Guest guest Posted April 4, 2006 Report Share Posted April 4, 2006 The body moves through its surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) >>> that fits! Bill L.E: How can you say that? The body is not just a body and when you give it some thought the word " body " is a gross generalization. The body has physical pieces, parts that together create a nonphysical realm called mind, which produces ego or self. The body is atoms, molecules, cells, muscles, organs, skeleton, brain, mind and self, all working together. There is no " me " or " I " as a separate distinct thing, but it exists a heat surrounds the flame of a candle, and as the flame rises out of the interaction of wax and wick, the mind rises out of the physical nature of the brain. No brain, no mind, no self. So there is no " me " then who or what is writing the words on the computer? You as no me, not me, not I, I do not exist? The body cannot move with a " me " to guide it. So smart, yet so clueless. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2006 Report Share Posted April 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > The body moves through its > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > >>> > > that fits! > > Bill > > L.E: How can you say that? The body is not just a body and when you give it some thought the word " body " is a gross generalization. The body has physical pieces, parts that together create a nonphysical realm called mind, which produces ego or self. The body is atoms, molecules, cells, muscles, organs, skeleton, brain, mind and self, all working together. There is no " me " or " I " as a separate distinct thing, but it exists a heat surrounds the flame of a candle, and as the flame rises out of the interaction of wax and wick, the mind rises out of the physical nature of the brain. No brain, no mind, no self. So there is no " me " then who or what is writing the words on the computer? You as no me, not me, not I, I do not exist? The body cannot move with a " me " to guide it. So smart, yet so clueless. > > Larry Epston > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 There is no " me " or " I " as a > separate distinct thing, but it exists a heat surrounds the flame of > a candle, and as the flame rises out of the interaction of wax and > wick, the mind rises out of the physical nature of the brain. No > brain, no mind, no self. So there is no " me " then who or what is > writing the words on the computer? You as no me, not me, not I, I do > not exist? The body cannot move with a " me " to guide it. ~~~~~~~~~~ (did you mean " without " a me?) It was not intended as a description of *your* experience, Larry. And if it makes no sense to you, there is then more than one possibility, including: * the person giving the description is " fictionalizing " * the person giving the description is sincere but coming from a very warped view of things * the description is of something you do not know of yourself You have, evidently, concluded one of the first two and completely disregarded the possibility of the third. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 In a message dated 4/5/2006 1:41:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 03:29:35 -0000 " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 Re: There Is No " Me " Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > The body moves through its > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > >>> > > that fits! > > Bill > > L.E: How can you say that? The body is not just a body and when you give it some thought the word " body " is a gross generalization. The body has physical pieces, parts that together create a nonphysical realm called mind, which produces ego or self. The body is atoms, molecules, cells, muscles, organs, skeleton, brain, mind and self, all working together. There is no " me " or " I " as a separate distinct thing, but it exists a heat surrounds the flame of a candle, and as the flame rises out of the interaction of wax and wick, the mind rises out of the physical nature of the brain. No brain, no mind, no self. So there is no " me " then who or what is writing the words on the computer? You as no me, not me, not I, I do not exist? The body cannot move with a " me " to guide it. So smart, yet so clueless. > > Larry Epston > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/5/2006 1:41:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 05 Apr 2006 03:29:35 -0000 > " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 > Re: There Is No " Me " > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > The body moves through its > > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > > > >>> > > > > that fits! > > > > Bill > > > > L.E: How can you say that? The body is not just a body and when > you give it some thought the word " body " is a gross generalization. > The body has physical pieces, parts that together create a > nonphysical realm called mind, which produces ego or self. The body > is atoms, molecules, cells, muscles, organs, skeleton, brain, mind > and self, all working together. There is no " me " or " I " as a > separate distinct thing, but it exists a heat surrounds the flame of > a candle, and as the flame rises out of the interaction of wax and > wick, the mind rises out of the physical nature of the brain. No > brain, no mind, no self. So there is no " me " then who or what is > writing the words on the computer? You as no me, not me, not I, I do > not exist? The body cannot move with a " me " to guide it. So smart, > yet so clueless. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/5/2006 1:41:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 05 Apr 2006 03:29:35 -0000 > > " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > > Re: There Is No " Me " > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > The body moves through its > > > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > that fits! > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > L.E: How can you say that? The body is not just a body and when > > you give it some thought the word " body " is a gross > generalization. > > The body has physical pieces, parts that together create a > > nonphysical realm called mind, which produces ego or self. The > body > > is atoms, molecules, cells, muscles, organs, skeleton, brain, mind > > and self, all working together. There is no " me " or " I " as a > > separate distinct thing, but it exists a heat surrounds the flame > of > > a candle, and as the flame rises out of the interaction of wax and > > wick, the mind rises out of the physical nature of the brain. No > > brain, no mind, no self. So there is no " me " then who or what is > > writing the words on the computer? You as no me, not me, not I, I > do > > not exist? The body cannot move with a " me " to guide it. So smart, > > yet so clueless. > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/5/2006 1:41:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 05 Apr 2006 03:29:35 -0000 > " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 > Re: There Is No " Me " > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > The body moves through its > > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > > > >>> > > > > that fits! > > > > Bill > > > > L.E: How can you say that? The body is not just a body and when > you give it some thought the word " body " is a gross generalization. > The body has physical pieces, parts that together create a > nonphysical realm called mind, which produces ego or self. The body > is atoms, molecules, cells, muscles, organs, skeleton, brain, mind > and self, all working together. There is no " me " or " I " as a > separate distinct thing, but it exists a heat surrounds the flame of > a candle, and as the flame rises out of the interaction of wax and > wick, the mind rises out of the physical nature of the brain. No > brain, no mind, no self. So there is no " me " then who or what is > writing the words on the computer? You as no me, not me, not I, I do > not exist? The body cannot move with a " me " to guide it. So smart, > yet so clueless. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/5/2006 1:41:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 05 Apr 2006 03:29:35 -0000 > > " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > > Re: There Is No " Me " > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > The body moves through its > > > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > that fits! > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > L.E: How can you say that? The body is not just a body and when > > you give it some thought the word " body " is a gross generalization. > > The body has physical pieces, parts that together create a > > nonphysical realm called mind, which produces ego or self. The body > > is atoms, molecules, cells, muscles, organs, skeleton, brain, mind > > and self, all working together. There is no " me " or " I " as a > > separate distinct thing, but it exists a heat surrounds the flame of > > a candle, and as the flame rises out of the interaction of wax and > > wick, the mind rises out of the physical nature of the brain. No > > brain, no mind, no self. So there is no " me " then who or what is > > writing the words on the computer? You as no me, not me, not I, I do > > not exist? The body cannot move with a " me " to guide it. So smart, > > yet so clueless. > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 In a message dated 4/6/2006 9:47:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:46:46 -0000 " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 Re: There Is No " Me " Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/5/2006 1:41:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 05 Apr 2006 03:29:35 -0000 > " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 > Re: There Is No " Me " > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > The body moves through its > > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > > > >>> > > > > that fits! > > > > Bill > > > > L.E: How can you say that? The body is not just a body and when > you give it some thought the word " body " is a gross generalization. > The body has physical pieces, parts that together create a > nonphysical realm called mind, which produces ego or self. The body > is atoms, molecules, cells, muscles, organs, skeleton, brain, mind > and self, all working together. There is no " me " or " I " as a > separate distinct thing, but it exists a heat surrounds the flame of > a candle, and as the flame rises out of the interaction of wax and > wick, the mind rises out of the physical nature of the brain. No > brain, no mind, no self. So there is no " me " then who or what is > writing the words on the computer? You as no me, not me, not I, I do > not exist? The body cannot move with a " me " to guide it. So smart, > yet so clueless. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > If I may be so bold as to inteject here Larry.. I think Bill is > making a reference to the Alfred E .Neuman kid in Mad > Magazine..remember.. " What ..me Worry? " That was a masterpiece of > comic journalism in the days of yore. I think it may still be around, > and if it is, Alfred is sure to be there front and centre as the ever > comical jester of the inane. Just a thought on what I see in the > above statement. > .........bob > > > > So, you saw the comment as an attempt at humor? > I see it as denial. As Larry tried to say, there is no functioning in the > world without a sense of self, and posting on this forum is indication enough > that such sense is present. If these individuals do someday realize oneness, I > believe they'll find that this oneness experience is made possible by the > rather diminutive egoic identity that still remains. How else would they know > that it had even occurred? If not, perhaps Marc's concern about retaining the > volition to brush one's teeth is justified after all. > > Funny that Len..I didn't see it as de Nile at all..I didn't even see a camel or a pyramid. I was trying to sooth the savage beast as it were,,and not just in Larry..in myself as well..this was sort of, believe it or not, a sort of olive branch and unfortunately a branch not taken up. It was ignored if you follow the thread. In Larry's next post, he added the addendum CORRECTED in the heading and then proceeded to post the VERY SAME post without the addition of my comment. Perhaps he took it as another sarcastic and caustic remark on the part of this Bully and Shark...frankly at this point I don't give a shit to take a note from Larry..and if you see it some other way well that's OK as well. As for me..I'm going to brush my teeth of the whole matter........ ;-) ......bob > As long as the teeth are brushed, I see no harm in olive branches, taken up or not. Expectations, well......that's another matter. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 In a message dated 4/6/2006 5:17:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:53:31 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: There Is No " Me " Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/5/2006 1:41:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 05 Apr 2006 03:29:35 -0000 > " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 > Re: There Is No " Me " > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > The body moves through its > > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > > > >>> > > > > that fits! > > > > Bill > > > > L.E: How can you say that? The body is not just a body and when > you give it some thought the word " body " is a gross generalization. > The body has physical pieces, parts that together create a > nonphysical realm called mind, which produces ego or self. The body > is atoms, molecules, cells, muscles, organs, skeleton, brain, mind > and self, all working together. There is no " me " or " I " as a > separate distinct thing, but it exists a heat surrounds the flame of > a candle, and as the flame rises out of the interaction of wax and > wick, the mind rises out of the physical nature of the brain. No > brain, no mind, no self. So there is no " me " then who or what is > writing the words on the computer? You as no me, not me, not I, I do > not exist? The body cannot move with a " me " to guide it. So smart, > yet so clueless. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > If I may be so bold as to inteject here Larry.. I think Bill is > making a reference to the Alfred E .Neuman kid in Mad > Magazine..remember.. " What ..me Worry? " That was a masterpiece of > comic journalism in the days of yore. I think it may still be around, > and if it is, Alfred is sure to be there front and centre as the ever > comical jester of the inane. Just a thought on what I see in the > above statement. > .........bob > > > > So, you saw the comment as an attempt at humor? > I see it as denial. As Larry tried to say, there is no functioning in the > world without a sense of self, and posting on this forum is indication enough > that such sense is present. If these individuals do someday realize oneness, I > believe they'll find that this oneness experience is made possible by the > rather diminutive egoic identity that still remains. How else would they know > that it had even occurred? If not, perhaps Marc's concern about retaining the > volition to brush one's teeth is justified after all. > As I said to Larry on much the same topic, there are at least three possibilities: * the other person is presenting highly fictionalied remarks * the other person is sincere but woefully deluded * you yourself haven't experienced what is being described, and hence the description makes no damn sense to you whatsoever, which means you opt for one of the two optons above It is interesting to me how to some people it is absolutely *inconceivable* that someone could be talking about something that they haven't a notion about. Bill Well, at least I'm open to two of the possibilities, while you seem to be locked into just one. There's also the possibility that you have no idea what I've experienced, and though it's true the same applies to me, " no sense of me " is actually not as esoteric as you might think. Regardless of what you mean by it, the wording is clear. There are enlightened masters who have reached such levels of consciousness that all sense of self was dissipated. If you find yourself in this position, I suggest you arrange to have someone around to feed and bathe you, because you will have no interest whatsoever in the survival of the body with which you no longer identify. Possibly, if you used that excellent, creative and highly active mind of yours to come up with more appropriate terminology, more of us could understand what you mean to say? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/5/2006 1:41:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 05 Apr 2006 03:29:35 -0000 > > " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > > Re: There Is No " Me " > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > The body moves through its > > > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > that fits! > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > L.E: How can you say that? The body is not just a body and when > > you give it some thought the word " body " is a gross > generalization. > > The body has physical pieces, parts that together create a > > nonphysical realm called mind, which produces ego or self. The > body > > is atoms, molecules, cells, muscles, organs, skeleton, brain, mind > > and self, all working together. There is no " me " or " I " as a > > separate distinct thing, but it exists a heat surrounds the flame > of > > a candle, and as the flame rises out of the interaction of wax and > > wick, the mind rises out of the physical nature of the brain. No > > brain, no mind, no self. So there is no " me " then who or what is > > writing the words on the computer? You as no me, not me, not I, I > do > > not exist? The body cannot move with a " me " to guide it. So smart, > > yet so clueless. > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > Well, at least I'm open to two of the possibilities, while you seem to be > locked into just one. > There's also the possibility that you have no idea what I've experienced, > and though it's true the same applies to me, " no sense of me " is actually not as > esoteric as you might think. Regardless of what you mean by it, the wording > is clear. > > There are enlightened masters who have reached such levels of consciousness > that all sense of self was dissipated. If you find yourself in this position, > I suggest you arrange to have someone around to feed and bathe you, because > you will have no interest whatsoever in the survival of the body with which > you no longer identify. It is perfectly possible to be without a psychological " me " and to function well in the world, actually even much better. But it doesn´t make sense to focus on some hypothetical state and its consequences, nor to argue whether it is or isn´t possible. Your actual state, which, if I understand you well does include a " me " is all what you have. You cannot observe and understand what is not there, only what is there can be understood, through direct observation. Len > Possibly, if you used that excellent, creative and highly active mind of > yours to come up with more appropriate terminology, more of us could understand > what you mean to say? > > Phil > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:33:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 08:07:02 -0700 Pete S <pedsie5 Re: There Is No Me/Phil On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:55 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > There are enlightened masters who have reached such levels of > consciousness > that all sense of self was dissipated. If you find yourself in this > position, > I suggest you arrange to have someone around to feed and bathe you, > because > you will have no interest whatsoever in the survival of the body with > which > you no longer identify. P: Funny! I once asked my wife, in jest, what would you do if I happened to become like Ramana, who had to be feed and bathed? " There are places that take care of people like that, " she said. " You mean an ashram? " " No, a nuthouse. " I swear, that woman is like a guru to me. Hehe. Wives can be very good sources of........grounding. 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.