Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:42:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes: > " We' can only see that which is on 'our' past. > > > toombaru > > L.E: " On our past? " Do you mean IN our past? And why are there quotes > around the word 'our?' If you mean in our past, that's ridiculous. There is > the present, where we can see exactly what is here in front or behind us. > Oh! You mean 'our' does not include you who probably has no past, being > always in the present. Is that why the quote? 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 12:42:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > lastrain writes: > > > " We' can only see that which is on 'our' past. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > L.E: " On our past? " Do you mean IN our past? And why are there quotes > > around the word 'our?' If you mean in our past, that's ridiculous. There is > > the present, where we can see exactly what is here in front or behind us. > > Oh! You mean 'our' does not include you who probably has no past, being > > always in the present. Is that why the quote? > > I did mean to write 'in'....but I kinda like 'on' better....:-) Our is in quotes to convey the false sense of self. We are never in the present. We can only look behind of our selves.....and it takes a tenth of a second for a physical brain to assimilate incoming stimuli. It is always a little behind the flow. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:42:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > " We' can only see that which is on 'our' past. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > L.E: " On our past? " Do you mean IN our past? And why are there > quotes > > > around the word 'our?' If you mean in our past, that's > ridiculous. There is > > > the present, where we can see exactly what is here in front or > behind us. > > > Oh! You mean 'our' does not include you who probably has no past, > being > > > always in the present. Is that why the quote? > > > > > > I did mean to write 'in'....but I kinda like 'on' better....:-) > > Our is in quotes to convey the false sense of self. > > > We are never in the present. > > We can only look behind of our selves.....and it takes a tenth of a > second for a physical brain to assimilate incoming stimuli. > > It is always a little behind the flow. > > > > toombaru How long does it take, this moment, to construct the brain that constructs the stimuli? -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:42:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > " We' can only see that which is on 'our' past. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > L.E: " On our past? " Do you mean IN our past? And why are there > > quotes > > > > around the word 'our?' If you mean in our past, that's > > ridiculous. There is > > > > the present, where we can see exactly what is here in front or > > behind us. > > > > Oh! You mean 'our' does not include you who probably has no > past, > > being > > > > always in the present. Is that why the quote? > > > > > > > > > > I did mean to write 'in'....but I kinda like 'on' better....:-) > > > > Our is in quotes to convey the false sense of self. > > > > > > We are never in the present. > > > > We can only look behind our selves.....and it takes a tenth of a > > second for a physical brain to assimilate incoming stimuli. > > > > It is always a little behind the flow. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > How long does it take, this moment, to construct the brain that > constructs the stimuli? > > -- D. > .. There is no such thing as 'this separate moment'. The brain constructs nothing. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:42:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > " We' can only see that which is on 'our' past. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > L.E: " On our past? " Do you mean IN our past? And why are there > > > quotes > > > > > around the word 'our?' If you mean in our past, that's > > > ridiculous. There is > > > > > the present, where we can see exactly what is here in front or > > > behind us. > > > > > Oh! You mean 'our' does not include you who probably has no > > past, > > > being > > > > > always in the present. Is that why the quote? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did mean to write 'in'....but I kinda like 'on' better....:-) > > > > > > Our is in quotes to convey the false sense of self. > > > > > > > > > We are never in the present. > > > > > > We can only look behind > our selves.....and it takes a tenth of a > > > second for a physical brain to assimilate incoming stimuli. > > > > > > It is always a little behind the flow. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > How long does it take, this moment, to construct the brain that > > constructs the stimuli? > > > > -- D. > > > > > . > > There is no such thing as 'this separate moment'. > > The brain constructs nothing. > > > > > toombaru There is no toombie to make any statement about it, one way or the other. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:42:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > " We' can only see that which is on 'our' past. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > L.E: " On our past? " Do you mean IN our past? And why are there > > > quotes > > > > > around the word 'our?' If you mean in our past, that's > > > ridiculous. There is > > > > > the present, where we can see exactly what is here in front or > > > behind us. > > > > > Oh! You mean 'our' does not include you who probably has no > > past, > > > being > > > > > always in the present. Is that why the quote? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did mean to write 'in'....but I kinda like 'on' better....:-) > > > > > > Our is in quotes to convey the false sense of self. > > > > > > > > > We are never in the present. > > > > > > We can only look behind > our selves.....and it takes a tenth of a > > > second for a physical brain to assimilate incoming stimuli. > > > > > > It is always a little behind the flow. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > How long does it take, this moment, to construct the brain that > > constructs the stimuli? > > > > -- D. > > > > > . > > There is no such thing as 'this separate moment'. > > The brain constructs nothing. > > > > > toombar There is no such thing as someone saying " there is no such thing. " You have said nothing. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:42:42 PM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > " We' can only see that which is on 'our' past. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: " On our past? " Do you mean IN our past? And why are > there > > > > quotes > > > > > > around the word 'our?' If you mean in our past, that's > > > > ridiculous. There is > > > > > > the present, where we can see exactly what is here in front > or > > > > behind us. > > > > > > Oh! You mean 'our' does not include you who probably has > no > > > past, > > > > being > > > > > > always in the present. Is that why the quote? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did mean to write 'in'....but I kinda like 'on' better....:-) > > > > > > > > Our is in quotes to convey the false sense of self. > > > > > > > > > > > > We are never in the present. > > > > > > > > We can only look behind > > our selves.....and it takes a tenth of a > > > > second for a physical brain to assimilate incoming stimuli. > > > > > > > > It is always a little behind the flow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > How long does it take, this moment, to construct the brain that > > > constructs the stimuli? > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > . > > > > There is no such thing as 'this separate moment'. > > > > The brain constructs nothing. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > There is no toombie to make any statement about it, one way or the > other. > > -- D. > Dan.........Dan...........Dan. That is a given of which you are well aware. There is a most mysterious speaking.....but no one is speaking. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:42:42 PM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > " We' can only see that which is on 'our' past. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: " On our past? " Do you mean IN our past? And why are > there > > > > quotes > > > > > > around the word 'our?' If you mean in our past, that's > > > > ridiculous. There is > > > > > > the present, where we can see exactly what is here in front > or > > > > behind us. > > > > > > Oh! You mean 'our' does not include you who probably has > no > > > past, > > > > being > > > > > > always in the present. Is that why the quote? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did mean to write 'in'....but I kinda like 'on' better....:-) > > > > > > > > Our is in quotes to convey the false sense of self. > > > > > > > > > > > > We are never in the present. > > > > > > > > We can only look behind > > our selves.....and it takes a tenth of a > > > > second for a physical brain to assimilate incoming stimuli. > > > > > > > > It is always a little behind the flow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > How long does it take, this moment, to construct the brain that > > > constructs the stimuli? > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > . > > > > There is no such thing as 'this separate moment'. > > > > The brain constructs nothing. > > > > > > > > > > toombar > > There is no such thing as someone saying " there is no such thing. " > > You have said nothing. > > -- D. > I never have. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:42:42 PM Pacific Daylight > > Time, > > > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > " We' can only see that which is on 'our' past. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: " On our past? " Do you mean IN our past? And why are > > there > > > > > quotes > > > > > > > around the word 'our?' If you mean in our past, that's > > > > > ridiculous. There is > > > > > > > the present, where we can see exactly what is here in front > > or > > > > > behind us. > > > > > > > Oh! You mean 'our' does not include you who probably has > > no > > > > past, > > > > > being > > > > > > > always in the present. Is that why the quote? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did mean to write 'in'....but I kinda like 'on' better....:-) > > > > > > > > > > Our is in quotes to convey the false sense of self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are never in the present. > > > > > > > > > > We can only look behind > > > our selves.....and it takes a tenth of a > > > > > second for a physical brain to assimilate incoming stimuli. > > > > > > > > > > It is always a little behind the flow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > How long does it take, this moment, to construct the brain that > > > > constructs the stimuli? > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > There is no such thing as 'this separate moment'. > > > > > > The brain constructs nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > There is no toombie to make any statement about it, one way or the > > other. > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > Dan.........Dan...........Dan. > > That is a given of which you are well aware. > > > There is a most mysterious speaking.....but no one is speaking. > > > > toombaru If you are trying to understand what is being said, you have to construct a position from which to understand. If you aren't worried about that - there is just " is " ... (not the word or concept " is " ) No death, hence no birth. The mirage of having been born is dispelled *here* ... But the catch is this: dying to one's previously believed-to-be self, and its universe, is what this *here* with no death is ... And one goes right on with one's life, as is -- no contradiction whatsoever ... thoughts and perceptions and me's don't interfere whatsoever ... if the " me " is cleared *here* -- there isn't/aren't any other me's somewhere else to clear ... -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:42:42 PM Pacific Daylight > > > Time, > > > > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " We' can only see that which is on 'our' past. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: " On our past? " Do you mean IN our past? And why are > > > there > > > > > > quotes > > > > > > > > around the word 'our?' If you mean in our past, that's > > > > > > ridiculous. There is > > > > > > > > the present, where we can see exactly what is here in front > > > or > > > > > > behind us. > > > > > > > > Oh! You mean 'our' does not include you who probably has > > > no > > > > > past, > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > always in the present. Is that why the quote? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did mean to write 'in'....but I kinda like 'on' better....:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Our is in quotes to convey the false sense of self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are never in the present. > > > > > > > > > > > > We can only look behind > > > > our selves.....and it takes a tenth of a > > > > > > second for a physical brain to assimilate incoming stimuli. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is always a little behind the flow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How long does it take, this moment, to construct the brain that > > > > > constructs the stimuli? > > > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as 'this separate moment'. > > > > > > > > The brain constructs nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > There is no toombie to make any statement about it, one way or the > > > other. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan.........Dan...........Dan. > > > > That is a given of which you are well aware. > > > > > > There is a most mysterious speaking.....but no one is speaking. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > If you are trying to understand what is being said, you have to > construct a position from which to understand. > > If you aren't worried about that - there is just " is " ... > > (not the word or concept " is " ) > > No death, hence no birth. > > The mirage of having been born is dispelled *here* ... > > But the catch is this: dying to one's previously believed-to-be self, > and its universe, is what this *here* with no death is ... > > And one goes right on with one's life, as is -- no contradiction > whatsoever ... thoughts and perceptions and me's don't interfere > whatsoever ... if the " me " is cleared *here* -- there isn't/aren't > any other me's somewhere else to clear ... > > -- D. > .... ..........and One drifts down......immersed in the clarity of unknowing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:-)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 --- dan330033 <dan330033 a écrit : Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:42:42 PM Pacific Daylight > > Time, > > > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > " We' can only see that which is on 'our' past. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: " On our past? " Do you mean IN our past? And why are > > there > > > > > quotes > > > > > > > around the word 'our?' If you mean in our past, that's > > > > > ridiculous. There is > > > > > > > the present, where we can see exactly what is here in front > > or > > > > > behind us. > > > > > > > Oh! You mean 'our' does not include you who probably has > > no > > > > past, > > > > > being > > > > > > > always in the present. Is that why the quote? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did mean to write 'in'....but I kinda like 'on' better....:-) > > > > > > > > > > Our is in quotes to convey the false sense of self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are never in the present. > > > > > > > > > > We can only look behind > > > our selves.....and it takes a tenth of a > > > > > second for a physical brain to assimilate incoming stimuli. > > > > > > > > > > It is always a little behind the flow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > How long does it take, this moment, to construct the brain that > > > > constructs the stimuli? > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > There is no such thing as 'this separate moment'. > > > > > > The brain constructs nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > There is no toombie to make any statement about it, one way or the > > other. > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > Dan.........Dan...........Dan. > > That is a given of which you are well aware. > > > There is a most mysterious speaking.....but no one is speaking. > > > > toombaru If you are trying to understand what is being said, you have to construct a position from which to understand. If you aren't worried about that - there is just " is " .... (not the word or concept " is " ) No death, hence no birth. The mirage of having been born is dispelled *here* ... But the catch is this: dying to one's previously believed-to-be self, and its universe, is what this *here* with no death is .... And one goes right on with one's life, as is -- no contradiction whatsoever ... thoughts and perceptions and me's don't interfere whatsoever ... if the " me " is cleared *here* -- there isn't/aren't any other me's somewhere else to clear ... -- D. AAAAHHH, but the extreme nimbleness of that me... a most exquisite imitator indeed, A teacher bathed in the light of its own perfection.. The knower of the strings.. Only a pure heart can defeat <me>.. But what is a pure heart? Patricia ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 > > AAAAHHH, but the extreme nimbleness of that me... > a most exquisite imitator indeed, > A teacher bathed in the light of its own perfection.. > The knower of the strings.. > > Only a pure heart can defeat <me>.. > > But what is a pure heart? > > > Patricia > > > The One beating in your chest. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 --- toombaru2006 <lastrain a écrit : > > AAAAHHH, but the extreme nimbleness of that me... > a most exquisite imitator indeed, > A teacher bathed in the light of its own perfection.. > The knower of the strings.. > > Only a pure heart can defeat <me>.. > > But what is a pure heart? > > > Patricia > > > The One beating in your chest. toombaru ....and you bring back questions to their source.. Patricia ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. 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.