Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 L.E: Do you remember that game called King of the Hill? Only one person can be at the top of the hill and everybody else tries to get to the top and replace the King and become the King themselves. Have you ever noticed those teachers that never approve of anyone, that always criticize and find fault? Are they playing King of the Hill? Are they so competitive for the primary position of chief, authority, leader, that they can never really approve of anyone because the are afraid that if they approve, they will lose their position as the all-knowing authority? Ramana Maharshi puts down anyone who give spiritual teaching by talking, he say they are " haranguing " the audience and the real teaching and preaching is through silence and experiencing the presence of the holy one, meaning of course himself. He implies the only ones of value are the silent teachers as himself and everyone else is worthless and will not change the lives of anyone. Swami Satchitananda didn't leave a successor. He couldn't find anyone of equal or worthy status to give them his blessing and authority, so his follows of course fought over leadership when he died. Krishnamurti chose no follower or worthy successor to not guru and not lead, and not influence as he did. One after another, no one is worthy to equal or carry on. Have you heard of Swami Rama, or Yogananda? Who are their successors? No one. Is this King of the Hill? There are people in this group that play the same King of the Hill game. They give no approval to anyone and try to always be the last and final authority. When ever you write to them, the answer you give is always lacking, always mistaken, always wrong. They never have anything happy or joyful to say to anyone. There are some in their pursuit of King of the Hill who play the " as long as you write I am " you are not, have no basis, no accomplishment, so here are a few comments from Nisargatta. Nisargatta: " I am neither conscious nor unconscious. " " I am beyond the mind. " " I am pure consciousness itself " " I am not a person in your sense of the word. " He seems very comfortable with " I am " declarations and statements so what is the objection of certain list members to " I am " statements. OOOOOO! You said " I am " therefore you haven't got it! OOOOOO! You wrote " I am " therefore you are lost in illusion and dreams.! OOOOOO! When you say I am you are wrong wrong. Writing, without writing I am is arbitrary and ridiculous for those that feel they are accomplishing some spiritual feat of greatness by finding a writing style that eliminates " I am " statements. It's just someone trying to maintain the highest position and find everyone else wrong. King of the Hill for adults. Stupid!! Toom. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Writing, without writing I am is arbitrary and ridiculous for those that feel they are accomplishing some spiritual feat of greatness by finding a writing style that eliminates " I am " statements. >>>> I am in basic agreement... That the pronoun " I " occurs in speech says nothing of the conceptualization of the speaker. I will go even further: to read some words and from those words assume that one can adduce the state of consciousness behind the emission of those words... sheer rubbish! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Writing, without writing I am is arbitrary and ridiculous for those that > feel they are accomplishing some spiritual feat of greatness by finding > a writing style that eliminates " I am " statements. > >>>> > > I am in basic agreement... > > That the pronoun " I " occurs in speech says nothing > of the conceptualization of the speaker. > > I will go even further: to read some words and from > those words assume that one can adduce the state of > consciousness behind the emission of those words... > sheer rubbish! > > > Bill > Rubbish...........as far as the I can see. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:09:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:37:23 EDT epston King Of The Hill L.E: Do you remember that game called King of the Hill? Only one person can be at the top of the hill and everybody else tries to get to the top and replace the King and become the King themselves. Have you ever noticed those teachers that never approve of anyone, that always criticize and find fault? Are they playing King of the Hill? Are they so competitive for the primary position of chief, authority, leader, that they can never really approve of anyone because the are afraid that if they approve, they will lose their position as the all-knowing authority? Ramana Maharshi puts down anyone who give spiritual teaching by talking, he say they are " haranguing " the audience and the real teaching and preaching is through silence and experiencing the presence of the holy one, meaning of course himself. He implies the only ones of value are the silent teachers as himself and everyone else is worthless and will not change the lives of anyone. Swami Satchitananda didn't leave a successor. He couldn't find anyone of equal or worthy status to give them his blessing and authority, so his follows of course fought over leadership when he died. Krishnamurti chose no follower or worthy successor to not guru and not lead, and not influence as he did. One after another, no one is worthy to equal or carry on. Have you heard of Swami Rama, or Yogananda? Who are their successors? No one. Is this King of the Hill? There are people in this group that play the same King of the Hill game. They give no approval to anyone and try to always be the last and final authority. When ever you write to them, the answer you give is always lacking, always mistaken, always wrong. They never have anything happy or joyful to say to anyone. There are some in their pursuit of King of the Hill who play the " as long as you write I am " you are not, have no basis, no accomplishment, so here are a few comments from Nisargatta. Nisargatta: " I am neither conscious nor unconscious. " " I am beyond the mind. " " I am pure consciousness itself " " I am not a person in your sense of the word. " He seems very comfortable with " I am " declarations and statements so what is the objection of certain list members to " I am " statements. OOOOOO! You said " I am " therefore you haven't got it! OOOOOO! You wrote " I am " therefore you are lost in illusion and dreams.! OOOOOO! When you say I am you are wrong wrong. Writing, without writing I am is arbitrary and ridiculous for those that feel they are accomplishing some spiritual feat of greatness by finding a writing style that eliminates " I am " statements. It's just someone trying to maintain the highest position and find everyone else wrong. King of the Hill for adults. Stupid!! Toom. Larry Epston I doubt if my perspective is particularly meaningful to you but......I never saw Toom as trying to make anybody wrong or to be right. I don't think he cares who wins, I think he just seeks to negate his own processes. Of course, I could be mistaken about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 In a message dated 4/21/2006 6:24:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes: > Any statement about another is mistaken. > > toombaru L.E: Both Nisargardatta and I say, " In reality, there are no others. " P. 383, I Am That. In that sense, talking about another is talking about yourself. On the other hand the concept of another or the other is mistaken. So if you imagine another at all, you are mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:09:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:37:23 EDT > epston > King Of The Hill > > L.E: Do you remember that game called King of the Hill? > Only one person can be at the top of the hill and everybody else tries to > get > to the top and replace the King and become the King themselves. > Have you ever noticed those teachers that never approve of anyone, that > always criticize and find fault? Are they playing King of the Hill? > Are they so competitive for the primary position of chief, authority, > leader, that they can never really approve of anyone because the are afraid > that > if they approve, they will lose their position as the all- knowing > authority? > Ramana Maharshi puts down anyone who give spiritual teaching by talking, > he say they are " haranguing " the audience and the real teaching and > preaching > is through silence and experiencing the presence of the holy one, meaning of > course himself. He implies the only ones of value are the silent teachers > as > himself and everyone else is worthless and will not change the lives of > anyone. > Swami Satchitananda didn't leave a successor. He couldn't find anyone > of equal or worthy status to give them his blessing and authority, so his > follows of course fought over leadership when he died. Krishnamurti chose > no > follower or worthy successor to not guru and not lead, and not influence as > he > did. One after another, no one is worthy to equal or carry on. Have you > heard of > Swami Rama, or Yogananda? Who are their successors? No one. Is this King > of > the Hill? > There are people in this group that play the same King of the Hill game. > They give no approval to anyone and try to always be the last and final > authority. When ever you write to them, the answer you give is always > lacking, > always mistaken, always wrong. They never have anything happy or joyful to > say > to anyone. > There are some in their pursuit of King of the Hill who play the " as long as > you write I am " you are not, have no basis, no accomplishment, so here are a > few comments from Nisargatta. > > Nisargatta: " I am neither conscious nor unconscious. " " I am beyond the > mind. " " I am pure consciousness itself " " I am not a person in your sense of > the > word. " > > He seems very comfortable with " I am " declarations and statements so what is > the objection of certain list members to " I am " statements. > OOOOOO! You said " I am " therefore you haven't got it! > OOOOOO! You wrote " I am " therefore you are lost in illusion and dreams.! > > OOOOOO! When you say I am you are wrong wrong. > Writing, without writing I am is arbitrary and ridiculous for those that > feel they are accomplishing some spiritual feat of greatness by finding a > writing style that eliminates " I am " statements. It's just someone trying > to > maintain the highest position and find everyone else wrong. King of the Hill > for > adults. Stupid!! Toom. > > Larry Epston > > > > > I doubt if my perspective is particularly meaningful to you but......I never > saw Toom as trying to make anybody wrong or to be right. I don't think he > cares who wins, I think he just seeks to negate his own processes. Of course, I > could be mistaken about that. > Any statement about another is mistaken. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Writing, without writing I am is arbitrary and ridiculous for those that > feel they are accomplishing some spiritual feat of greatness by finding > a writing style that eliminates " I am " statements. > >>>> > > I am in basic agreement... > > That the pronoun " I " occurs in speech says nothing > of the conceptualization of the speaker. > > I will go even further: to read some words and from > those words assume that one can adduce the state of > consciousness behind the emission of those words... > sheer rubbish! > > > Bill You wish;-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Any statement about another is mistaken. >> toombaru > >L.E: Both Nisargardatta and I say, " In reality, there are no others. " P. 383, I Am That. In that sense, talking about another is talking about > yourself. On the > other hand the concept of another or the other is mistaken. So > if you imagine another at all, you are mistaken. > > Even it they were real.......both would be in constant flux. > One would not be able to get a good look at the other in the swirling > .......constantly changing....self-referential impressions. > > toombaru L.E: Nisargardatta and I both agree about it, but you are welcome to have your own opinion. And, as we both have said, there is no other. Otherness is the illusion of separation of self from Self, the individual from its environment, or as some say it, the soul from god, although we don't talk about it that way. Neither Niz, or I, or we or us have that illusion. Even Ana if free from that illusion. Are you, who pretends to have or is not a self? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 6:24:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > lastrain writes: > > > Any statement about another is mistaken. > > > > toombaru > > L.E: Both Nisargardatta and I say, " In reality, there are no others. " P. 383, > I Am That. In that sense, talking about another is talking about yourself. On > the other hand the concept of another or the other is mistaken. So if you > imagine another at all, you are mistaken. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 1:50:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:23:54 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: King Of The Hill Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:09:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:37:23 EDT > epston > King Of The Hill > > L.E: Do you remember that game called King of the Hill? > Only one person can be at the top of the hill and everybody else tries to > get > to the top and replace the King and become the King themselves. > Have you ever noticed those teachers that never approve of anyone, that > always criticize and find fault? Are they playing King of the Hill? > Are they so competitive for the primary position of chief, authority, > leader, that they can never really approve of anyone because the are afraid > that > if they approve, they will lose their position as the all- knowing > authority? > Ramana Maharshi puts down anyone who give spiritual teaching by talking, > he say they are " haranguing " the audience and the real teaching and > preaching > is through silence and experiencing the presence of the holy one, meaning of > course himself. He implies the only ones of value are the silent teachers > as > himself and everyone else is worthless and will not change the lives of > anyone. > Swami Satchitananda didn't leave a successor. He couldn't find anyone > of equal or worthy status to give them his blessing and authority, so his > follows of course fought over leadership when he died. Krishnamurti chose > no > follower or worthy successor to not guru and not lead, and not influence as > he > did. One after another, no one is worthy to equal or carry on. Have you > heard of > Swami Rama, or Yogananda? Who are their successors? No one. Is this King > of > the Hill? > There are people in this group that play the same King of the Hill game. > They give no approval to anyone and try to always be the last and final > authority. When ever you write to them, the answer you give is always > lacking, > always mistaken, always wrong. They never have anything happy or joyful to > say > to anyone. > There are some in their pursuit of King of the Hill who play the " as long as > you write I am " you are not, have no basis, no accomplishment, so here are a > few comments from Nisargatta. > > Nisargatta: " I am neither conscious nor unconscious. " " I am beyond the > mind. " " I am pure consciousness itself " " I am not a person in your sense of > the > word. " > > He seems very comfortable with " I am " declarations and statements so what is > the objection of certain list members to " I am " statements. > OOOOOO! You said " I am " therefore you haven't got it! > OOOOOO! You wrote " I am " therefore you are lost in illusion and dreams.! > > OOOOOO! When you say I am you are wrong wrong. > Writing, without writing I am is arbitrary and ridiculous for those that > feel they are accomplishing some spiritual feat of greatness by finding a > writing style that eliminates " I am " statements. It's just someone trying > to > maintain the highest position and find everyone else wrong. King of the Hill > for > adults. Stupid!! Toom. > > Larry Epston > > > > > I doubt if my perspective is particularly meaningful to you but......I never > saw Toom as trying to make anybody wrong or to be right. I don't think he > cares who wins, I think he just seeks to negate his own processes. Of course, I > could be mistaken about that. > Any statement about another is mistaken. toombaru Okay, Toom is an obsessive compulsive egomaniac who just wants to win at all cost..........Oops, that would be mistaken too, huh? Okay, never mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:35:15 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: King Of The Hill Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Writing, without writing I am is arbitrary and ridiculous for those that > feel they are accomplishing some spiritual feat of greatness by finding > a writing style that eliminates " I am " statements. > >>>> > > I am in basic agreement... > > That the pronoun " I " occurs in speech says nothing > of the conceptualization of the speaker. > > I will go even further: to read some words and from > those words assume that one can adduce the state of > consciousness behind the emission of those words... > sheer rubbish! > > > Bill You wish;-) Len Part of the reinforcement of illusory individuality is the belief that one can remain hidden while occupying the same consciousness as 'others'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:35:15 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: King Of The Hill > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Writing, without writing I am is arbitrary and ridiculous for > those that > > feel they are accomplishing some spiritual feat of greatness by > finding > > a writing style that eliminates " I am " statements. > > >>>> > > > > I am in basic agreement... > > > > That the pronoun " I " occurs in speech says nothing > > of the conceptualization of the speaker. > > > > I will go even further: to read some words and from > > those words assume that one can adduce the state of > > consciousness behind the emission of those words... > > sheer rubbish! > > > > > > Bill > > > You wish;-) > > Len > > > > Part of the reinforcement of illusory individuality is the belief that one > can remain hidden while occupying the same consciousness as 'others'. He, he :-) len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:35:15 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: King Of The Hill > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Writing, without writing I am is arbitrary and ridiculous for > those that > > feel they are accomplishing some spiritual feat of greatness by > finding > > a writing style that eliminates " I am " statements. > > >>>> > > > > I am in basic agreement... > > > > That the pronoun " I " occurs in speech says nothing > > of the conceptualization of the speaker. > > > > I will go even further: to read some words and from > > those words assume that one can adduce the state of > > consciousness behind the emission of those words... > > sheer rubbish! > > > > > > Bill > > > You wish;-) > > Len > > > > Part of the reinforcement of illusory individuality is the belief that one > can remain hidden while occupying the same consciousness as 'others'. > mere belief is an affirmation of individuality immersion in Now entails no belief isn't that simple? isn't that clear? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > mere belief is an affirmation of individuality > > immersion in Now entails no belief This is just a thought you hang on to, because it pleases you. Len > isn't that simple? > isn't that clear? > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > mere belief is an affirmation of individuality > > > > immersion in Now entails no belief > > > This is just a thought you hang on to, because it pleases you. > > Len > your imagination is running wild > > > isn't that simple? > > isn't that clear? > > > > Bill > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > mere belief is an affirmation of individuality > > > > > > immersion in Now entails no belief > > > > > > This is just a thought you hang on to, because it pleases you. > > > > Len > > > > your imagination is running wild Projection ;-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > mere belief is an affirmation of individuality > > > > > > > > immersion in Now entails no belief > > > > > > > > > This is just a thought you hang on to, because it pleases you. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > your imagination is running wild > > > Projection ;-) > > Len > thus speaks the projectionist! 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.