Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > For if life is the Guru, the Guru often appears > > in the form of " others " . > > > > And if, eventually, those " others " no longer really > > seem to be *other*, if the depth of the other and > > one's own depth are the same, if the love in the other > > and one's own love are the same, if the spirit in the > > other and one's own spirit are the same... then > > perhaps the veil of separation has been dropped... > > > > But until then, there is so much learning, so > > much growing to be found in opening to the challenge > > presented by " another " . > > > > > > Bill > > " Hell is other people, " Jean Paul Sartre > > Yes, the challenge is what hits you in the face, even as one side- steps. > > It can't be avoided. > > Advaita talk being used to avoid the challenge of this as is, > including the otherness, is devoid of heart. Love what you say about heart here. > > I am the world. I am self and other. > > This is embraced from before beginning. > > And only as this is so, is it true that no self nor other ever existed. > > It is here, in the midst of our relating, emoting, and day to day > experiencing - the stillness, the contactless true-being. > > -- Dan yes the true stillness is the stillness that obtains *within the fire*. the nondualism that denys dualism is false. the nondualism that transcends dualism is true. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 In a message dated 6/4/2006 12:35:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pliantheart writes: > > > >Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > >wrote: > > > >>For if life is the Guru, the Guru often appears > >>in the form of " others " . > >> > >>And if, eventually, those " others " no longer really > >>seem to be *other*, if the depth of the other and > >>one's own depth are the same, if the love in the other > >>and one's own love are the same, if the spirit in the > >>other and one's own spirit are the same... then > >>perhaps the veil of separation has been dropped... > >> > >>But until then, there is so much learning, so > >>much growing to be found in opening to the challenge > >>presented by " another " . > >> > >> > >>Bill > > > > " Hell is other people, " Jean Paul Sartre > > > >Yes, the challenge is what hits you in the face, even as one side- > steps. > > > >It can't be avoided. > > > >Advaita talk being used to avoid the challenge of this as is, > >including the otherness, is devoid of heart. > > Love what you say about heart here. > > > > >I am the world. I am self and other. > > > >This is embraced from before beginning. > > > >And only as this is so, is it true that no self nor other ever > existed. > > > >It is here, in the midst of our relating, emoting, and day to day > >experiencing - the stillness, the contactless true-being. > > > >-- Dan > > yes > > the true stillness is the stillness that obtains > *within the fire*. > > the nondualism that denys dualism is false. > > the nondualism that transcends dualism is true. > > > Bill > > L.E: It's very nice to know you all a little bit. Such sweet music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 In a message dated 6/4/2006 7:41:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bigwaaba writes: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart > wrote: > > > >Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > >wrote: > >> > >>Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > >>wrote: > >> > >>>For if life is the Guru, the Guru often appears > >>>in the form of " others " . > >>> > >>>And if, eventually, those " others " no longer really > >>>seem to be *other*, if the depth of the other and > >>>one's own depth are the same, if the love in the other > >>>and one's own love are the same, if the spirit in the > >>>other and one's own spirit are the same... then > >>>perhaps the veil of separation has been dropped... > >>> > >>>But until then, there is so much learning, so > >>>much growing to be found in opening to the challenge > >>>presented by " another " . > >>> > >>> > >>>Bill > >> > >> " Hell is other people, " Jean Paul Sartre > >> > >>Yes, the challenge is what hits you in the face, even as one side- > >steps. > >> > >>It can't be avoided. > >> > >>Advaita talk being used to avoid the challenge of this as is, > >>including the otherness, is devoid of heart. > > > >Love what you say about heart here. > > > >> > >>I am the world. I am self and other. > >> > >>This is embraced from before beginning. > >> > >>And only as this is so, is it true that no self nor other ever > >existed. > >> > >>It is here, in the midst of our relating, emoting, and day to day > >>experiencing - the stillness, the contactless true-being. > >> > >>-- Dan > > > >yes > > > >the true stillness is the stillness that obtains > >*within the fire*. > > > >the nondualism that denys dualism is false. > > > >the nondualism that transcends dualism is true. > > > > > >Bill > > > > > yes, to be beyond is not to deny L.E: To be beyond is to have nothing to say, nothing to write, nothing to think. Who is speaking here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 In a message dated 6/4/2006 8:21:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bigwaaba writes: > >L.E: To be beyond is to have nothing to say, nothing to write, > nothing to > >think. Who is speaking here? > > Noone L. E: That's one to many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 In a message dated 6/4/2006 8:25:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Roberibus111 writes: > >L.E: To be beyond is to have nothing to say, nothing to write, > >nothing to > >>think. Who is speaking here? > > > >Noone > > > and so no-one replied! > > > L.E: What did you say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 In a message dated 6/4/2006 8:30:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bigwaaba writes: > >L.E: To be beyond is to have nothing to say, nothing to write, > >>>nothing to > >>>>think. Who is speaking here? > >>> > >>>Noone > >> > >> > >>and so no-one replied! > >> > >> > >> > >L.E: What did you say? > > > > It is not a reply > > it is the same thing looked by different point > > > L.E: What did you say? Ha ha! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > For if life is the Guru, the Guru often appears > > > in the form of " others " . > > > > > > And if, eventually, those " others " no longer really > > > seem to be *other*, if the depth of the other and > > > one's own depth are the same, if the love in the other > > > and one's own love are the same, if the spirit in the > > > other and one's own spirit are the same... then > > > perhaps the veil of separation has been dropped... > > > > > > But until then, there is so much learning, so > > > much growing to be found in opening to the challenge > > > presented by " another " . > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > " Hell is other people, " Jean Paul Sartre > > > > Yes, the challenge is what hits you in the face, even as one side- > steps. > > > > It can't be avoided. > > > > Advaita talk being used to avoid the challenge of this as is, > > including the otherness, is devoid of heart. > > Love what you say about heart here. > > > > > I am the world. I am self and other. > > > > This is embraced from before beginning. > > > > And only as this is so, is it true that no self nor other ever > existed. > > > > It is here, in the midst of our relating, emoting, and day to day > > experiencing - the stillness, the contactless true-being. > > > > -- Dan > > yes > > the true stillness is the stillness that obtains > *within the fire*. > > the nondualism that denys dualism is false. > > the nondualism that transcends dualism is true. > > > Bill > yes, to be beyond is not to deny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 6/4/2006 7:41:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > bigwaaba writes: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > >Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > >wrote: > > >> > > >>Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > >>wrote: > > >> > > >>>For if life is the Guru, the Guru often appears > > >>>in the form of " others " . > > >>> > > >>>And if, eventually, those " others " no longer really > > >>>seem to be *other*, if the depth of the other and > > >>>one's own depth are the same, if the love in the other > > >>>and one's own love are the same, if the spirit in the > > >>>other and one's own spirit are the same... then > > >>>perhaps the veil of separation has been dropped... > > >>> > > >>>But until then, there is so much learning, so > > >>>much growing to be found in opening to the challenge > > >>>presented by " another " . > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Bill > > >> > > >> " Hell is other people, " Jean Paul Sartre > > >> > > >>Yes, the challenge is what hits you in the face, even as one side- > > >steps. > > >> > > >>It can't be avoided. > > >> > > >>Advaita talk being used to avoid the challenge of this as is, > > >>including the otherness, is devoid of heart. > > > > > >Love what you say about heart here. > > > > > >> > > >>I am the world. I am self and other. > > >> > > >>This is embraced from before beginning. > > >> > > >>And only as this is so, is it true that no self nor other ever > > >existed. > > >> > > >>It is here, in the midst of our relating, emoting, and day to day > > >>experiencing - the stillness, the contactless true-being. > > >> > > >>-- Dan > > > > > >yes > > > > > >the true stillness is the stillness that obtains > > >*within the fire*. > > > > > >the nondualism that denys dualism is false. > > > > > >the nondualism that transcends dualism is true. > > > > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > > > > yes, to be beyond is not to deny > > L.E: To be beyond is to have nothing to say, nothing to write, nothing to > think. Who is speaking here? Noone > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 6/4/2006 7:41:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > bigwaaba@ writes: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > >wrote: > > > >> > > > >>Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > <pliantheart@> > > > >>wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>For if life is the Guru, the Guru often appears > > > >>>in the form of " others " . > > > >>> > > > >>>And if, eventually, those " others " no longer really > > > >>>seem to be *other*, if the depth of the other and > > > >>>one's own depth are the same, if the love in the other > > > >>>and one's own love are the same, if the spirit in the > > > >>>other and one's own spirit are the same... then > > > >>>perhaps the veil of separation has been dropped... > > > >>> > > > >>>But until then, there is so much learning, so > > > >>>much growing to be found in opening to the challenge > > > >>>presented by " another " . > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>Bill > > > >> > > > >> " Hell is other people, " Jean Paul Sartre > > > >> > > > >>Yes, the challenge is what hits you in the face, even as one > side- > > > >steps. > > > >> > > > >>It can't be avoided. > > > >> > > > >>Advaita talk being used to avoid the challenge of this as is, > > > >>including the otherness, is devoid of heart. > > > > > > > >Love what you say about heart here. > > > > > > > >> > > > >>I am the world. I am self and other. > > > >> > > > >>This is embraced from before beginning. > > > >> > > > >>And only as this is so, is it true that no self nor other ever > > > >existed. > > > >> > > > >>It is here, in the midst of our relating, emoting, and day to > day > > > >>experiencing - the stillness, the contactless true-being. > > > >> > > > >>-- Dan > > > > > > > >yes > > > > > > > >the true stillness is the stillness that obtains > > > >*within the fire*. > > > > > > > >the nondualism that denys dualism is false. > > > > > > > >the nondualism that transcends dualism is true. > > > > > > > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes, to be beyond is not to deny > > > > L.E: To be beyond is to have nothing to say, nothing to write, > nothing to > > think. Who is speaking here? > > Noone and so no-one replied! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 6/4/2006 8:25:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Roberibus111 writes: > > > >L.E: To be beyond is to have nothing to say, nothing to write, > > >nothing to > > >>think. Who is speaking here? > > > > > >Noone > > > > > > and so no-one replied! > > > > > > > L.E: What did you say? > It is not a reply it is the same thing looked by different point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 6/4/2006 8:30:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > bigwaaba writes: > > > >L.E: To be beyond is to have nothing to say, nothing to write, > > >>>nothing to > > >>>>think. Who is speaking here? > > >>> > > >>>Noone > > >> > > >> > > >>and so no-one replied! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >L.E: What did you say? > > > > > > > It is not a reply > > > > it is the same thing looked by different point > > > > > > L.E: What did you say? Ha ha! you have eyes to see and ears to hear and a heart to love > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > yes > > the true stillness is the stillness that obtains > *within the fire*. > > the nondualism that denys dualism is false. > > the nondualism that transcends dualism is true. > > > Bill Yes. And in transcending it returns -- and has forgotten its name. - Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > yes > > > > the true stillness is the stillness that obtains > > *within the fire*. > > > > the nondualism that denys dualism is false. > > > > the nondualism that transcends dualism is true. > > > > > > Bill > > Yes. > > And in transcending it returns -- and has forgotten its name. > > - Dan > It becomes a river.......that flows into itself. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > yes > > > > > > the true stillness is the stillness that obtains > > > *within the fire*. > > > > > > the nondualism that denys dualism is false. > > > > > > the nondualism that transcends dualism is true. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > Yes. > > > > And in transcending it returns -- and has forgotten its name. > > > > - Dan > > > > > It becomes a river.......that flows into itself. > > > toombaru sort of the Perpetuum Mobile Triumphans by Orffyreus ......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > yes > > > > > > the true stillness is the stillness that obtains > > > *within the fire*. > > > > > > the nondualism that denys dualism is false. > > > > > > the nondualism that transcends dualism is true. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > Yes. > > > > And in transcending it returns -- and has forgotten its name. > > > > - Dan > > > > > It becomes a river.......that flows into itself. > > > toombaru > Love pouring Love into Love Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > yes > > > > > > > > the true stillness is the stillness that obtains > > > > *within the fire*. > > > > > > > > the nondualism that denys dualism is false. > > > > > > > > the nondualism that transcends dualism is true. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > And in transcending it returns -- and has forgotten its name. > > > > > > - Dan > > > > > > > > > It becomes a river.......that flows into itself. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Love pouring Love into Love Love it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 In a message dated 6/4/2006 4:19:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, kenj02001 writes: > > Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > >In a message dated 6/4/2006 8:21:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > >bigwaaba writes: > > > >>>L.E: To be beyond is to have nothing to say, nothing to write, > >>nothing to > >>>think. Who is speaking here? > >> > >>Noone > > > >L. E: That's one to many. > > > > > > Ha, good one. > > But I'm not giving you a pass on attempting > to trash Krishnamurti and Judi. Bob neither, lol. > > > Ken > > > L.E: I don't need or want your pass. I have a shotgun. BANG! Did my " attempt " succeed or fail? Does it matter? Who cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 6/4/2006 8:21:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > bigwaaba writes: > > > >L.E: To be beyond is to have nothing to say, nothing to write, > > nothing to > > >think. Who is speaking here? > > > > Noone > > L. E: That's one to many. > > > Ha, good one. But I'm not giving you a pass on attempting to trash Krishnamurti and Judi. Bob neither, lol. > Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 6/4/2006 8:21:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > bigwaaba@ writes: > > > > > >L.E: To be beyond is to have nothing to say, nothing to write, > > > nothing to > > > >think. Who is speaking here? > > > > > > Noone > > > > L. E: That's one to many. > > > > > > Ha, good one. > > But I'm not giving you a pass on attempting > to trash Krishnamurti and Judi. Bob neither, lol. > > > Ken :-) ;-) :-)))) ROFLMAO!............ Thanks Ken....Actually, Bob's getting a kick out of being trashed by trash lately......it's a wierd and wonderful and uncanny thing really, to see the bunching of the trashbags acting so clean and cool.......such refinement calling people pschycotic murderers and armed robbers and egomaniacal whatsthefuckingworstthingicanthinkof thingy.....and when Bob sends it right back...he's an asshole......Holy Petunias! it's a fucking riot!...I mean it's presenting more laughs than a bag full of funky mionkeys crying for their momma to come home and learn them a thing or two or three or...er...wait..two is about all the things they can learn on any given annual basis...hehehehe.....I'm SO not sorry too.Twinkies with nice lookin' king kings I'm sure but the assholes are puckering you can count on it. ......bob (Who has no goddamn right to fight back mommy! make him stop! PLEASE....make him stop hitting us back...that's not fair!!!!) Ho God!........where DO they come from? (bn) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 6/4/2006 8:21:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > bigwaaba@ writes: > > > > > > > >L.E: To be beyond is to have nothing to say, nothing to write, > > > > nothing to > > > > >think. Who is speaking here? > > > > > > > > Noone > > > > > > L. E: That's one to many. > > > > > > > > > Ha, good one. > > > > But I'm not giving you a pass on attempting > > to trash Krishnamurti and Judi. Bob neither, lol. > > > > > Ken > > > :-) ;-) :-)))) > ROFLMAO!............ > > Thanks Ken....Actually, Bob's getting a kick out of being trashed by > trash lately......it's a wierd and wonderful and uncanny thing > really, to see the bunching of the trashbags acting so clean and > cool.......such refinement calling people pschycotic murderers and > armed robbers and egomaniacal whatsthefuckingworstthingicanthinkof > thingy.....and when Bob sends it right back...he's an > asshole......Holy Petunias! it's a fucking riot!...I mean it's > presenting more laughs than a bag full of funky mionkeys crying for > their momma to come home and learn them a thing or two or three > or...er...wait..two is about all the things they can learn on any > given annual basis...hehehehe.....I'm SO not sorry too.Twinkies with > nice lookin' king kings I'm sure but the assholes are puckering you > can count on it. > > ......bob > > (Who has no goddamn right to fight back mommy! make him stop! > PLEASE....make him stop hitting us back...that's not fair!!!!) > > > Ho God!........where DO they come from? > > (bn) > ** Can't help ya, Bob. Not an issue for me, not saying there couldn't be an issue that transits here. But hey, even the flight of vultures leaves no trace. (Not calling anyone a 'vulture,' btw.) K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > For if life is the Guru, the Guru often appears > > > in the form of " others " . > > > > > > And if, eventually, those " others " no longer really > > > seem to be *other*, if the depth of the other and > > > one's own depth are the same, if the love in the other > > > and one's own love are the same, if the spirit in the > > > other and one's own spirit are the same... then > > > perhaps the veil of separation has been dropped... > > > > > > But until then, there is so much learning, so > > > much growing to be found in opening to the challenge > > > presented by " another " . > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > " Hell is other people, " Jean Paul Sartre > > > > Yes, the challenge is what hits you in the face, even as one side- > steps. > > > > It can't be avoided. > > > > Advaita talk being used to avoid the challenge of this as is, > > including the otherness, is devoid of heart. > > Love what you say about heart here. > > > > > I am the world. I am self and other. > > > > This is embraced from before beginning. > > > > And only as this is so, is it true that no self nor other ever > existed. > > > > It is here, in the midst of our relating, emoting, and day to day > > experiencing - the stillness, the contactless true-being. > > > > -- Dan > > yes > > the true stillness is the stillness that obtains > *within the fire*. > > the nondualism that denys dualism is false. > > the nondualism that transcends dualism is true. > > > Bill I don`t know why but I feel prompted to add : as long as one wants to gain, obtain, one`s is only going to obtain more time, more suffering, more karma. Patricia > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , " gdtige " <gdtige wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > For if life is the Guru, the Guru often appears > > > > in the form of " others " . > > > > > > > > And if, eventually, those " others " no longer really > > > > seem to be *other*, if the depth of the other and > > > > one's own depth are the same, if the love in the other > > > > and one's own love are the same, if the spirit in the > > > > other and one's own spirit are the same... then > > > > perhaps the veil of separation has been dropped... > > > > > > > > But until then, there is so much learning, so > > > > much growing to be found in opening to the challenge > > > > presented by " another " . > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > " Hell is other people, " Jean Paul Sartre > > > > > > Yes, the challenge is what hits you in the face, even as one > side- > > steps. > > > > > > It can't be avoided. > > > > > > Advaita talk being used to avoid the challenge of this as is, > > > including the otherness, is devoid of heart. > > > > Love what you say about heart here. > > > > > > > > I am the world. I am self and other. > > > > > > This is embraced from before beginning. > > > > > > And only as this is so, is it true that no self nor other ever > > existed. > > > > > > It is here, in the midst of our relating, emoting, and day to day > > > experiencing - the stillness, the contactless true-being. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > yes > > > > the true stillness is the stillness that obtains > > *within the fire*. > > > > the nondualism that denys dualism is false. > > > > the nondualism that transcends dualism is true. > > > > > > Bill > > > I don`t know why but I feel prompted to add : > as long as one wants to gain, obtain, > one`s is only going to obtain more time, > more suffering, more karma. > > Patricia > > > Yes, I have pondered that paradox myself. At what point is one seeking, at what point giving up the search, at what point giving up the search in order to proceed with the search, but from another angle? Only poets and Jesuits would attempt an answer. But for me, it is very clearly a question of What I want to gain. Is it an object, an objective, a spirit or a permanent state? Again, these terms are open for debate. But my answer has always been, dedication to a particular process I would call thriving, for the moment, a panoply of other names for my journal. I find that I do, indeed, become what I focus on. My focus on being freedom yields freedom, love yields love, witnessing, witnessing. For me, mantras do, have, and continue to, work. Sorry, but no paradox here. Although I do believe paradox does have it's crucial place in this realm. Where to find it, well, that might have to be, itself, a paradoxical. warmth ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 <snip> > > > > > > > > Paradoxes use to drive me very mad. > > > > Then, in them, I started to perceive the reflection of > > > > what I am attracted to: > > > > Playing, lulling me about, in their wake. > > > > Making me come closer only to whisper : this isn`t it > > > > yet, you know it, don`t you? > > > > Each time I realize that it isn`t it yet, the path > > > > narrows down. > > > > What matters here is my yielding but also the fact > > > > that their is a more subtle attunement to what I love > > > > : to who I am. > > > > I know that I will not find it, yet I stay > > > > on...listening..walking..sharing.. > > > > Makes sense? > > > > Most likely not. > > > > > > > > A little white cloud of tenderness for that big open > > > > sky. > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, the foreground and the background are one in radiance and > > > harmony. > > > > > > Makes total sense in as much as I feel I recognize it unambiguously in > > > myself. > > > > > > This may sound pretty cheap, but have you ever told yourself, neither > > > " will I find it? " , nor " I won't find it, " but, literally and > > > repeatedly, " I am It " ? I mean, you know you are, so why not commit to > > > burgeoning as it? Right now? > > > > > > Just asking. > > > > > > Beaming > > > Humbly > > > With > > > It > > > ~*~ > > > > Yo! Bro! > > > > thazit! > > > > and maybe that is what you mean by " choosing " ... > > > > the step into the center of that cyclone > > > > and saying YES! to it all > > > > > > > Yeah, because " choosing " is the experience of freedom, right? And > that experience of freedom is like flight, like being above it all, > like perfect perspective. And that IS what " you " are, we are, etc. > > When you say, > > " and so then, what is interesting -- from my view -- is to > dissolve focus altogether... let focus get totally soft and to > totally expand... so that focus encompasses all there is. > And so the observer, the witness is as a melted goo folded back > into the batter of Life. The witness has lost its distinction > as witness because focus is no longer defining a 'that' vs. 'this'. > > In other words, I love to let the witness dissolve through its > own process of witnessing... back into the murky primal beginnings > from which it arose. > > When I was quite young and had a chance to play with a TV camera > I found delight in pointing the camera into the monitor. Much fun! > I love to loop things back into themselves so that they undergo > wierd, crazy fusions. I like to break the rules, undercut the ground, > push the system to a kind of melt-down. " > > Who or what is it that has all that perspective and clarity? It's the > uber or super or higher witness, the one you really are. The one that > experienced no melt-down at all, could see it quite clearly. > > Right? > > ~*~ > I notice that the fundamental line in what you write there is the " seeing of " ... (hence the witness notion as primary) But on my end... it is the *dynamic* that is primary. I continually reject concerns about what-is-the-case as stagnant, stale, static. The YES! above has that dynamic. To me the fundmental is Life, not observation, and not any what-is-the-case. To your: " Who or what is it that has all that perspective and clarity? " my reply is, why assume there's a " who " behind it all? I am not compelled by any assumption that there must be an agent behind it all. It's just Life. And Life needs no higher uber-Life to explain it. The perspective and clarity is not " owned " by anything... it is just an emergent property... Life is just dancing... and any qualities that seem to come out of that just seem to come out of that... Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > Paradoxes use to drive me very mad. > > > > > Then, in them, I started to perceive the reflection of > > > > > what I am attracted to: > > > > > Playing, lulling me about, in their wake. > > > > > Making me come closer only to whisper : this isn`t it > > > > > yet, you know it, don`t you? > > > > > Each time I realize that it isn`t it yet, the path > > > > > narrows down. > > > > > What matters here is my yielding but also the fact > > > > > that their is a more subtle attunement to what I love > > > > > : to who I am. > > > > > I know that I will not find it, yet I stay > > > > > on...listening..walking..sharing.. > > > > > Makes sense? > > > > > Most likely not. > > > > > > > > > > A little white cloud of tenderness for that big open > > > > > sky. > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, the foreground and the background are one in radiance and > > > > harmony. > > > > > > > > Makes total sense in as much as I feel I recognize it > unambiguously in > > > > myself. > > > > > > > > This may sound pretty cheap, but have you ever told yourself, > neither > > > > " will I find it? " , nor " I won't find it, " but, literally and > > > > repeatedly, " I am It " ? I mean, you know you are, so why not > commit to > > > > burgeoning as it? Right now? > > > > > > > > Just asking. > > > > > > > > Beaming > > > > Humbly > > > > With > > > > It > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > Yo! Bro! > > > > > > thazit! > > > > > > and maybe that is what you mean by " choosing " ... > > > > > > the step into the center of that cyclone > > > > > > and saying YES! to it all > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, because " choosing " is the experience of freedom, right? And > > that experience of freedom is like flight, like being above it all, > > like perfect perspective. And that IS what " you " are, we are, etc. > > > > When you say, > > > > " and so then, what is interesting -- from my view -- is to > > dissolve focus altogether... let focus get totally soft and to > > totally expand... so that focus encompasses all there is. > > And so the observer, the witness is as a melted goo folded back > > into the batter of Life. The witness has lost its distinction > > as witness because focus is no longer defining a 'that' vs. 'this'. > > > > In other words, I love to let the witness dissolve through its > > own process of witnessing... back into the murky primal beginnings > > from which it arose. > > > > When I was quite young and had a chance to play with a TV camera > > I found delight in pointing the camera into the monitor. Much fun! > > I love to loop things back into themselves so that they undergo > > wierd, crazy fusions. I like to break the rules, undercut the ground, > > push the system to a kind of melt-down. " > > > > Who or what is it that has all that perspective and clarity? It's the > > uber or super or higher witness, the one you really are. The one that > > experienced no melt-down at all, could see it quite clearly. > > > > Right? > > > > ~*~ > > > > > I notice that the fundamental line in what you write there > is the " seeing of " ... (hence the witness notion as primary) > > But on my end... it is the *dynamic* that is primary. > > I continually reject concerns about what-is-the-case > as stagnant, stale, static. > > The YES! above has that dynamic. > > To me the fundmental is Life, not observation, > and not any what-is-the-case. > > To your: > " Who or what is it that has all that perspective and clarity? " > my reply is, why assume there's a " who " behind it all? > I am not compelled by any assumption that there must > be an agent behind it all. > > It's just Life. > > And Life needs no higher uber-Life to explain it. > > The perspective and clarity is not " owned " by anything... > it is just an emergent property... > > Life is just dancing... > > and any qualities that seem to come out of that > just seem to come out of that... > > > Bill > I'm not disputing any of that. I'm just saying, that it's still you observing everything you've just said. There is the " life is just dancing... " and there is the One that notices that. No need to privilege one over the other, the seen over the seer nor the seer over the seen. I'm just asking for acknowledgment that the seeing is seeing, not that the seen is the seeing. Otherwise, I feel, we're getting ahead of ourselves. ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 <snip> > > > > > > > > Yo! Bro! > > > > > > > > thazit! > > > > > > > > and maybe that is what you mean by " choosing " ... > > > > > > > > the step into the center of that cyclone > > > > > > > > and saying YES! to it all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, because " choosing " is the experience of freedom, right? And > > > that experience of freedom is like flight, like being above it all, > > > like perfect perspective. And that IS what " you " are, we are, etc. > > > > > > When you say, > > > > > > " and so then, what is interesting -- from my view -- is to > > > dissolve focus altogether... let focus get totally soft and to > > > totally expand... so that focus encompasses all there is. > > > And so the observer, the witness is as a melted goo folded back > > > into the batter of Life. The witness has lost its distinction > > > as witness because focus is no longer defining a 'that' vs. 'this'. > > > > > > In other words, I love to let the witness dissolve through its > > > own process of witnessing... back into the murky primal beginnings > > > from which it arose. > > > > > > When I was quite young and had a chance to play with a TV camera > > > I found delight in pointing the camera into the monitor. Much fun! > > > I love to loop things back into themselves so that they undergo > > > wierd, crazy fusions. I like to break the rules, undercut the ground, > > > push the system to a kind of melt-down. " > > > > > > Who or what is it that has all that perspective and clarity? It's the > > > uber or super or higher witness, the one you really are. The one that > > > experienced no melt-down at all, could see it quite clearly. > > > > > > Right? > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > I notice that the fundamental line in what you write there > > is the " seeing of " ... (hence the witness notion as primary) > > > > But on my end... it is the *dynamic* that is primary. > > > > I continually reject concerns about what-is-the-case > > as stagnant, stale, static. > > > > The YES! above has that dynamic. > > > > To me the fundmental is Life, not observation, > > and not any what-is-the-case. > > > > To your: > > " Who or what is it that has all that perspective and clarity? " > > my reply is, why assume there's a " who " behind it all? > > I am not compelled by any assumption that there must > > be an agent behind it all. > > > > It's just Life. > > > > And Life needs no higher uber-Life to explain it. > > > > The perspective and clarity is not " owned " by anything... > > it is just an emergent property... > > > > Life is just dancing... > > > > and any qualities that seem to come out of that > > just seem to come out of that... > > > > > > Bill > > > > > I'm not disputing any of that. I'm just saying, that it's still you > observing everything you've just said. > > There is the " life is just dancing... " and there is the One that > notices that. No need to privilege one over the other, the seen over > the seer nor the seer over the seen. > > I'm just asking for acknowledgment that the seeing is seeing, You have conveyed the notion of " I am " in a way that I haven't encountered before. I have been considering it in " the lab " . I find it quite interesting. My curiousity is piqued. But I don't see it as a matter of acknowledgement that the seeing is seeing. Really it is a matter of all of this being absorbed and coming out in its own way. There is no " I " here that has control of any of this. I'll just have to get back to you. For now it is a matter of digesting. > not that > the seen is the seeing. Otherwise, I feel, we're getting ahead of > ourselves. I wonder what you mean. Bill > ~*~ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.