means maintaining duality. Like any conceptualization. >P: You're clearly talking about the relative illusion. What's not >clear is why you keep coming back to it when the discussion has been >about nonduality, liberation and enlightenment. Maybe I should ask >you if you believe in any of those things. Yes, of course I talk about the relative. Just like you. I try to show how your language and beliefs are relative and that there is no understanding through beliefs. Greetings Stefan Yer preachin to the choir, dude. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Yes, of course I talk about the relative. Just like you. I try to show how your language and beliefs are relative and that there is no understanding through beliefs. ~~~~~~~~~ Trying to *show* someone anything is a questionable route. Better, in my view, to just be loose, say what is up to be said, and not be concerned about " changing " anyone, or " straightening anyone out " . My writing is paragraph-based, not person-based. A paragraph or two that I read become grist for the mill and a response arises, which then is sent out as reply. Imagining that there is a particular person with particular views and that the dialog is with such-and-such imaginary person is bound up with illusory hobble-gobble (my view). Bill Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/22/2006 6:54:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " Stefan " <s.petersilge > Re: everything Is....fine (Peace) > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > >P: A quality is an attribute or trait or character (according to my > >funk & wagnals). Must this be applied to an object? Can divinity > >have an attribute? Can a feeling have a characteristic? These are > >not objects. > > Dear Phil. > > When you say " divinity is peaceful " then the quality " peaceful " is an > attribute of " divinity " . This is duality in action. But meaningful use > of language cannot be non-dual. > > >The wise don't feel the need to deny the reality of suffering with > >mental concepts. > > Nor do I (although I dont call myself " wise " ...haha!). > > >P: Ultimate Reality is not the center point between the extremes of > >duality because the duality itself is a perceptual illusion created > >by mind. > > I would not use the word " ultimate reality " , why again an atribute? > But basically I agree and I have never said otherwise. I wanted to > show that some are using the extremes of the pendulum to describe > non-duality. But this unfortunately means maintaining duality, > deepening the illusion, the split. > > >One polarity of the duality is an illusion. In the relative, there is > >not a substance called light and another substance called darkness. > > No, both polarities are illusions, conceptualizations. > > >Conceptually, the Absolute is love, joy and peace without the > >QUALITY of unlove, unjoy and unpeace. The uncola versions are > >dualistic creations of mind only, which has the nasty habbit of > >perceiving lack. > > Every atribute is " one side of the coin " . To associate one side with > the absolute means maintaining duality. Like any conceptualization. > > >P: You're clearly talking about the relative illusion. What's not > >clear is why you keep coming back to it when the discussion has been > >about nonduality, liberation and enlightenment. Maybe I should ask > >you if you believe in any of those things. > > Yes, of course I talk about the relative. Just like you. I try to show > how your language and beliefs are relative and that there is no > understanding through beliefs. > > Greetings > Stefan > > > > > Yer preachin to the choir, dude. > > Phil > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: >My writing is paragraph-based, not person-based. >A paragraph or two that I read become grist for >the mill and a response arises, which then is >sent out as reply. Thats commonly called mindfuck, :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > >My writing is paragraph-based, not person-based. > >A paragraph or two that I read become grist for > >the mill and a response arises, which then is > >sent out as reply. > > Thats commonly called mindfuck, :-) > ~~~~~ Then you misunderstand. It certainly is not mindfuck. Mindfuck is messing with people's minds. It is playing games. What I am talking about is really a very clean way of responding to what you have written [in this case: " Thats commonly called mindfuck, :-) " ] Should I have a notion in mind of what Stefan " is like " and tailor my comments to that imaginary Stefan that I have conjured? And how different is having an imaginary notion of oneself (an " image " as Krishnamurti would put it) and having one about the other person? As I see it both are false ways of relating. If you and I are face-to-face in person, then there is a lot more information in the interface between us. There are gestures, breath-rate, the look in the eye, the tone of the words, etc. Yet there too, if I am really present in my interaction with you I am in-the-present-responding to whatever presents to my senses in each moment. I am not off in my mind thinking about " you " and developing theories about what " you " are *really like* etc. No, the words we share here is the medium of exchange. The actual living interaction between us is in the words that flow back and forth. And I make it my business to be very present with those words. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: >Then you misunderstand. > >It certainly is not mindfuck. Mindfuck >is messing with people's minds. It is >playing games. No, it means making love to ones own mind. Understanding / misunderstanding is certainly not part of the repertoir. Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > >Then you misunderstand. > > > >It certainly is not mindfuck. Mindfuck > >is messing with people's minds. It is > >playing games. > > No, it means making love to ones own mind. > > Understanding / misunderstanding is certainly not part of the > repertoir. > > Greetings > Stefan > ~~~~~~~~~~ is an emphasis on " Understanding / misunderstanding " consistent with ignoring most of the post I wrote? your response strikes me as abrupt and dismissive. not an example of open dialog, in my view. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Hi Bill, I feel sorry, but I am not able to follow all the postings in this group. This is simply too time-consuming for me. But I follow the threads where I am involved and attempt to understand the context. Unfortunately I am not sure if I understand what you are trying to say. It was quite bewildering for me when you wrote in message 32941: " My writing is paragraph-based, not person-based. A paragraph or two that I read become grist for the mill and a response arises, which then is sent out as reply. " For me this meant that you do not care about the context in which a given paragraph has originated. Therefor I did not feel eager to waste my energy in another arbitrary paragraph, which might or might not be grist for your mill, and told you instead, how self centered this approach appears to me. Greetings Stefan Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: >is an emphasis on " Understanding / misunderstanding " consistent >with ignoring most of the post I wrote? > >your response strikes me as abrupt and dismissive. > >not an example of open dialog, in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: Stefan >>Yes, of course I talk about the relative. Just like you. I try to >>show how your language and beliefs are relative and that there is no >>understanding through beliefs. >Yer preachin to the choir, dude. > >Phil Yes, I knew I was :-) Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > I feel sorry, but I am not able to follow all the postings in this > group. This is simply too time-consuming for me. But I follow the > threads where I am involved and attempt to understand the context. > Unfortunately I am not sure if I understand what you are trying to say. > > It was quite bewildering for me when you wrote in message 32941: > > " My writing is paragraph-based, not person-based. > A paragraph or two that I read become grist for > the mill and a response arises, which then is > sent out as reply. " > > For me this meant that you do not care about the context in which a > given paragraph has originated. Therefor I did not feel eager to waste > my energy in another arbitrary paragraph, which might or might not be > grist for your mill, and told you instead, how self centered this > approach appears to me. > > Greetings > Stefan > If anyone here believes that some 'other' will understand what they are attempting to articulate.......they are sadly misunderstanding the purpose of the search. I don't care if anyone " gets' anything that flows through these fingers. What happens to 'others' is none of my business....(just caught the meaning of 'my business' .LOL) It is known here that when the words of 'another' are taken in to this personal labyrinth.. (me).....they mix and match with pre-existing misconceptions...and something is stimulated. Something goes deeper into the emptiness...and there is deep appreciation for that which is some is sometimes very joyful....sometimes very painful. If you are here to help another........look again. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > I feel sorry, but I am not able to follow all the postings in this > > group. This is simply too time-consuming for me. But I follow the > > threads where I am involved and attempt to understand the context. > > Unfortunately I am not sure if I understand what you are trying to say. > > > > It was quite bewildering for me when you wrote in message 32941: > > > > " My writing is paragraph-based, not person-based. > > A paragraph or two that I read become grist for > > the mill and a response arises, which then is > > sent out as reply. " > > > > For me this meant that you do not care about the context in which a > > given paragraph has originated. Therefor I did not feel eager to waste > > my energy in another arbitrary paragraph, which might or might not be > > grist for your mill, and told you instead, how self centered this > > approach appears to me. > > > > Greetings > > Stefan > > > > > If anyone here believes that some 'other' will understand what they are attempting to > articulate.......they are sadly misunderstanding the purpose of the search. > > I don't care if anyone " gets' anything that flows through these fingers. > > What happens to 'others' is none of my business....(just caught the meaning of 'my > business' .LOL) The only things that I ever respond to are those that need clearing up within this fragmented mind......I don't care what you do with your own personal dilemma....'mine' is a full time job. > > It is known here that when the words of 'another' are taken in to this personal labyrinth.. > (me).....they mix and match with pre-existing misconceptions...and something is > stimulated. > > Something goes deeper into the emptiness...and there is deep appreciation for that which > is some is sometimes very joyful....sometimes very painful. > > If you are here to help another........look again. > > > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > I feel sorry, but I am not able to follow all the postings in this > > > group. This is simply too time-consuming for me. But I follow the > > > threads where I am involved and attempt to understand the context. > > > Unfortunately I am not sure if I understand what you are trying to say. > > > > > > It was quite bewildering for me when you wrote in message 32941: > > > > > > " My writing is paragraph-based, not person-based. > > > A paragraph or two that I read become grist for > > > the mill and a response arises, which then is > > > sent out as reply. " > > > > > > For me this meant that you do not care about the context in which a > > > given paragraph has originated. Therefor I did not feel eager to waste > > > my energy in another arbitrary paragraph, which might or might not be > > > grist for your mill, and told you instead, how self centered this > > > approach appears to me. > > > > > > Greetings > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > If anyone here believes that some 'other' will understand what they are attempting to > > articulate.......they are sadly misunderstanding the purpose of the search. > > > > I don't care if anyone " gets' anything that flows through these fingers. > > > > What happens to 'others' is none of my business....(just caught the meaning of 'my > > business' .LOL) > > > The only things that I ever respond to are those that need clearing up within this > fragmented mind......I don't care what you do with your own personal dilemma....'mine' is > a full time job. > > > > > > > > > It is known here that when the words of 'another' are taken in to this personal labyrinth.. > > (me).....they mix and match with pre-existing misconceptions...and something is > > stimulated. > > > > Something goes deeper into the emptiness...and there is deep appreciation for that > which > > is some is sometimes very joyful....sometimes very painful. > > > > If you are here to help another........look again. > > > > > > toombaru > > > ..........and just one more thing......... Even the above diatribe is directed to my self........and it is being a bit petulant....... It just sulked off to its corner with its blankie in hand..... .......now its making little sucking sounds. Maybe I should go put my arms around it. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Hi Toomb... Haha! So... I wonder... was that helpful in any way? Who knows what it was good for. But about helping each other... and the search: Is not the search the crux And the attempt to help Hindrance... Thanks Stefan >>If you are here to help another........look again. >> >> >> 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.