Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 * The sense of " me " can in fact disappear. * The " sense of me " is the root illusion. * The " me " is the actor, the agent, the controller. * It is not that there is any actual " me " , but that interpretation of experience is *as if* of a me. * The " me " is the fly in the ointment, the obscuring cataract. * When the " me " disappears what remains is simply What Is. * When the " me " has disappeared there is only Now because time has collapsed. The disappearance of a " me " is not a simple yes/no proposition. There are layers/levels of interpretation that fade away by stages: a. any sense of a boundary between inside and outside [1] b. any sense of a " within " c. any sense of " center " (or central tendency) within the " psychic landscape " d. any sense of " psychic landscape " (or subjective " space " ) These are all spatial notions of a kind of subjective geometry.[2] The sense of a " me " is based on such a subjective geometry. When the subjective geometry becomes maximally simple, which is to say no distinctions whatsoever, when the " psychic landscape " has no *features*, then any sense of " me " becomes impossible, and it can be said there is no sense of " me " . Eventually even the sense of a " psychic landscape " disappears. When there is no longer anything that is subjectively *distinct* then only Now remains. [3] There are a number of obstacles to the erasure of the " distinctions " the comprise the sense of " me " . Foremost is the assumption that the distinctions listed above are in fact real. They are not questioned. For example, it rarely occurs to consider that the " within " (that so very personal, precious place) is not at all real, but just a " cow path " of patterns worn into the psyche. An obstacle in nondual circles is the notion of self and ego. Focus tends to be on these notions, which are chimeras of no substance. So the investigations go round and round in circles. Bill Notes: 1. Any sense of a " world out there " entails a sense of boundary between inside/outside. 2. As there is no " measure " involved it can be considered a " subjective topology " . 3. C.f. *The Laws of Form* by George Spencer-Brown. And thanks to Bob N for reminding me about The Laws of Form, which had slipped away in the silt of time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 In a message dated 3/8/2006 12:35:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:13:07 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn The sense of " me " An obstacle in nondual circles is the notion of self and ego. Focus tends to be on these notions, which are chimeras of no substance. So the investigations go round and round in circles. Bill Can we talk? The notions of self and ego are thoughts. Investigations are thoughts. Why is it unimaginable that thoughts can affect thoughts? Doesn't this, in fact, occur all the time? Didn't your thoughts about that just stimulate a new thought about that in me? If the investigation goes round and round in circles, maybe it really has nothing to do with whether the ego or self is real or just notions. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Why so much insistence on the disappearance of *sense of me*, Bill? Is *sense of me* a problem for you? [NNB] Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > * The sense of " me " can in fact disappear. > > * The " sense of me " is the root illusion. > > * The " me " is the actor, the agent, the controller. > > * It is not that there is any actual " me " , but that > interpretation of experience is *as if* of a me. > > * The " me " is the fly in the ointment, the obscuring cataract. > > * When the " me " disappears what remains is simply What Is. > > * When the " me " has disappeared there is only Now > because time has collapsed. > > The disappearance of a " me " is not a simple yes/no proposition. > > There are layers/levels of interpretation that fade away by stages: > > a. any sense of a boundary between inside and outside [1] > > b. any sense of a " within " > > c. any sense of " center " (or central tendency) within > the " psychic landscape " > > d. any sense of " psychic landscape " (or subjective " space " ) > > These are all spatial notions of a kind of subjective geometry.[2] > > The sense of a " me " is based on such a subjective geometry. > > When the subjective geometry becomes maximally simple, which > is to say no distinctions whatsoever, when the " psychic > landscape " has no *features*, then any sense of " me " becomes > impossible, and it can be said there is no sense of " me " . > > Eventually even the sense of a " psychic landscape " disappears. > > When there is no longer anything that is subjectively > *distinct* then only Now remains. [3] > > There are a number of obstacles to the erasure of the " distinctions " > the comprise the sense of " me " . Foremost is the assumption that > the distinctions listed above are in fact real. They are not > questioned. For example, it rarely occurs to consider that the > " within " (that so very personal, precious place) is not at all > real, but just a " cow path " of patterns worn into the psyche. > > An obstacle in nondual circles is the notion of self and ego. > Focus tends to be on these notions, which are chimeras of no > substance. So the investigations go round and round in circles. > > > Bill > > Notes: > > 1. Any sense of a " world out there " entails a sense of boundary between > inside/outside. > 2. As there is no " measure " involved it can be considered a " subjective > topology " . > 3. C.f. *The Laws of Form* by George Spencer-Brown. > > And thanks to Bob N for reminding me about The Laws of Form, > which had slipped away in the silt of time... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: The sense of " me " > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > of *sense of me*, Bill? I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , then it is unreal. I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is unreal. I don't think those points are generally understood. Bill Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very different things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 > > > An obstacle in nondual circles is the notion of self and ego. > Focus tends to be on these notions, which are chimeras of no > substance. So the investigations go round and round in circles. > > > Bill > What if.....................What if...............these chimeras are nothing other then self-referential circularity.........these little circles within circles?........ What if..................that is all there is? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > of *sense of me*, Bill? I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , then it is unreal. I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is unreal. I don't think those points are generally understood. Bill > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > * The sense of " me " can in fact disappear. > > > > * The " sense of me " is the root illusion. > > > > * The " me " is the actor, the agent, the controller. > > > > * It is not that there is any actual " me " , but that > > interpretation of experience is *as if* of a me. > > > > * The " me " is the fly in the ointment, the obscuring cataract. > > > > * When the " me " disappears what remains is simply What Is. > > > > * When the " me " has disappeared there is only Now > > because time has collapsed. > > > > The disappearance of a " me " is not a simple yes/no proposition. > > > > There are layers/levels of interpretation that fade away by stages: > > > > a. any sense of a boundary between inside and outside [1] > > > > b. any sense of a " within " > > > > c. any sense of " center " (or central tendency) within > > the " psychic landscape " > > > > d. any sense of " psychic landscape " (or subjective " space " ) > > > > These are all spatial notions of a kind of subjective geometry.[2] > > > > The sense of a " me " is based on such a subjective geometry. > > > > When the subjective geometry becomes maximally simple, which > > is to say no distinctions whatsoever, when the " psychic > > landscape " has no *features*, then any sense of " me " becomes > > impossible, and it can be said there is no sense of " me " . > > > > Eventually even the sense of a " psychic landscape " disappears. > > > > When there is no longer anything that is subjectively > > *distinct* then only Now remains. [3] > > > > There are a number of obstacles to the erasure of > the " distinctions " > > the comprise the sense of " me " . Foremost is the assumption that > > the distinctions listed above are in fact real. They are not > > questioned. For example, it rarely occurs to consider that the > > " within " (that so very personal, precious place) is not at all > > real, but just a " cow path " of patterns worn into the psyche. > > > > An obstacle in nondual circles is the notion of self and ego. > > Focus tends to be on these notions, which are chimeras of no > > substance. So the investigations go round and round in circles. > > > > > > Bill > > > > Notes: > > > > 1. Any sense of a " world out there " entails a sense of boundary > between > > inside/outside. > > 2. As there is no " measure " involved it can be considered > a " subjective > > topology " . > > 3. C.f. *The Laws of Form* by George Spencer-Brown. > > > > And thanks to Bob N for reminding me about The Laws of Form, > > which had slipped away in the silt of time... > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > then it is unreal. > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > unreal. > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > Bill > > this points are generally (mis)understood because of the false " me " .... " who " fear to be lost......if it would " let go... " .....just " let go... " all the illusions (attachments) Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 > In a message dated 3/8/2006 12:35:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:13:07 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > The sense of " me " > > > > An obstacle in nondual circles is the notion of self and ego. > Focus tends to be on these notions, which are chimeras of no > substance. So the investigations go round and round in circles. > > > Bill Yeaah, these damned chimeras with no substance can be so stubborn... Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > then it is unreal. > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > unreal. > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > Bill I think most people here are sufficiently brainwashed to believe that, unfortunately this belief seems not enough. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: The sense of " me " > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > then it is unreal. > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > unreal. > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > Bill > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very different > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > > Phil Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is sufficiently brainwashed ;-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: The sense of " me " > > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > then it is unreal. > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > unreal. > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very > different > > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > > > > Phil > > > Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is sufficiently > brainwashed ;-) > > Len > Hi Zen, one time is enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > Re: The sense of " me " > > > > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > > then it is unreal. > > > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > > unreal. > > > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very > > different > > > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is sufficiently > > brainwashed ;-) > > > > Len > > > > Hi Zen, > > one time is enough. Not if it´s a concept. A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less consciously, repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and prevents one from direct perception. Zen :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: The sense of " me " > > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > then it is unreal. > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > unreal. > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very > different > > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > > > > Phil > > > Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is sufficiently > brainwashed ;-) > > Len > There is no thing separate from the 'brainwashing " . toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > Re: The sense of " me " > > > > > > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > > > then it is unreal. > > > > > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > > > unreal. > > > > > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very > > > different > > > > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is > sufficiently > > > brainwashed ;-) > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > Hi Zen, > > > > one time is enough. > > > Not if it´s a concept. > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less consciously, > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and prevents one > from direct perception. > > Zen :-) > There is n such thing as a direct perception. " 'erception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > Re: The sense of " me " > > > > > > > > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > > > > then it is unreal. > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > > > > unreal. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very > > > > different > > > > > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > Most popular way is a way of repetition, till one is > > sufficiently > > > > brainwashed ;-) > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > Hi Zen, > > > > > > one time is enough. > > > > > > Not if it´s a concept. > > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less consciously, > > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and prevents one > > from direct perception. > > > > Zen :-) > > > > > > There is n such thing as a direct perception. > > " 'erception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, > > > toombaru ....and, indeed....in the Zen-brainwashing-style means...in the direct jump into complete ignorance Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 > > > > > > Not if it´s a concept. > > > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less consciously, > > > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and prevents > one > > > from direct perception. > > > > > > Zen :-) > > > > > > > > > > > There is n such thing as a direct perception. > > > > " 'perception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, > > > > > > toombaru > > > > ...and, indeed....in the Zen-brainwashing-style > > means...in the direct jump into complete ignorance > > Marc > > > > > The clarity of unknowing...:-) toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 If you say that Lord is within you and by this, if you conclude that you are the Lord, then there is no requirement of any spiritual effort to please the Lord separately. You eat and do whatever pleases you and say that Lord is pleased with you. Now if any trouble comes, do not ask any help from any external Lord, you enjoy the trouble saying that Lord is enjoying the trouble. Are we playing such tricks with our children? We really love our children and hence we are giving them good food and do physical service. When they are enjoying, we are feeling happy. You be consistent in your logic. Infact, if your logic is true, why so many people are worshipping Jesus, Krishna etc. as Lord external to them. Are they fools? Actually Lord comes in human form in every generation. We do not accept Him because of our jealousy and egoism. When we worship such lord in human form only, it is true worship. If you offer food, idol is not eating and finally you are only eating the entire food. But if you offer it to Lord in human form, He will eat it. So our real colour comes out. Divine knowledge itself means the knowledge required to identify the Lord in human form, then attain Him by your devotion and then please Him with your service. Service consists of sacrifice of money and physical service. at the lotus of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Not if it´s a concept. > > > > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less consciously, > > > > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and prevents > > one > > > > from direct perception. > > > > > > > > Zen :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is n such thing as a direct perception. > > > > > > " 'perception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > ...and, indeed....in the Zen-brainwashing-style > > > > means...in the direct jump into complete ignorance > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > The clarity of unknowing...:-) > > > > toombaru yes...the direct perception of the beautiful mountain....in front.... one has to pass over... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , prakki surya <dattapr2000 wrote: > > If you say that Lord is within you and by this, if you conclude that you are the Lord, then there is no requirement of any spiritual effort to please the Lord separately. You eat and do whatever pleases you and say that Lord is pleased with you. > > Now if any trouble comes, do not ask any help from any external Lord, you enjoy the trouble saying that Lord is enjoying the trouble. Are we playing such tricks with our children? We really love our children and hence we are giving them good food and do physical service. When they are enjoying, we are feeling happy. > > You be consistent in your logic. Infact, if your logic is true, why so many people are worshipping Jesus, Krishna etc. as Lord external to them. Are they fools? > > Actually Lord comes in human form in every generation. We do not accept Him because of our jealousy and egoism. When we worship such lord in human form only, it is true worship. If you offer food, idol is not eating and finally you are only eating the entire food. But if you offer it to Lord in human form, He will eat it. So our real colour comes out. > > Divine knowledge itself means the knowledge required to identify the Lord in human form, then attain Him by your devotion and then please Him with your service. Service consists of sacrifice of money and physical service. > > > > at the lotus of shri datta swami > surya > www.universal-spirituality.org > That kinda sums up the whole religion thing. Mind first conceptually cuts the naturalness up into bite sides pieces....and then conceptually mashes all those pieces together into one big thing....it names that thing 'God' and then imagines its self to be this God thing. That's a pretty neat trick huh? You should be happy that it all fall apart...when the identified entity dies. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not if it´s a concept. > > > > > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less > consciously, > > > > > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and > prevents > > > one > > > > > from direct perception. > > > > > > > > > > Zen :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is n such thing as a direct perception. > > > > > > > > " 'perception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and, indeed....in the Zen-brainwashing-style > > > > > > means...in the direct jump into complete ignorance > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The clarity of unknowing...:-) > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > yes...the direct perception of the beautiful mountain....in front.... > one has to pass over... > > Marc > > > No. No one No mountain No passing over. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not if it´s a concept. > > > > > > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less > > consciously, > > > > > > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and > > prevents > > > > one > > > > > > from direct perception. > > > > > > > > > > > > Zen :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is n such thing as a direct perception. > > > > > > > > > > " 'perception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and, indeed....in the Zen-brainwashing-style > > > > > > > > means...in the direct jump into complete ignorance > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The clarity of unknowing...:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > yes...the direct perception of the beautiful mountain....in front.... > > one has to pass over... > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > No. > > No one No mountain No passing over. > > > toombaru thats what you believe in, yes Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not if it´s a concept. > > > > > > > A concept you cling to is constantly, more or less > > > consciously, > > > > > > > repeated. It provides one with psychological safety and > > > prevents > > > > > one > > > > > > > from direct perception. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zen :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is n such thing as a direct perception. > > > > > > > > > > > > " 'perception' exists only in the arena of illusory duality, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and, indeed....in the Zen-brainwashing-style > > > > > > > > > > means...in the direct jump into complete ignorance > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The clarity of unknowing...:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > yes...the direct perception of the beautiful mountain....in > front.... > > > one has to pass over... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > No one No mountain No passing over. > > > > > > toombaru > > thats what you believe in, yes > > Marc > It is beyond belief. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very different things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? > a purpose shows up ^^^ !! perhaps the realization in the actualization of potential. - ADHHUB Nisargadatta Thursday, March 09, 2006 12:31 AM Re: The sense of " me " In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: The sense of " me " > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > of *sense of me*, Bill? I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , then it is unreal. I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is unreal. I don't think those points are generally understood. Bill Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very different things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman wrote: > > Understanding the concepts and knowing it is so are two very different > things. How do you plan to turn it from a concept to a knowing? Well first of all.......you have to think.......and think........and think.........you know ....pull up everything that you have ever been taught............then you go through all those things and pick out the ones that make the most sense to you......you make two files...one you name 'Concepts' and the other.......hummmmmmm let's see.....yeah.......you call it 'Knowing'. You following me so far? Ok.....so......you put these concept things together in a way that you find pleasing.....put them in alphabetical order and move them all over to the 'Knowing folder. That's it.........That's all you have to do. I'll be out of town for quite a while.....but if you have any questions......the federal government has a help line. If you would like ....I can git you the number. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 " Service consists of sacrifice of money and physical service. " ok, can see where this is going - prakki surya Nisargadatta Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:40 AM Re: The sense of " me " If you say that Lord is within you and by this, if you conclude that you are the Lord, then there is no requirement of any spiritual effort to please the Lord separately. You eat and do whatever pleases you and say that Lord is pleased with you. Now if any trouble comes, do not ask any help from any external Lord, you enjoy the trouble saying that Lord is enjoying the trouble. Are we playing such tricks with our children? We really love our children and hence we are giving them good food and do physical service. When they are enjoying, we are feeling happy. You be consistent in your logic. Infact, if your logic is true, why so many people are worshipping Jesus, Krishna etc. as Lord external to them. Are they fools? Actually Lord comes in human form in every generation. We do not accept Him because of our jealousy and egoism. When we worship such lord in human form only, it is true worship. If you offer food, idol is not eating and finally you are only eating the entire food. But if you offer it to Lord in human form, He will eat it. So our real colour comes out. Divine knowledge itself means the knowledge required to identify the Lord in human form, then attain Him by your devotion and then please Him with your service. Service consists of sacrifice of money and physical service. at the lotus of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. 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.