Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes: > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of acquired > impressions. > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for answers to its > own questions about post-its. > > All questions are about 'things'. > > All things are conceptual. > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > toombaru > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be implying. Accumulated experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for meaning or significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and recapitulated. It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving within the process of change. What's the problem here? Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 < There are people who look within other words to determine the true < meaning of the words themselves. < Can you see the problem here? < toombaru No problem! I simply look at words for fun and enjoyment! Occasionally doing so yields a bit of clarity and more precise communication. Now that that is out of the way, could you give me an example of a *true* meaning and, for extra measure, toss in what a " true meaning " *means* or " should " *mean*? By the way, what does " mean " *mean* :-) Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > < There are people who look within other words to determine the true > < meaning of the words themselves. > > < Can you see the problem here? > > < toombaru > > No problem! I simply look at words for fun and enjoyment! Occasionally > doing so yields a bit of clarity and more precise communication. Now > that that is out of the way, could you give me an example of a *true* > meaning and, for extra measure, toss in what a " true meaning " *means* or > " should " *mean*? By the way, what does " mean " *mean* :-) > > Michael > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of acquired impressions. It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for answers to its own questions about post-its. All questions are about 'things'. All things are conceptual. All questions are about concepts. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson@> wrote: > > > > > > < There are people who look within other words to determine the true > > < meaning of the words themselves. > > > > < Can you see the problem here? > > > > < toombaru > > > > No problem! I simply look at words for fun and enjoyment! Occasionally > > doing so yields a bit of clarity and more precise communication. Now > > that that is out of the way, could you give me an example of a *true* > > meaning and, for extra measure, toss in what a " true meaning " > *means* or > > " should " *mean*? By the way, what does " mean " *mean* :-) > > > > Michael > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of acquired > impressions. > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for answers to its > own questions about post-its. > > All questions are about 'things'. > > All things are conceptual. > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > toombaru > this makes sense to me and pushing a little further... what about inquiry? what's the difference between inquiry and a question? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > lastrain writes: > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of acquired > > impressions. > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for answers to its > > own questions about post-its. > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be implying. Accumulated > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for meaning or > significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and recapitulated. > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving within the > process of change. What's the problem here? > > Larry Epston > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those 'things' that it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, religious etc) are real. This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought that obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is the 'suffering'. In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be very painful. toombaru toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 In a message dated 4/29/2006 3:56:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:46:35 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: " True " meaning Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson@> wrote: > > > > > > < There are people who look within other words to determine the true > > < meaning of the words themselves. > > > > < Can you see the problem here? > > > > < toombaru > > > > No problem! I simply look at words for fun and enjoyment! Occasionally > > doing so yields a bit of clarity and more precise communication. Now > > that that is out of the way, could you give me an example of a *true* > > meaning and, for extra measure, toss in what a " true meaning " > *means* or > > " should " *mean*? By the way, what does " mean " *mean* :-) > > > > Michael > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of acquired > impressions. > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for answers to its > own questions about post-its. > > All questions are about 'things'. > > All things are conceptual. > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > toombaru > this makes sense to me and pushing a little further... what about inquiry? what's the difference between inquiry and a question? Bill The difference is 'looking'. We just came full circle. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:46:27 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: " True " meaning Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > lastrain writes: > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of acquired > > impressions. > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for answers to its > > own questions about post-its. > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be implying. Accumulated > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for meaning or > significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and recapitulated. > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving within the > process of change. What's the problem here? > > Larry Epston > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those 'things' that it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, religious etc) are real. This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought that obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is the 'suffering'. In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be very painful. toombaru toombaru Well, okay, yeah, but, like, see, lemme ask ya this: The mind starts believing things. In the truest sense, that doesn't happen, but in this context that we're talkin here, it does. So, what if we were to pay attention to what it is we believe and what we pretend to believe and what we pretend to not know and such like that? Isn't that observing a process that's real in this context and therefore could alter that process? P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 3:56:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:46:35 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: " True " meaning > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > < There are people who look within other words to determine the > true > > > < meaning of the words themselves. > > > > > > < Can you see the problem here? > > > > > > < toombaru > > > > > > No problem! I simply look at words for fun and enjoyment! > Occasionally > > > doing so yields a bit of clarity and more precise communication. > Now > > > that that is out of the way, could you give me an example of a > *true* > > > meaning and, for extra measure, toss in what a " true meaning " > > *means* or > > > " should " *mean*? By the way, what does " mean " *mean* :-) > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of acquired > > impressions. > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for answers to > its > > own questions about post-its. > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > this makes sense to me > > and pushing a little further... > what about inquiry? > > what's the difference between inquiry and a question? > > Bill > > Inquiry into the nature of things leads only deeper into the dream. Inquiry into the nature of self can lead to the ultimate understanding. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:46:27 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: " True " meaning > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of acquired > > > impressions. > > > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for answers to its > > > own questions about post-its. > > > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be implying. > Accumulated > > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for meaning or > > significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and > recapitulated. > > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving > within the > > process of change. What's the problem here? > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those 'things' that > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, > religious etc) are real. > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought that > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is the > 'suffering'. > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be > very painful. > > > > toombaru > > > > toombaru > > > > Well, okay, yeah, but, like, see, lemme ask ya this: The mind starts > believing things. In the truest sense, that doesn't happen, but in this context that > we're talkin here, it does. So, what if we were to pay attention to what it > is we believe and what we pretend to believe and what we pretend to not know > and such like that? Isn't that observing a process that's real in this context > and therefore could alter that process? > > P The notion of observing what one " pretends to believe " does not make sense to me. What would that be? Something one believes without convinction? What would be an example? If it is evident that it is something one pretends to believe, then one does not really believe it, does one? And if it is evident that one does not really believe it, then that pretending is not very convincing. Indeed, if one does not really believe it, then it is not really a belief, pretend or otherwise. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 In a message dated 4/30/2006 12:51:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:43:19 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: " True " meaning Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:46:27 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: " True " meaning > > --- In Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of acquired > > > impressions. > > > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for answers to its > > > own questions about post-its. > > > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be implying. > Accumulated > > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for meaning or > > significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and > recapitulated. > > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving > within the > > process of change. What's the problem here? > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those 'things' that > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, > religious etc) are real. > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought that > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is the > 'suffering'. > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be > very painful. > > > > toombaru > > > > toombaru > > > > Well, okay, yeah, but, like, see, lemme ask ya this: The mind starts > believing things. In the truest sense, that doesn't happen, but in this context that > we're talkin here, it does. So, what if we were to pay attention to what it > is we believe and what we pretend to believe and what we pretend to not know > and such like that? Isn't that observing a process that's real in this context > and therefore could alter that process? > > P The notion of observing what one " pretends to believe " does not make sense to me. What would that be? Something one believes without convinction? P: It would be self deception. It's a rather remarkable human talent that is nevertheless performed by everyone. What would be an example? P: Lets say one angrily judges another for being judgmental. This is psychological projection designed to avoid noticing one's own judgment. This is a self deception, but there is not a self that is being judgmental and another self that is not aware of that. They are the same self. Therefore, it is just a pretense; a mental game of hide and seek. This can be noticed. If it is evident that it is something one pretends to believe, then one does not really believe it, does one? And if it is evident that one does not really believe it, then that pretending is not very convincing. P: It is as convincing as the one pretending wants it to be. No, it is not truly a belief, which is what makes it problematic. Indeed, if one does not really believe it, then it is not really a belief, pretend or otherwise. P: It is a pretense.....the pretense of a belief. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:46:27 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: " True " meaning > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of acquired > > > impressions. > > > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for answers to its > > > own questions about post-its. > > > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be implying. > Accumulated > > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for meaning or > > significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and > recapitulated. > > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving > within the > > process of change. What's the problem here? > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those 'things' that > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, > religious etc) are real. > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought that > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is the > 'suffering'. > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be > very painful. > > > > toombaru > > > > toombaru > > > > Well, okay, yeah, but, like, see, lemme ask ya this: The mind starts > believing things. In the truest sense, that doesn't happen, but in this context that > we're talkin here, it does. So, what if we were to pay attention to what it > is we believe and what we pretend to believe and what we pretend to not know > and such like that? Isn't that observing a process that's real in this context > and therefore could alter that process? > > P Definitely more real then adding the belief of unreality of things on top of the belief in their reality ;-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:46:27 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: " True " meaning > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of > acquired > > > > impressions. > > > > > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for > answers to its > > > > own questions about post-its. > > > > > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be > implying. > > Accumulated > > > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for > meaning or > > > significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and > > recapitulated. > > > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving > > within the > > > process of change. What's the problem here? > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those 'things' > that > > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, > > religious etc) are real. > > > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought > that > > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is > the > > 'suffering'. > > > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be > > very painful. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Well, okay, yeah, but, like, see, lemme ask ya this: The mind > starts > > believing things. In the truest sense, that doesn't happen, but in > this context that > > we're talkin here, it does. So, what if we were to pay attention > to what it > > is we believe and what we pretend to believe and what we pretend > to not know > > and such like that? Isn't that observing a process that's real in > this context > > and therefore could alter that process? > > > > P > Stacking shadows ..........to reach the moon. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 In a message dated 4/30/2006 7:25:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisa rgadatta writes: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:58:20 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: " True " meaning Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:46:27 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: " True " meaning > > --- In Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of acquired > > > impressions. > > > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for answers to its > > > own questions about post-its. > > > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be implying. > Accumulated > > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for meaning or > > significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and > recapitulated. > > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving > within the > > process of change. What's the problem here? > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those 'things' that > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, > religious etc) are real. > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought that > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is the > 'suffering'. > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be > very painful. > > > > toombaru > > > > toombaru > > > > Well, okay, yeah, but, like, see, lemme ask ya this: The mind starts > believing things. In the truest sense, that doesn't happen, but in this context that > we're talkin here, it does. So, what if we were to pay attention to what it > is we believe and what we pretend to believe and what we pretend to not know > and such like that? Isn't that observing a process that's real in this context > and therefore could alter that process? > > P Definitely more real then adding the belief of unreality of things on top of the belief in their reality ;-) Len Yeah, that makes it all sound pretty silly, huh? Let me, as an individual ego, explain to you, as an individual ego, how there is no such thing as an individual ego. And while we're at it, 'I' am hoping to get 'you' to understand that 'we' are One. ~ Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 In a message dated 4/30/2006 7:25:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:27:23 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: " True " meaning Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:46:27 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: " True " meaning > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of > acquired > > > > impressions. > > > > > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for > answers to its > > > > own questions about post-its. > > > > > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be > implying. > > Accumulated > > > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for > meaning or > > > significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and > > recapitulated. > > > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving > > within the > > > process of change. What's the problem here? > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those 'things' > that > > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, > > religious etc) are real. > > > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought > that > > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is > the > > 'suffering'. > > > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be > > very painful. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Well, okay, yeah, but, like, see, lemme ask ya this: The mind > starts > > believing things. In the truest sense, that doesn't happen, but in > this context that > > we're talkin here, it does. So, what if we were to pay attention > to what it > > is we believe and what we pretend to believe and what we pretend > to not know > > and such like that? Isn't that observing a process that's real in > this context > > and therefore could alter that process? > > > > P > Stacking shadows ..........to reach the moon. toombaru How many more shadows do ya think we're gonna need? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/30/2006 7:25:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:27:23 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: " True " meaning > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:46:27 -0000 > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > Re: " True " meaning > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of > > acquired > > > > > impressions. > > > > > > > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for > > answers to its > > > > > own questions about post-its. > > > > > > > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > > > > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > > > > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be > > implying. > > > Accumulated > > > > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for > > meaning or > > > > significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and > > > recapitulated. > > > > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving > > > within the > > > > process of change. What's the problem here? > > > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those 'things' > > that > > > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, > > > religious etc) are real. > > > > > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought > > that > > > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is > > the > > > 'suffering'. > > > > > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be > > > very painful. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, okay, yeah, but, like, see, lemme ask ya this: The mind > > starts > > > believing things. In the truest sense, that doesn't happen, but in > > this context that > > > we're talkin here, it does. So, what if we were to pay attention > > to what it > > > is we believe and what we pretend to believe and what we pretend > > to not know > > > and such like that? Isn't that observing a process that's real in > > this context > > > and therefore could alter that process? > > > > > > P > > > > > > Stacking shadows ..........to reach the moon. > > > toombaru > > > > How many more shadows do ya think we're gonna need? > > Phil Good question, how many more shadows? If one isn´t enough, will two be enough? If two isn´t enough, will hundred be enough? Is it about the amount at all? Or is it about the quality of attention, now? If it is ever going to happen, why not now? What brings about attention? Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/30/2006 7:25:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisa > rgadatta writes: > > Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:58:20 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: " True " meaning > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:46:27 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: " True " meaning > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of > acquired > > > > impressions. > > > > > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for > answers to its > > > > own questions about post-its. > > > > > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be > implying. > > Accumulated > > > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for > meaning or > > > significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and > > recapitulated. > > > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving > > within the > > > process of change. What's the problem here? > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those 'things' > that > > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, > > religious etc) are real. > > > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought > that > > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is > the > > 'suffering'. > > > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be > > very painful. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Well, okay, yeah, but, like, see, lemme ask ya this: The mind > starts > > believing things. In the truest sense, that doesn't happen, but in > this context that > > we're talkin here, it does. So, what if we were to pay attention > to what it > > is we believe and what we pretend to believe and what we pretend > to not know > > and such like that? Isn't that observing a process that's real in > this context > > and therefore could alter that process? > > > > P > > > Definitely more real then adding the belief of unreality of things > on top of the belief in their reality ;-) > > Len > > > > Yeah, that makes it all sound pretty silly, huh? > Let me, as an individual ego, explain to you, as an individual ego, how > there is no such thing as an individual ego. And while we're at it, 'I' am hoping > to get 'you' to understand that 'we' are One. ~ > > Phil And if I´m silly enough, it will work, and then we can enjoy our understanding together. Glorious ;-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 In a message dated 5/1/2006 7:48:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 01 May 2006 12:09:57 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: " True " meaning Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/30/2006 7:25:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:27:23 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: " True " meaning > > --- In Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:46:27 -0000 > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > Re: " True " meaning > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of > > acquired > > > > > impressions. > > > > > > > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for > > answers to its > > > > > own questions about post-its. > > > > > > > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > > > > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > > > > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be > > implying. > > > Accumulated > > > > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for > > meaning or > > > > significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and > > > recapitulated. > > > > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving > > > within the > > > > process of change. What's the problem here? > > > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those 'things' > > that > > > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, > > > religious etc) are real. > > > > > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought > > that > > > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is > > the > > > 'suffering'. > > > > > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be > > > very painful. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, okay, yeah, but, like, see, lemme ask ya this: The mind > > starts > > > believing things. In the truest sense, that doesn't happen, but in > > this context that > > > we're talkin here, it does. So, what if we were to pay attention > > to what it > > > is we believe and what we pretend to believe and what we pretend > > to not know > > > and such like that? Isn't that observing a process that's real in > > this context > > > and therefore could alter that process? > > > > > > P > > > > > > Stacking shadows ..........to reach the moon. > > > toombaru > > > > How many more shadows do ya think we're gonna need? > > Phil Good question, how many more shadows? If one isn´t enough, will two be enough? If two isn´t enough, will hundred be enough? Is it about the amount at all? Or is it about the quality of attention, now? If it is ever going to happen, why not now? What brings about attention? Len Off the top of me head, I'd say attention comes about through willingness to attend which comes through understanding which comes through attention. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/1/2006 7:48:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 01 May 2006 12:09:57 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: " True " meaning > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/30/2006 7:25:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:27:23 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: " True " meaning > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:46:27 -0000 > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > Re: " True " meaning > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation > of > > > acquired > > > > > > impressions. > > > > > > > > > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post- its....for > > > answers to its > > > > > > own questions about post-its. > > > > > > > > > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > > > > > > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > > > > > > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be > > > implying. > > > > Accumulated > > > > > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched > for > > > meaning or > > > > > significance. And then, more experience can to gathered > and > > > > recapitulated. > > > > > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep > moving > > > > within the > > > > > process of change. What's the problem here? > > > > > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that > those 'things' > > > that > > > > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, > philosophical, > > > > religious etc) are real. > > > > > > > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of > thought > > > that > > > > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of > separation..that is > > > the > > > > 'suffering'. > > > > > > > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can > still be > > > > very painful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, okay, yeah, but, like, see, lemme ask ya this: The mind > > > starts > > > > believing things. In the truest sense, that doesn't happen, > but in > > > this context that > > > > we're talkin here, it does. So, what if we were to pay > attention > > > to what it > > > > is we believe and what we pretend to believe and what we > pretend > > > to not know > > > > and such like that? Isn't that observing a process that's > real in > > > this context > > > > and therefore could alter that process? > > > > > > > > P > > > > > > > > > > > Stacking shadows ..........to reach the moon. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > How many more shadows do ya think we're gonna need? > > > > Phil > > > Good question, how many more shadows? If one isn´t enough, will two > be enough? If two isn´t enough, will hundred be enough? > Is it about the amount at all? Or is it about the quality of > attention, now? If it is ever going to happen, why not now? > What brings about attention? > > Len > > > > Off the top of me head, I'd say attention comes about through willingness to > attend which comes through understanding which comes through attention. > > Phil That´s it. So, the important change takes place when the understanding through attention takes place for the first time, without a cause. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 In a message dated 5/3/2006 4:52:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: " lissbon2002 " lissbon2002 Wed May 3, 2006 4:41am(PDT) Re: " True " meaning Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/1/2006 7:48:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 01 May 2006 12:09:57 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: " True " meaning > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/30/2006 7:25:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:27:23 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: " True " meaning > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:46:27 -0000 > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > Re: " True " meaning > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation > of > > > acquired > > > > > > impressions. > > > > > > > > > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post- its....for > > > answers to its > > > > > > own questions about post-its. > > > > > > > > > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > > > > > > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > > > > > > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be > > > implying. > > > > Accumulated > > > > > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched > for > > > meaning or > > > > > significance. And then, more experience can to gathered > and > > > > recapitulated. > > > > > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep > moving > > > > within the > > > > > process of change. What's the problem here? > > > > > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that > those 'things' > > > that > > > > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, > philosophical, > > > > religious etc) are real. > > > > > > > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of > thought > > > that > > > > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of > separation..that is > > > the > > > > 'suffering'. > > > > > > > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can > still be > > > > very painful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, okay, yeah, but, like, see, lemme ask ya this: The mind > > > starts > > > > believing things. In the truest sense, that doesn't happen, > but in > > > this context that > > > > we're talkin here, it does. So, what if we were to pay > attention > > > to what it > > > > is we believe and what we pretend to believe and what we > pretend > > > to not know > > > > and such like that? Isn't that observing a process that's > real in > > > this context > > > > and therefore could alter that process? > > > > > > > > P > > > > > > > > > > > Stacking shadows ..........to reach the moon. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > How many more shadows do ya think we're gonna need? > > > > Phil > > > Good question, how many more shadows? If one isn´t enough, will two > be enough? If two isn´t enough, will hundred be enough? > Is it about the amount at all? Or is it about the quality of > attention, now? If it is ever going to happen, why not now? > What brings about attention? > > Len > > > > Off the top of me head, I'd say attention comes about through willingness to > attend which comes through understanding which comes through attention. > > Phil That´s it. So, the important change takes place when the understanding through attention takes place for the first time, without a cause. Len Yes, sounds right, and this is why it appears that awakening is not the result of anything and is entirely uncaused, because ultimately this is so. But there is much preparation required for such a spontaneous occurrence. I'm a little weary of the mantra that the seeking has nothing at all to do with the finding. Nearly every event of awakening is preceded by very dedicated spiritual exploration, often involving great courage and dedication. Why do we pretend that this is just a coincidence? I sincerely have tried to notice if this is so, and I'm done with that little bit of dogma. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/3/2006 4:52:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " lissbon2002 " lissbon2002 > Wed May 3, 2006 4:41am(PDT) > Re: " True " meaning > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 5/1/2006 7:48:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Mon, 01 May 2006 12:09:57 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: " True " meaning > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/30/2006 7:25:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:27:23 -0000 > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > Re: " True " meaning > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight > > Time, > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:46:27 -0000 > > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > > Re: " True " meaning > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific > Daylight > > Time, > > > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thinking is confined to its own > accumulation > > of > > > > acquired > > > > > > > impressions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has to search among its own swirling post- > its....for > > > > answers to its > > > > > > > own questions about post-its. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All questions are about 'things'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All things are conceptual. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All questions are about concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be > > > > implying. > > > > > Accumulated > > > > > > experience can be reviewed and contemplated and > searched > > for > > > > meaning or > > > > > > significance. And then, more experience can to > gathered > > and > > > > > recapitulated. > > > > > > It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and > keep > > moving > > > > > within the > > > > > > process of change. What's the problem here? > > > > > > > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem occurs when mind starts believing that > > those 'things' > > > > that > > > > > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, > > philosophical, > > > > > religious etc) are real. > > > > > > > > > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of > > thought > > > > that > > > > > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of > > separation..that is > > > > the > > > > > 'suffering'. > > > > > > > > > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can > > still be > > > > > very painful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, okay, yeah, but, like, see, lemme ask ya this: The > mind > > > > starts > > > > > believing things. In the truest sense, that doesn't happen, > > but in > > > > this context that > > > > > we're talkin here, it does. So, what if we were to pay > > attention > > > > to what it > > > > > is we believe and what we pretend to believe and what we > > pretend > > > > to not know > > > > > and such like that? Isn't that observing a process that's > > real in > > > > this context > > > > > and therefore could alter that process? > > > > > > > > > > P > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stacking shadows ..........to reach the moon. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > How many more shadows do ya think we're gonna need? > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > Good question, how many more shadows? If one isn´t enough, will > two > > be enough? If two isn´t enough, will hundred be enough? > > Is it about the amount at all? Or is it about the quality of > > attention, now? If it is ever going to happen, why not now? > > What brings about attention? > > > > Len > > > > > > > > Off the top of me head, I'd say attention comes about through > willingness to > > attend which comes through understanding which comes through > attention. > > > > Phil > > > That´s it. So, the important change takes place when the > understanding through attention takes place for the first time, > without a cause. > > Len > > > > Yes, sounds right, and this is why it appears that awakening is not the > result of anything and is entirely uncaused, because ultimately this is so. But > there is much preparation required for such a spontaneous occurrence. > > I'm a little weary of the mantra that the seeking has nothing at all to do > with the finding. Nearly every event of awakening is preceded by very dedicated > spiritual exploration, often involving great courage and dedication. Why do > we pretend that this is just a coincidence? I sincerely have tried to notice > if this is so, and I'm done with that little bit of dogma. > > Phil It is not a coincidence. There is certainly passion and exploration involved. It´s just that first sudden insight seems to come out of the blue, which simply means that there are no conscious, visible causes. Len 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.