Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- 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 One can only have an adversary if one has an outside. One can only have an outside, if something is contained inside. With no outside, there is no point of contact for any adversary, and containing nothing, no " me " needs to be defeated. Your ordinary heart is sufficient. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > --- 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 > > One can only have an adversary if one has an outside. > > One can only have an outside, if something is contained inside. > > With no outside, there is no point of contact for any adversary, and > containing nothing, no " me " needs to be defeated. > > Your ordinary heart is sufficient. > > -- Dan > sense of inside/outside *is* the sense of " me " both are unreal so where does a heart come in? or: what role does vulnerability play? to truly *know* there is no inside/outside entails there is no " me " nor sense of inside/outside *believing* there is no inside/outside doesn't get there the imaginary boundary is connected with fear and a belief in a need for protection suggestion: it takes vulnerability to dissolve the boundary therefore: a " pure heart " is simply one that is so vulnerable an ordinary heart, yes, but with great courage Bill 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.