Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 --- dan330033 <dan330033 a écrit : Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > --- dan330033 <dan330033 a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > Thought doesn't interfere with anything. > > There is no interference - because nothing has its own > separable > existence as an " interferer " - unless you believe that > your thinking has > made it so ;-) > > -- D. > > Maybe not an interference, but a phenomenon with a big > appetite, sucking and transforming what could be > otherwise. Nothing could be otherwise. Nor is it. -- D. And you are Book Dan, Another great fidele of Absolute Truth. And since I`ve fallen in the gutter, I am looking at some intersting alchemy: A word of self-deception, Self-created, And yet its mud hasn`t reach our sleeves : not yours at least. Puritain of Absolute, Your comments are of great value, But your reaching too shallow. 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 May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no separated...isolated thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with any " thought stream " ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " thought stream " does not refer to any distinct reality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is just a reference that implies that what it > > > > > > > refers to is " there " ... > > > > > > > which it isn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts can seem to arise and disappear in consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but on investigation there is no distinct thought anywhere > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with " thought stream " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both are chimeras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > neither really exists > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would you want thinking to " see a problem " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because......that's the only door out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh no! not at all! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is only clear, unconditional attention, > > > > > > > which is true *intelligence*, > > > > > > > that is freeing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such unconditional attention is not thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does thought know that 'clear unconditional attention' > > exists > > > > > > outside of itself?.........And why does it assume that it can > > > somehow > > > > > > improve itself by getting some to that stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the questions posed *presume* the significance > > > > > of thought > > > > > > > > > > but what was said (about unconditioned attention etc.) > > > > > asserts that thought is *not* significant > > > > > > > > > > hence the questions posed are irrelevant > > > > > > > > > > if thought is not the real basis > > > > > then " how thought knows " is not significant/relevant > > > > > > > > > > perhaps thought would like to know (what the questions > > > > > ask)... but what is real always skirts thought > > > > > > > > > > thought has its own " game " in mind as to what > > > > > " it is all about " etc. > > > > > > > > > > but what thought thinks is significant only from > > > > > within thought's game. > > > > > > > > > > bottom line: thought is not important > > > > > > > > > > realizing What Is transcends/goes beyond/is outside of > > > > > thought > > > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It can't think > > outside > > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its self...but > > that's > > > > only another thought. > > > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond that. > > > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is that known? > > > > > > > > > I do not know. > > > > > > > > > First it is intuited. > > > > > > > > > Then the understanding percolates down into the core and turns into > > a > > > knowingness that is so clear that one wonders why what is wasn't > > seen > > > before. > > > > > > A clarity that includes and embraces all three worlds..... gazes out > > > into the most mysterious kingdom imaginable......that it now > > > knows...beyond doubt........is nothing other then Itself. > > > > The more he expressed his thoughts about his clarity, the more > > reasssured he was that he must really have a core, and knowingness > > really was being added into it. > > > > He enjoyed describing his clarity to the dream characters. It felt > > good to build the images, so why not? He was sure they must enjoy > > it, too. And every now and then, he'd remind them that they are > > dream characters - just so they'd know they weren't fooling him. > > > > -- Dan > > > Self knowledge is all ;-) > > Len > ** Yup, that's small (s) Same with 'self-inquiry.' He tried to seduce that cowgirl on the ranch, but she kept telling him: 'don't ask what it is, ask what it's DOING.' Denying/negating a self (as a ritual of incantation) sounds to me like self-activity. Don't want to throw THAT baby out with the wash water. ( " HALLO, friends, does YOUR detergent have *fully-deconstructive enzymes*? " ) But then I'm just a dream-character--I can't even look up my own skirt. And Dan, that line " it felt good to build the images, so why not " -- that's a zinger. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > > bottom line: thought is not important ** to whom? > > realizing What Is transcends/goes beyond/is outside of > thought ** What is, is right in the middle of thought. > > thought is an impedance, not a means ** Really? Ohm-my-god! Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > bottom line: thought is not important > > ** to whom? how odd clearly not understanding > > > > realizing What Is transcends/goes beyond/is outside of > > thought > > ** What is, is right in the middle of thought. > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > ** Really? Ohm-my-god! > > Ken > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > bottom line: thought is not important > > ** to whom? > > > > realizing What Is transcends/goes beyond/is outside of > > thought > > ** What is, is right in the middle of thought. > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > ** Really? Ohm-my-god! > > Ken > BTW, Ken. I do hope you are going to be someone who actually has something to say here, and not one of those cutsie sophmoric types that makes coy remarks about the messages of those who are so bold as to actually say something. Have you said anything here yet? Of your own? Or is it *all* just tailcoating and snippet sniping? Excuse me if I have missed something. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > On 5/12/06, OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > --- Bill Rishel <illusyn a écrit: > > > > > > > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no separated...isolated thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with any " thought stream " ... > > > > > > > > > > > > " thought stream " does not refer to any > > distinct reality > > > > > > > > > > > > it is just a reference that implies that what > > it > > > > > > refers to is " there " ... > > > > > > which it isn't > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts can seem to arise and disappear in > > consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > but on investigation there is no distinct > > thought anywhere > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with " thought stream " > > > > > > > > > > > > both are chimeras > > > > > > > > > > > > neither really exists > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would you want thinking to " see a > > problem " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because......that's the only door out. > > > > > > > > > > > > oh no! not at all! > > > > > > > > > > > > it is only clear, unconditional attention, > > > > > > which is true *intelligence*, > > > > > > that is freeing > > > > > > > > > > > > such unconditional attention is not thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does thought know that 'clear unconditional > > attention' exists > > > > > outside of itself?.........And why does it > > assume that it can somehow > > > > > improve itself by getting some to that stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > the questions posed *presume* the significance > > > > of thought > > > > > > > > but what was said (about unconditioned attention > > etc.) > > > > asserts that thought is *not* significant > > > > > > > > hence the questions posed are irrelevant > > > > > > > > if thought is not the real basis > > > > then " how thought knows " is not > > significant/relevant > > > > > > > > perhaps thought would like to know (what the > > questions > > > > ask)... but what is real always skirts thought > > > > > > > > thought has its own " game " in mind as to what > > > > " it is all about " etc. > > > > > > > > but what thought thinks is significant only from > > > > within thought's game. > > > > > > > > bottom line: thought is not important > > > > > > > > realizing What Is transcends/goes beyond/is > > outside of > > > > thought > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It > > can't think outside > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its > > self...but that's > > > only another thought. > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond > > that. > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > You are missing something very important. > > > > Thought is not always the case. > > The mind can go silent. > > > > What it is " like " when the mind goes silent > > can't really be described. > > But it *can be* experienced. > > [which is not to say it is *an* experience, > > which is of memory, and so is of thought.] > > > > Silent mind is not of thought. > > > > Perhaps you have not experienced > > silent mind. If not then there is no way > > for you to know what I mean. > > > > > > Bill > > > > everybody has experienced a sikent mind. ... > > Is experiencing a silent mind, between two thoughts, > > suspended. > > Or very early in life, > > Or watching some beautiful eyes seeing what isn`t to > > be seen ... > > Are you aware of those non-moments? > > Those non-happenings? > > > > Patricia > > > > it is true that everyone does experience silent mind, > but few experience it *consciously*, and for even > fewer a sustained experience of silent mind. > > In fact, to someone for whom " silent mind " is > considered something very important to *achieve* > (a misconception) becoming conscious of silent > mind is likely to kick in thoughts again (as in, " cool! > I'm experiencing silent mind! " (correction, *were* ) > > Bill > ** Everything you two are presenting is an image or concept. 'Consciously'....'sustained'...'gaps' ...etc.) Naturellement! Me too. No imaging >> no mind --no silent mind, no resting mind, either-- the larger phenomenon of brain activity, on-going. One could call it 'experiencing,' yes... Ken non-separately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no separated...isolated thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with any " thought stream " ... > > > > > > > > > > " thought stream " does not refer to any distinct reality > > > > > > > > > > it is just a reference that implies that what it > > > > > refers to is " there " ... > > > > > which it isn't > > > > > > > > > > thoughts can seem to arise and disappear in consciousness > > > > > > > > > > but on investigation there is no distinct thought anywhere > > > > > > > > > > and the same with " thought stream " > > > > > > > > > > both are chimeras > > > > > > > > > > neither really exists > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would you want thinking to " see a problem " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because......that's the only door out. > > > > > > > > > > oh no! not at all! > > > > > > > > > > it is only clear, unconditional attention, > > > > > which is true *intelligence*, > > > > > that is freeing > > > > > > > > > > such unconditional attention is not thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does thought know that 'clear unconditional attention' exists > > > > outside of itself?.........And why does it assume that it can > > > somehow > > > > improve itself by getting some to that stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're making up all this stuff about thought. Giving it motives and > > > wants, making it a knower. > > > > > > Thought isn't a knower. > > > > > > Nothing you're attributing to thought makes any sense with firsthand > > > clarity. > > > > > > You're setting up a straw man in thought to knock down - do you feel > > > powerful, Toom? > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > Do you honestly believe that you understand anything? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > Where's Larry? > > -- Dan LOL LOL............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > Thought doesn't interfere with anything. > > > > There is no interference - because nothing has its own > > separable > > existence as an " interferer " - unless you believe that > > your thinking has > > made it so ;-) > > > > -- D. > > > > Maybe not an interference, but a phenomenon with a big > > appetite, sucking and transforming what could be > > otherwise. > > Nothing could be otherwise. > > Nor is it. > > -- D. Nothing can be as it is. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > --- dan330033 <dan330033 a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia > <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > Thought doesn't interfere with anything. > > > > There is no interference - because nothing has its > own > > separable > > existence as an " interferer " - unless you believe > that > > your thinking has > > made it so ;-) > > > > -- D. > > > > Maybe not an interference, but a phenomenon with a > big > > appetite, sucking and transforming what could be > > otherwise. > > Nothing could be otherwise. > > Nor is it. > > -- D. > > And you are Book Dan, > Another great fidele of Absolute Truth. > And since I`ve fallen in the gutter, > I am looking at some intersting alchemy: > A word of self-deception, > Self-created, > And yet its mud hasn`t reach our sleeves : not yours > at least. > Puritain of Absolute, > Your comments are of great value, > But your reaching too shallow. > > Patricia > > > Only the shallow can be reached. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > > > Thought doesn't interfere with anything. > > > > > > There is no interference - because nothing has its own > > > separable > > > existence as an " interferer " - unless you believe that > > > your thinking has > > > made it so ;-) > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > Maybe not an interference, but a phenomenon with a big > > > appetite, sucking and transforming what could be > > > otherwise. > > > > Nothing could be otherwise. > > > > Nor is it. > > > > -- D. > > > > Nothing can be as it is. > > > toombaru mmmm?????...when Nothing is as it can be, what be it? ......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia > > <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > > > Thought doesn't interfere with anything. > > > > > > There is no interference - because nothing has its > > own > > > separable > > > existence as an " interferer " - unless you believe > > that > > > your thinking has > > > made it so ;-) > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > Maybe not an interference, but a phenomenon with a > > big > > > appetite, sucking and transforming what could be > > > otherwise. > > > > Nothing could be otherwise. > > > > Nor is it. > > > > -- D. > > > > And you are Book Dan, > > Another great fidele of Absolute Truth. > > And since I`ve fallen in the gutter, > > I am looking at some intersting alchemy: > > A word of self-deception, > > Self-created, > > And yet its mud hasn`t reach our sleeves : not yours > > at least. > > Puritain of Absolute, > > Your comments are of great value, > > But your reaching too shallow. > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > Only the shallow can be reached. > > > toombaru Deep....very Deep. .....bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > > > > > Thought doesn't interfere with anything. > > > > > > > > There is no interference - because nothing has its own > > > > separable > > > > existence as an " interferer " - unless you believe that > > > > your thinking has > > > > made it so ;-) > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > Maybe not an interference, but a phenomenon with a big > > > > appetite, sucking and transforming what could be > > > > otherwise. > > > > > > Nothing could be otherwise. > > > > > > Nor is it. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > Nothing can be as it is. > > > > > > toombaru > > > mmmm?????...when Nothing is as it can be, what be it? > > ......bob > everything is falling into everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia > <gdtige@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > > > > > > > Thought doesn't interfere with anything. > > > > > > > > > > There is no interference - because nothing has its own > > > > > separable > > > > > existence as an " interferer " - unless you believe that > > > > > your thinking has > > > > > made it so ;-) > > > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe not an interference, but a phenomenon with a big > > > > > appetite, sucking and transforming what could be > > > > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > Nothing could be otherwise. > > > > > > > > Nor is it. > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing can be as it is. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > mmmm?????...when Nothing is as it can be, what be it? > > > > ......bob > > > > > > everything is falling into everything And going to pieces without falling apart. Its One wonderful thing. ......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > > > > > > > > > There is no separated...isolated thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with any " thought stream " ... > > > > > > > > " thought stream " does not refer to any distinct reality > > > > > > > > it is just a reference that implies that what it > > > > refers to is " there " ... > > > > which it isn't > > > > > > > > thoughts can seem to arise and disappear in consciousness > > > > > > > > but on investigation there is no distinct thought anywhere > > > > > > > > and the same with " thought stream " > > > > > > > > both are chimeras > > > > > > > > neither really exists > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would you want thinking to " see a problem " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because......that's the only door out. > > > > > > > > oh no! not at all! > > > > > > > > it is only clear, unconditional attention, > > > > which is true *intelligence*, > > > > that is freeing > > > > > > > > such unconditional attention is not thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does thought know that 'clear unconditional attention' exists > > > outside of itself?.........And why does it assume that it can > > somehow > > > improve itself by getting some to that stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > You're making up all this stuff about thought. Giving it motives and > > wants, making it a knower. > > > > Thought isn't a knower. > > > > Nothing you're attributing to thought makes any sense with firsthand > > clarity. > > > > You're setting up a straw man in thought to knock down - do you feel > > powerful, Toom? > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > Do you honestly believe that you understand anything? > > > > > toombaru > ** Wrong question. Your only question is you-- 'Toom,' as presented here, repeatedly, in 'Toomspeak.' It's the *under-standing* (the 'is,' the awareness, etc.) meaning to understand itself, how it apparently splits itself (conceptually-emotionally) feels dis-ease, attempts escape or remedy. In inquiry, in honest self-confrontation and deconstruction, there's no room, no need for denials, affirmations or oppositions. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > Self knowledge is all ;-) > > > > Len > > > > > > That might be true........ if there were a self. > > > toombaru ** OY!!!! Same ol', same ol' ;-) It was never about 'entity' nor entity denied. So avoidance can be relinquished...now. It's about self-activity, energy, intent. That, and the awareness-of-that, is inseparably what you are. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > On 5/12/06, OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > --- Bill Rishel <illusyn@> a écrit: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no separated...isolated thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with any " thought stream " ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " thought stream " does not refer to any > > > distinct reality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is just a reference that implies that what > > > it > > > > > > > refers to is " there " ... > > > > > > > which it isn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts can seem to arise and disappear in > > > consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but on investigation there is no distinct > > > thought anywhere > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with " thought stream " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both are chimeras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > neither really exists > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would you want thinking to " see a > > > problem " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because......that's the only door out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh no! not at all! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is only clear, unconditional attention, > > > > > > > which is true *intelligence*, > > > > > > > that is freeing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such unconditional attention is not thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does thought know that 'clear unconditional > > > attention' exists > > > > > > outside of itself?.........And why does it > > > assume that it can somehow > > > > > > improve itself by getting some to that stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the questions posed *presume* the significance > > > > > of thought > > > > > > > > > > but what was said (about unconditioned attention > > > etc.) > > > > > asserts that thought is *not* significant > > > > > > > > > > hence the questions posed are irrelevant > > > > > > > > > > if thought is not the real basis > > > > > then " how thought knows " is not > > > significant/relevant > > > > > > > > > > perhaps thought would like to know (what the > > > questions > > > > > ask)... but what is real always skirts thought > > > > > > > > > > thought has its own " game " in mind as to what > > > > > " it is all about " etc. > > > > > > > > > > but what thought thinks is significant only from > > > > > within thought's game. > > > > > > > > > > bottom line: thought is not important > > > > > > > > > > realizing What Is transcends/goes beyond/is > > > outside of > > > > > thought > > > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It > > > can't think outside > > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its > > > self...but that's > > > > only another thought. > > > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond > > > that. > > > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something very important. > > > > > > Thought is not always the case. > > > The mind can go silent. > > > > > > What it is " like " when the mind goes silent > > > can't really be described. > > > But it *can be* experienced. > > > [which is not to say it is *an* experience, > > > which is of memory, and so is of thought.] > > > > > > Silent mind is not of thought. > > > > > > Perhaps you have not experienced > > > silent mind. If not then there is no way > > > for you to know what I mean. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > everybody has experienced a sikent mind. ... > > > Is experiencing a silent mind, between two thoughts, > > > suspended. > > > Or very early in life, > > > Or watching some beautiful eyes seeing what isn`t to > > > be seen ... > > > Are you aware of those non-moments? > > > Those non-happenings? > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > it is true that everyone does experience silent mind, > > but few experience it *consciously*, and for even > > fewer a sustained experience of silent mind. > > > > In fact, to someone for whom " silent mind " is > > considered something very important to *achieve* > > (a misconception) becoming conscious of silent > > mind is likely to kick in thoughts again (as in, " cool! > > I'm experiencing silent mind! " (correction, *were* ) > > > > Bill > > > > ** Everything you two are presenting is an image or concept. > 'Consciously'....'sustained'...'gaps' ...etc.) such is your experience why are you sharing this? [[ BTW: some help with a rewrite: " when I (Ken) read what you two are presenting all I get are images or concepts. 'Consciously'....'sustained'...'gaps' ...etc.) " what is left out in that rewrite? and what is put in? .... your owning of it... ]] > Naturellement! Me too. > > No imaging >> no mind --no silent mind, no resting > mind, either-- the larger phenomenon of brain activity, > on-going. One could call it 'experiencing,' yes... your presumption to instruct is well... presumptuous... consider saying something that is not reaction not reflection on the words of another but which stands on its own that would be interesting and I would be happy to read thereof > Ken > > non-separately. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia > > <gdtige@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought doesn't interfere with anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no interference - because nothing has its own > > > > > > separable > > > > > > existence as an " interferer " - unless you believe that > > > > > > your thinking has > > > > > > made it so ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe not an interference, but a phenomenon with a big > > > > > > appetite, sucking and transforming what could be > > > > > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > Nothing could be otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > Nor is it. > > > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing can be as it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > mmmm?????...when Nothing is as it can be, what be it? > > > > > > ......bob > > > > > > > > > > > everything is falling into everything > > > And going to pieces without falling apart. Its One wonderful thing. > > ......bob > are you guys making sense by accident? are you just lucky here? on the surface it looks like a dynamic co-participation! wow " going to pieces without falling apart " very nice! deep bow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no separated...isolated thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with any " thought stream " ... > > > > > > > > > > " thought stream " does not refer to any distinct reality > > > > > > > > > > it is just a reference that implies that what it > > > > > refers to is " there " ... > > > > > which it isn't > > > > > > > > > > thoughts can seem to arise and disappear in consciousness > > > > > > > > > > but on investigation there is no distinct thought anywhere > > > > > > > > > > and the same with " thought stream " > > > > > > > > > > both are chimeras > > > > > > > > > > neither really exists > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would you want thinking to " see a problem " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because......that's the only door out. > > > > > > > > > > oh no! not at all! > > > > > > > > > > it is only clear, unconditional attention, > > > > > which is true *intelligence*, > > > > > that is freeing > > > > > > > > > > such unconditional attention is not thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does thought know that 'clear unconditional attention' exists > > > > outside of itself?.........And why does it assume that it can > > > somehow > > > > improve itself by getting some to that stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're making up all this stuff about thought. Giving it motives and > > > wants, making it a knower. > > > > > > Thought isn't a knower. > > > > > > Nothing you're attributing to thought makes any sense with firsthand > > > clarity. > > > > > > You're setting up a straw man in thought to knock down - do you feel > > > powerful, Toom? > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > Do you honestly believe that you understand anything? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > ** Wrong question. Your only question is you-- > 'Toom,' as presented here, repeatedly, in 'Toomspeak.' > > It's the *under-standing* (the 'is,' the awareness, etc.) > meaning to understand itself, how it apparently splits itself > (conceptually-emotionally) feels dis-ease, attempts escape or > remedy. > > In inquiry, in honest self-confrontation and deconstruction, > there's no room, no need for denials, affirmations or > oppositions. > > Ken " Honest self-confrontation " ? Does it seem reasonable that an imaginary self would be able to confront itself? toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > --- dan330033 <dan330033 a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia > <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > Thought doesn't interfere with anything. > > > > There is no interference - because nothing has its > own > > separable > > existence as an " interferer " - unless you believe > that > > your thinking has > > made it so ;-) > > > > -- D. > > > > Maybe not an interference, but a phenomenon with a > big > > appetite, sucking and transforming what could be > > otherwise. > > Nothing could be otherwise. > > Nor is it. > > -- D. > > And you are Book Dan, > Another great fidele of Absolute Truth. > And since I`ve fallen in the gutter, > I am looking at some intersting alchemy: > A word of self-deception, > Self-created, > And yet its mud hasn`t reach our sleeves : not yours > at least. > Puritain of Absolute, > Your comments are of great value, > But your reaching too shallow. > > Patricia For one who dies, there is no other to evaluate. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > Self knowledge is all ;-) > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > That might be true........ if there were a self. > > > > > toombaru > > ** OY!!!! > > Same ol', same ol' ;-) > > It was never about 'entity' nor entity denied. > So avoidance can be relinquished...now. > > It's about self-activity, energy, intent. > That, and the awareness-of-that, is inseparably what > you are. > > > > That is the hypnotic delusion of I am. It will appear real......until it doesn't. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > On 5/12/06, OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > --- Bill Rishel <illusyn@> a écrit: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no separated...isolated thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with any " thought stream " ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " thought stream " does not refer to any > > > > distinct reality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is just a reference that implies that what > > > > it > > > > > > > > refers to is " there " ... > > > > > > > > which it isn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts can seem to arise and disappear in > > > > consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but on investigation there is no distinct > > > > thought anywhere > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with " thought stream " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both are chimeras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > neither really exists > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would you want thinking to " see a > > > > problem " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because......that's the only door out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh no! not at all! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is only clear, unconditional attention, > > > > > > > > which is true *intelligence*, > > > > > > > > that is freeing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such unconditional attention is not thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does thought know that 'clear unconditional > > > > attention' exists > > > > > > > outside of itself?.........And why does it > > > > assume that it can somehow > > > > > > > improve itself by getting some to that stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the questions posed *presume* the significance > > > > > > of thought > > > > > > > > > > > > but what was said (about unconditioned attention > > > > etc.) > > > > > > asserts that thought is *not* significant > > > > > > > > > > > > hence the questions posed are irrelevant > > > > > > > > > > > > if thought is not the real basis > > > > > > then " how thought knows " is not > > > > significant/relevant > > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps thought would like to know (what the > > > > questions > > > > > > ask)... but what is real always skirts thought > > > > > > > > > > > > thought has its own " game " in mind as to what > > > > > > " it is all about " etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > but what thought thinks is significant only from > > > > > > within thought's game. > > > > > > > > > > > > bottom line: thought is not important > > > > > > > > > > > > realizing What Is transcends/goes beyond/is > > > > outside of > > > > > > thought > > > > > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It > > > > can't think outside > > > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its > > > > self...but that's > > > > > only another thought. > > > > > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something very important. > > > > > > > > Thought is not always the case. > > > > The mind can go silent. > > > > > > > > What it is " like " when the mind goes silent > > > > can't really be described. > > > > But it *can be* experienced. > > > > [which is not to say it is *an* experience, > > > > which is of memory, and so is of thought.] > > > > > > > > Silent mind is not of thought. > > > > > > > > Perhaps you have not experienced > > > > silent mind. If not then there is no way > > > > for you to know what I mean. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > everybody has experienced a sikent mind. ... > > > > Is experiencing a silent mind, between two thoughts, > > > > suspended. > > > > Or very early in life, > > > > Or watching some beautiful eyes seeing what isn`t to > > > > be seen ... > > > > Are you aware of those non-moments? > > > > Those non-happenings? > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > it is true that everyone does experience silent mind, > > > but few experience it *consciously*, and for even > > > fewer a sustained experience of silent mind. > > > > > > In fact, to someone for whom " silent mind " is > > > considered something very important to *achieve* > > > (a misconception) becoming conscious of silent > > > mind is likely to kick in thoughts again (as in, " cool! > > > I'm experiencing silent mind! " (correction, *were* ) > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > ** Everything you two are presenting is an image or concept. > > 'Consciously'....'sustained'...'gaps' ...etc.) > > such is your experience > > why are you sharing this? > > [[ > BTW: some help with a rewrite: > " when I (Ken) read what you two are presenting > all I get are images or concepts. > 'Consciously'....'sustained'...'gaps' ...etc.) " > > what is left out in that rewrite? > > and what is put in? > ... your owning of it... > > ]] > > > Naturellement! Me too. > > > > No imaging >> no mind --no silent mind, no resting > > mind, either-- the larger phenomenon of brain activity, > > on-going. One could call it 'experiencing,' yes... > > your presumption to instruct is > well... > presumptuous... > > consider saying something that is not reaction > not reflection on the words of another > but which stands on its own Everything ever said is a reaction to the words of another. toombaru > > that would be interesting > > and I would be happy to read thereof > > > > > > > Ken > > > > non-separately. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 5/12/06, OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > --- Bill Rishel <illusyn@> a écrit: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no separated...isolated thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with any " thought stream " ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " thought stream " does not refer to any > > > > > distinct reality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is just a reference that implies that what > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > refers to is " there " ... > > > > > > > > > which it isn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts can seem to arise and disappear in > > > > > consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but on investigation there is no distinct > > > > > thought anywhere > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with " thought stream " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both are chimeras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > neither really exists > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would you want thinking to " see a > > > > > problem " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because......that's the only door out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh no! not at all! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is only clear, unconditional attention, > > > > > > > > > which is true *intelligence*, > > > > > > > > > that is freeing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such unconditional attention is not thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does thought know that 'clear unconditional > > > > > attention' exists > > > > > > > > outside of itself?.........And why does it > > > > > assume that it can somehow > > > > > > > > improve itself by getting some to that stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the questions posed *presume* the significance > > > > > > > of thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but what was said (about unconditioned attention > > > > > etc.) > > > > > > > asserts that thought is *not* significant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hence the questions posed are irrelevant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if thought is not the real basis > > > > > > > then " how thought knows " is not > > > > > significant/relevant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps thought would like to know (what the > > > > > questions > > > > > > > ask)... but what is real always skirts thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thought has its own " game " in mind as to what > > > > > > > " it is all about " etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but what thought thinks is significant only from > > > > > > > within thought's game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bottom line: thought is not important > > > > > > > > > > > > > > realizing What Is transcends/goes beyond/is > > > > > outside of > > > > > > > thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It > > > > > can't think outside > > > > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its > > > > > self...but that's > > > > > > only another thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something very important. > > > > > > > > > > Thought is not always the case. > > > > > The mind can go silent. > > > > > > > > > > What it is " like " when the mind goes silent > > > > > can't really be described. > > > > > But it *can be* experienced. > > > > > [which is not to say it is *an* experience, > > > > > which is of memory, and so is of thought.] > > > > > > > > > > Silent mind is not of thought. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you have not experienced > > > > > silent mind. If not then there is no way > > > > > for you to know what I mean. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > everybody has experienced a sikent mind. ... > > > > > Is experiencing a silent mind, between two thoughts, > > > > > suspended. > > > > > Or very early in life, > > > > > Or watching some beautiful eyes seeing what isn`t to > > > > > be seen ... > > > > > Are you aware of those non-moments? > > > > > Those non-happenings? > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is true that everyone does experience silent mind, > > > > but few experience it *consciously*, and for even > > > > fewer a sustained experience of silent mind. > > > > > > > > In fact, to someone for whom " silent mind " is > > > > considered something very important to *achieve* > > > > (a misconception) becoming conscious of silent > > > > mind is likely to kick in thoughts again (as in, " cool! > > > > I'm experiencing silent mind! " (correction, *were* ) > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > ** Everything you two are presenting is an image or concept. > > > 'Consciously'....'sustained'...'gaps' ...etc.) > > > > such is your experience > > > > why are you sharing this? > > > > [[ > > BTW: some help with a rewrite: > > " when I (Ken) read what you two are presenting > > all I get are images or concepts. > > 'Consciously'....'sustained'...'gaps' ...etc.) " > > > > what is left out in that rewrite? > > > > and what is put in? > > ... your owning of it... > > > > ]] > > > > > Naturellement! Me too. > > > > > > No imaging >> no mind --no silent mind, no resting > > > mind, either-- the larger phenomenon of brain activity, > > > on-going. One could call it 'experiencing,' yes... > > > > your presumption to instruct is > > well... > > presumptuous... > > > > consider saying something that is not reaction > > not reflection on the words of another > > but which stands on its own > > > > > > Everything ever said is a reaction to the words of another. > > > toombaru Perhaps you do not fathom what I mean then. I am speaking of lions and hyenas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 5/12/06, OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > --- Bill Rishel <illusyn@> a écrit: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/12/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thought flows edgelessly into the next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no separated...isolated thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with any " thought stream " ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " thought stream " does not refer to any > > > > > > distinct reality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is just a reference that implies that what > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > refers to is " there " ... > > > > > > > > > > which it isn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts can seem to arise and disappear in > > > > > > consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but on investigation there is no distinct > > > > > > thought anywhere > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the same with " thought stream " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both are chimeras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > neither really exists > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would you want thinking to " see a > > > > > > problem " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because......that's the only door out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh no! not at all! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is only clear, unconditional attention, > > > > > > > > > > which is true *intelligence*, > > > > > > > > > > that is freeing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such unconditional attention is not thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does thought know that 'clear unconditional > > > > > > attention' exists > > > > > > > > > outside of itself?.........And why does it > > > > > > assume that it can somehow > > > > > > > > > improve itself by getting some to that stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the questions posed *presume* the significance > > > > > > > > of thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but what was said (about unconditioned attention > > > > > > etc.) > > > > > > > > asserts that thought is *not* significant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hence the questions posed are irrelevant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if thought is not the real basis > > > > > > > > then " how thought knows " is not > > > > > > significant/relevant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps thought would like to know (what the > > > > > > questions > > > > > > > > ask)... but what is real always skirts thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thought has its own " game " in mind as to what > > > > > > > > " it is all about " etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but what thought thinks is significant only from > > > > > > > > within thought's game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bottom line: thought is not important > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > realizing What Is transcends/goes beyond/is > > > > > > outside of > > > > > > > > thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well that's the basic problem with thought......It > > > > > > can't think outside > > > > > > > of itself......and it's the only game in town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may think that there is something outside of its > > > > > > self...but that's > > > > > > > only another thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is no way around...through....or beyond > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No matter what it thinks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It and the world arise and subside concurrently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They are the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something very important. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought is not always the case. > > > > > > The mind can go silent. > > > > > > > > > > > > What it is " like " when the mind goes silent > > > > > > can't really be described. > > > > > > But it *can be* experienced. > > > > > > [which is not to say it is *an* experience, > > > > > > which is of memory, and so is of thought.] > > > > > > > > > > > > Silent mind is not of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you have not experienced > > > > > > silent mind. If not then there is no way > > > > > > for you to know what I mean. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > everybody has experienced a sikent mind. ... > > > > > > Is experiencing a silent mind, between two thoughts, > > > > > > suspended. > > > > > > Or very early in life, > > > > > > Or watching some beautiful eyes seeing what isn`t to > > > > > > be seen ... > > > > > > Are you aware of those non-moments? > > > > > > Those non-happenings? > > > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is true that everyone does experience silent mind, > > > > > but few experience it *consciously*, and for even > > > > > fewer a sustained experience of silent mind. > > > > > > > > > > In fact, to someone for whom " silent mind " is > > > > > considered something very important to *achieve* > > > > > (a misconception) becoming conscious of silent > > > > > mind is likely to kick in thoughts again (as in, " cool! > > > > > I'm experiencing silent mind! " (correction, *were* ) > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** Everything you two are presenting is an image or concept. > > > > 'Consciously'....'sustained'...'gaps' ...etc.) > > > > > > such is your experience > > > > > > why are you sharing this? > > > > > > [[ > > > BTW: some help with a rewrite: > > > " when I (Ken) read what you two are presenting > > > all I get are images or concepts. > > > 'Consciously'....'sustained'...'gaps' ...etc.) " > > > > > > what is left out in that rewrite? > > > > > > and what is put in? > > > ... your owning of it... > > > > > > ]] > > > > > > > Naturellement! Me too. > > > > > > > > No imaging >> no mind --no silent mind, no resting > > > > mind, either-- the larger phenomenon of brain activity, > > > > on-going. One could call it 'experiencing,' yes... > > > > > > your presumption to instruct is > > > well... > > > presumptuous... > > > > > > consider saying something that is not reaction > > > not reflection on the words of another > > > but which stands on its own > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything ever said is a reaction to the words of another. > > > > > > toombaru > > Perhaps you do not fathom what I mean then. > > I am speaking of lions and hyenas. > Ok.......Then perhaps you could say something that is not a reaction to another's words. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > > > Thought doesn't interfere with anything. > > > > > > There is no interference - because nothing has its own > > > separable > > > existence as an " interferer " - unless you believe that > > > your thinking has > > > made it so ;-) > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > Maybe not an interference, but a phenomenon with a big > > > appetite, sucking and transforming what could be > > > otherwise. > > > > Nothing could be otherwise. > > > > Nor is it. > > > > -- D. > > > > Nothing can be as it is. > > > toombaru Here you are, typing your words. - D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia > > <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > --- dan330033 <dan330033@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > thought is an impedance, not a means > > > > > > Thought doesn't interfere with anything. > > > > > > There is no interference - because nothing has its > > own > > > separable > > > existence as an " interferer " - unless you believe > > that > > > your thinking has > > > made it so ;-) > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > Maybe not an interference, but a phenomenon with a > > big > > > appetite, sucking and transforming what could be > > > otherwise. > > > > Nothing could be otherwise. > > > > Nor is it. > > > > -- D. > > > > And you are Book Dan, > > Another great fidele of Absolute Truth. > > And since I`ve fallen in the gutter, > > I am looking at some intersting alchemy: > > A word of self-deception, > > Self-created, > > And yet its mud hasn`t reach our sleeves : not yours > > at least. > > Puritain of Absolute, > > Your comments are of great value, > > But your reaching too shallow. > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > Only the shallow can be reached. > > > toombaru You are reaching. -- D. 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.