Guest guest Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > <pliantheart@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: The body is the reservoir of sensations. Touch a > hot > > > > > iron or > > > > > > > burn yourself with a match. Taste is a body sensation > isn't > > > it. > > > > > > > Hearing, smelling: this all relates to the body doesn't > it? > > > Then > > > > > how > > > > > > > about jealousy or envy or delight, or joy or happines? > There > > > are > > > > > not > > > > > > > physical are they? But where and how are they > experienced? > > > Are > > > > > they > > > > > > > just thoughts, or is there a physical component? Seems > > > obvious > > > > > to me, > > > > > > > that these experiences are a combination of the mind and > > > body. > > > > > But > > > > > > > then, can you even experience touch or hearing without > the > > > > > mental, > > > > > > > the mind, and the brain? And then, is the brain and the > mind > > > the > > > > > same > > > > > > > thing? Not exactly, but there is a realtionship isn't > > > there. No > > > > > > > brain, no mind, no brain, no touch, smell or hearing. So > > > brain > > > > > must > > > > > > > be central to all experience whether physical or > emotional. > > > Got > > > > > to > > > > > > > go. Students are comin in for period 4. To be continued. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this an exercise in reasoning? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I read a couple of sentences and have to bail out, > > > > > > > as I know already I don't want to go there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If a bunch of reasoning is involved > > > > > > > I know already > > > > > > > it is not going to add up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for It > > > > > > How about what you make of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I said what I had to say... > > > > > nothing more > > > > > > > > > > and why ask? > > > > > > > > > > speak your words > > > > > and leave me to speak mine > > > > > as I will... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do you need my permission? > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > God I do hope you are not a toombaru clone! > > > > > > I hate those trite little questions! > > > > > > If you have something to say, say it. > > > > > > You do know that asking questions is a form > > > of control... surely. > > > > > > I'm letting myself happen here. > > > I like it when you let yourself happen here. > > > I don't like it when you try to *facilitate* > > > my letting myself happen here. > > > Is that clear enough? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Wow! More hair trigger temper persiflage. You do love the big rush > of > > rage, as is so typical. > > > > So, what if I were a toombaru clone and all that you claim to go > > with it? > > > > I know you're on a good stream, but I am " amazed " (not really) > that > > you're not getting my point. I prefer to be prosaic, anyway: it's > > not a trite question. I'm suggesting that you don't have to be > > attached to having the last word. If you say something and I > respond, > > you don't have respond to my response, whether I'm right or not. > All > > this talk about bob suggests to me that there's an absurd fixation > on > > who's " in control. " And yet, everybody's also saying that nobody's > in > > control. So, make up your words. > > > > " I don't like it when you try to *facilitate* > > my letting myself happen here. Is that clear enough? " > > > > Who cares, when you say it that way, is that clear? On the other > > hand, I can care. It IS my choice. > > > > Wow, now, it would be absurd for me to own any of this: I don't. I > > think it's irrelevant. I don't have to have the last word. Make of > > this what you will. > > > > Here's what I make of it: it's cure. > > > > :-)) > > > > ~*~ > > > > beautiful > point taken Thank you for that gift. It's all a gift. As far as I'm concerned, enlightenment boils down to only one veery, ultra simple truth: Everything Everything " Everything IS what one makes of it. (Precisely: Not one whit more Not one whit less) (Oh, it might have been just about anything at all, but I mean, what one makes of it Now) I choose: You're Either Me or My Baby ~*~ LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, (sheer, dumb, goofy, love, for Now, for Now, for Now) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 <snip> > > > > I'm letting myself happen here. > > > > I like it when you let yourself happen here. > > > > I don't like it when you try to *facilitate* > > > > my letting myself happen here. > > > > Is that clear enough? > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wow! More hair trigger temper persiflage. You do love the big rush > > of > > > rage, as is so typical. > > > > > > So, what if I were a toombaru clone and all that you claim to go > > > with it? > > > > > > I know you're on a good stream, but I am " amazed " (not really) > > that > > > you're not getting my point. I prefer to be prosaic, anyway: it's > > > not a trite question. I'm suggesting that you don't have to be > > > attached to having the last word. If you say something and I > > respond, > > > you don't have respond to my response, whether I'm right or not. > > All > > > this talk about bob suggests to me that there's an absurd fixation > > on > > > who's " in control. " And yet, everybody's also saying that nobody's > > in > > > control. So, make up your words. > > > > > > " I don't like it when you try to *facilitate* > > > my letting myself happen here. Is that clear enough? " > > > > > > Who cares, when you say it that way, is that clear? On the other > > > hand, I can care. It IS my choice. > > > > > > Wow, now, it would be absurd for me to own any of this: I don't. I > > > think it's irrelevant. I don't have to have the last word. Make of > > > this what you will. > > > > > > Here's what I make of it: it's cure. > > > > > > :-)) > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > beautiful > > point taken > > Thank you for that gift. It's all a gift. As far as I'm concerned, > enlightenment boils down to only one veery, ultra simple truth: > > Everything > Everything > " Everything > > IS what one makes of it. > > (Precisely: > Not one whit more > Not one whit less) > > (Oh, it might have been just about anything at all, but I mean, what > one makes of it Now) > > I choose: > > You're Either > Me or My Baby > ~*~ > LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, > (sheer, dumb, goofy, love, for Now, for Now, for Now) > I am starting to get more a sense of what you mean when you say " choose " ... For me there is Core Life... so very alive always surging from deep within it is the deep rootedness behind everything that is manifest in, of, and around me... whatever I am, whatever I appear to be, is the dramatic, dynamic unfolding of something utterly beyond reflection. Is that/this Potency what " I am " ? the question seems irrelevant somehow. all is in hand. all is moving on its own. there is no deliberation anywhere. it is as if there is just Life here happening... and words come out and mostly others don't understand but it just keeps happening regardless irrespective Now, looking at that in the lens of your: > " Everything > > IS what one makes of it. for me it would be turned around... to: what is IS what Everything makes And if we see things ever so differently, it really doesn't matter to me because what I *really enjoy* is the gusto, directness of your speaking as above (and your previous message as well). Bill 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: > > <snip> > > > > > > I'm letting myself happen here. > > > > > I like it when you let yourself happen here. > > > > > I don't like it when you try to *facilitate* > > > > > my letting myself happen here. > > > > > Is that clear enough? > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wow! More hair trigger temper persiflage. You do love the big rush > > > of > > > > rage, as is so typical. > > > > > > > > So, what if I were a toombaru clone and all that you claim to go > > > > with it? > > > > > > > > I know you're on a good stream, but I am " amazed " (not really) > > > that > > > > you're not getting my point. I prefer to be prosaic, anyway: it's > > > > not a trite question. I'm suggesting that you don't have to be > > > > attached to having the last word. If you say something and I > > > respond, > > > > you don't have respond to my response, whether I'm right or not. > > > All > > > > this talk about bob suggests to me that there's an absurd fixation > > > on > > > > who's " in control. " And yet, everybody's also saying that nobody's > > > in > > > > control. So, make up your words. > > > > > > > > " I don't like it when you try to *facilitate* > > > > my letting myself happen here. Is that clear enough? " > > > > > > > > Who cares, when you say it that way, is that clear? On the other > > > > hand, I can care. It IS my choice. > > > > > > > > Wow, now, it would be absurd for me to own any of this: I don't. I > > > > think it's irrelevant. I don't have to have the last word. Make of > > > > this what you will. > > > > > > > > Here's what I make of it: it's cure. > > > > > > > > :-)) > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > beautiful > > > point taken > > > > Thank you for that gift. It's all a gift. As far as I'm concerned, > > enlightenment boils down to only one veery, ultra simple truth: > > > > Everything > > Everything > > " Everything > > > > IS what one makes of it. > > > > (Precisely: > > Not one whit more > > Not one whit less) > > > > (Oh, it might have been just about anything at all, but I mean, what > > one makes of it Now) > > > > I choose: > > > > You're Either > > Me or My Baby > > ~*~ > > LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, > > (sheer, dumb, goofy, love, for Now, for Now, for Now) > > > > I am starting to get more a sense of what you > mean when you say " choose " ... > > For me there is Core Life... > so very alive > always surging from deep within > > it is the deep rootedness > behind everything that is > manifest in, of, and around me... > > whatever I am, whatever I appear to be, > is the dramatic, dynamic unfolding of > something utterly beyond reflection. > > Is that/this Potency what " I am " ? > > the question seems irrelevant somehow. > > all is in hand. > > all is moving on its own. > > there is no deliberation anywhere. > > it is as if there is just Life here > happening... > and words come out > and mostly others don't understand > but it just keeps happening > regardless > irrespective > > Now, looking at that in the lens of > your: > > > " Everything > > > > IS what one makes of it. > > for me it would be turned around... > to: > > what is IS what Everything makes > > > And if we see things ever so differently, > it really doesn't matter to me because > what I *really enjoy* is the gusto, > directness of your speaking as above > (and your previous message as well). > > > Bill > I appreciate your manifestation, on every level. I'm convinced I know exactly where you're coming from, that is, I recognize myself quite purely there. I find no disagreement, not even with the " disagreement " : It's just a question of reference point. I see everything (relatively speaking) you refer to as that which is being witnessed. Relative to the observed, the observer " chooses " how to maintain itself and it's particular balance. Relative to contexts wherein the witness's so called agency is eclipsed, this witness witnesses it's lack of " choice. " Am I making any sense? Thank you. ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 <snip> > > > > beautiful > > > > point taken > > > > > > Thank you for that gift. It's all a gift. As far as I'm concerned, > > > enlightenment boils down to only one veery, ultra simple truth: > > > > > > Everything > > > Everything > > > " Everything > > > > > > IS what one makes of it. > > > > > > (Precisely: > > > Not one whit more > > > Not one whit less) > > > > > > (Oh, it might have been just about anything at all, but I mean, what > > > one makes of it Now) > > > > > > I choose: > > > > > > You're Either > > > Me or My Baby > > > ~*~ > > > LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, > > > (sheer, dumb, goofy, love, for Now, for Now, for Now) > > > > > > > I am starting to get more a sense of what you > > mean when you say " choose " ... > > > > For me there is Core Life... > > so very alive > > always surging from deep within > > > > it is the deep rootedness > > behind everything that is > > manifest in, of, and around me... > > > > whatever I am, whatever I appear to be, > > is the dramatic, dynamic unfolding of > > something utterly beyond reflection. > > > > Is that/this Potency what " I am " ? > > > > the question seems irrelevant somehow. > > > > all is in hand. > > > > all is moving on its own. > > > > there is no deliberation anywhere. > > > > it is as if there is just Life here > > happening... > > and words come out > > and mostly others don't understand > > but it just keeps happening > > regardless > > irrespective > > > > Now, looking at that in the lens of > > your: > > > > > " Everything > > > > > > IS what one makes of it. > > > > for me it would be turned around... > > to: > > > > what is IS what Everything makes > > > > > > And if we see things ever so differently, > > it really doesn't matter to me because > > what I *really enjoy* is the gusto, > > directness of your speaking as above > > (and your previous message as well). > > > > > > Bill > > > > > I appreciate your manifestation, on every level. I'm convinced I know > exactly where you're coming from, that is, I recognize myself quite > purely there. I find no disagreement, not even with the > " disagreement " : It's just a question of reference point. An amazing parallel to the words you express above occurs on this end. When you first started posting on this list I thought, " Wow. This one writes like I do! " I mentioned that to a friend and she said she was struck the same way. And when I wrote: " I like it when you let yourself happen here. " I meant that literally with respect to *you*. > I see everything (relatively speaking) you refer to as that which is > being witnessed. Relative to the observed, the observer " chooses " how > to maintain itself and it's particular balance. Relative to contexts > wherein the witness's so called agency is eclipsed, this witness > witnesses it's lack of " choice. " > > Am I making any sense? Have read that over several times. Can't say it really clicks. Am especially puzzled by, " Relative to contexts wherein the witness's so called agency is eclipsed... " When you say: " I see everything (relatively speaking) you refer to as that which is being witnessed. " Then perhaps you mean that when I say, for example: > > it is as if there is just Life here > > happening... > > and words come out > > and mostly others don't understand > > but it just keeps happening > > regardless > > irrespective you see that as that which is being witnessed? Sorry, but it's not really clear. The sense of " it is as if there is just Life here happening... " is not as something independent that I am witnessing. It is like the " Life here happening " is what *I am doing* BUT, that the " I am " part is not where it begins... *that* is just the culminating nomenclature. And I know that has got to be pretty opaque. I'll try again: the sense here is of " Life happening " and in the swirl of it there is a little " I am " hat bobbing out of it now and then, but that " I am " hat is not *primary*. It does not START with that " I am " bit. It starts with the burgeoning vitality of Life, and the " I am " appearance is just an aspect of how it can appear. The " I am " is not the root nature. Hope you can sort something out, as this is quite interesting. Bill > Thank you. > > ~*~ > 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: > > <snip> > > > > > > beautiful > > > > > point taken > > > > > > > > Thank you for that gift. It's all a gift. As far as I'm concerned, > > > > enlightenment boils down to only one veery, ultra simple truth: > > > > > > > > Everything > > > > Everything > > > > " Everything > > > > > > > > IS what one makes of it. > > > > > > > > (Precisely: > > > > Not one whit more > > > > Not one whit less) > > > > > > > > (Oh, it might have been just about anything at all, but I mean, what > > > > one makes of it Now) > > > > > > > > I choose: > > > > > > > > You're Either > > > > Me or My Baby > > > > ~*~ > > > > LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, > > > > (sheer, dumb, goofy, love, for Now, for Now, for Now) > > > > > > > > > > I am starting to get more a sense of what you > > > mean when you say " choose " ... > > > > > > For me there is Core Life... > > > so very alive > > > always surging from deep within > > > > > > it is the deep rootedness > > > behind everything that is > > > manifest in, of, and around me... > > > > > > whatever I am, whatever I appear to be, > > > is the dramatic, dynamic unfolding of > > > something utterly beyond reflection. > > > > > > Is that/this Potency what " I am " ? > > > > > > the question seems irrelevant somehow. > > > > > > all is in hand. > > > > > > all is moving on its own. > > > > > > there is no deliberation anywhere. > > > > > > it is as if there is just Life here > > > happening... > > > and words come out > > > and mostly others don't understand > > > but it just keeps happening > > > regardless > > > irrespective > > > > > > Now, looking at that in the lens of > > > your: > > > > > > > " Everything > > > > > > > > IS what one makes of it. > > > > > > for me it would be turned around... > > > to: > > > > > > what is IS what Everything makes > > > > > > > > > And if we see things ever so differently, > > > it really doesn't matter to me because > > > what I *really enjoy* is the gusto, > > > directness of your speaking as above > > > (and your previous message as well). > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > I appreciate your manifestation, on every level. I'm convinced I know > > exactly where you're coming from, that is, I recognize myself quite > > purely there. I find no disagreement, not even with the > > " disagreement " : It's just a question of reference point. > > An amazing parallel to the words you express above occurs > on this end. When you first started posting on this list I thought, > " Wow. This one writes like I do! " I mentioned that to a friend > and she said she was struck the same way. > > And when I wrote: > " I like it when you let yourself happen here. " > I meant that literally with respect to *you*. > > > I see everything (relatively speaking) you refer to as that which is > > being witnessed. Relative to the observed, the observer " chooses " how > > to maintain itself and it's particular balance. Relative to contexts > > wherein the witness's so called agency is eclipsed, this witness > > witnesses it's lack of " choice. " > > > > Am I making any sense? > > Have read that over several times. Can't say it really clicks. > Am especially puzzled by, " Relative to contexts wherein the witness's > so called agency is eclipsed... " > > When you say: > " I see everything (relatively speaking) you refer to as that which is > being witnessed. " > Then perhaps you mean that when I say, for example: > > > it is as if there is just Life here > > > happening... > > > and words come out > > > and mostly others don't understand > > > but it just keeps happening > > > regardless > > > irrespective > you see that as that which is being witnessed? > > Sorry, but it's not really clear. > > The sense of " it is as if there is just Life here > happening... " is not as something independent > that I am witnessing. It is like the " Life here > happening " is what *I am doing* BUT, that the > " I am " part is not where it begins... *that* is > just the culminating nomenclature. And I know that > has got to be pretty opaque. > > I'll try again: the sense here is of " Life happening " > and in the swirl of it there is a little " I am " hat > bobbing out of it now and then, but that " I am " hat > is not *primary*. It does not START with that " I am " > bit. It starts with the burgeoning vitality of Life, > and the " I am " appearance is just an aspect of how > it can appear. The " I am " is not the root nature. > > Hope you can sort something out, as this is quite > interesting. > > Bill > > I am quite certain of this: who or what is it that noticed ALL of the above? I mean it. This isn't a game. You know the answer, right? Well, it's the real " I am, " not the little one. The real " I am " is Always watching or you would never be able to say that anything was ever absent. There can never be an assertion of absence without some presence to have witnessed it. I know, it's too obvious to even see. A lot of people miss it. Right? ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 <snip> > > > > > > I appreciate your manifestation, on every level. I'm convinced I know > > > exactly where you're coming from, that is, I recognize myself quite > > > purely there. I find no disagreement, not even with the > > > " disagreement " : It's just a question of reference point. > > > > An amazing parallel to the words you express above occurs > > on this end. When you first started posting on this list I thought, > > " Wow. This one writes like I do! " I mentioned that to a friend > > and she said she was struck the same way. > > > > And when I wrote: > > " I like it when you let yourself happen here. " > > I meant that literally with respect to *you*. > > > > > I see everything (relatively speaking) you refer to as that which is > > > being witnessed. Relative to the observed, the observer " chooses " how > > > to maintain itself and it's particular balance. Relative to contexts > > > wherein the witness's so called agency is eclipsed, this witness > > > witnesses it's lack of " choice. " > > > > > > Am I making any sense? > > > > Have read that over several times. Can't say it really clicks. > > Am especially puzzled by, " Relative to contexts wherein the witness's > > so called agency is eclipsed... " > > > > When you say: > > " I see everything (relatively speaking) you refer to as that which is > > being witnessed. " > > Then perhaps you mean that when I say, for example: > > > > it is as if there is just Life here > > > > happening... > > > > and words come out > > > > and mostly others don't understand > > > > but it just keeps happening > > > > regardless > > > > irrespective > > you see that as that which is being witnessed? > > > > Sorry, but it's not really clear. > > > > The sense of " it is as if there is just Life here > > happening... " is not as something independent > > that I am witnessing. It is like the " Life here > > happening " is what *I am doing* BUT, that the > > " I am " part is not where it begins... *that* is > > just the culminating nomenclature. And I know that > > has got to be pretty opaque. > > > > I'll try again: the sense here is of " Life happening " > > and in the swirl of it there is a little " I am " hat > > bobbing out of it now and then, but that " I am " hat > > is not *primary*. It does not START with that " I am " > > bit. It starts with the burgeoning vitality of Life, > > and the " I am " appearance is just an aspect of how > > it can appear. The " I am " is not the root nature. > > > > Hope you can sort something out, as this is quite > > interesting. > > > > Bill > > > > > I am quite certain of this: who or what is it that noticed ALL of the > above? I mean it. This isn't a game. You know the answer, right? > > Well, it's the real " I am, " not the little one. The real " I am " is > Always watching or you would never be able to say that anything was > ever absent. There can never be an assertion of absence without some > presence to have witnessed it. > > I know, it's too obvious to even see. A lot of people miss it. > > Right? > > ~*~ > This " real I am " that you refer to... brings to mind: The Heart is the Thunder of Now The piercing Essence of Presence It cannot be touched, known, or seen yet there is nothing that is not Its knowing, touching, and seeing. Seems the same as what you are calling the " real I am " . I feel not inclined to call that " I am " ... but if that stanza says the same as what you mean by " the real I am " ... then it seems we are talking the same, but with difference preferences in terms of nomenclature. Bill 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: > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > I appreciate your manifestation, on every level. I'm convinced > I know > > > > exactly where you're coming from, that is, I recognize myself quite > > > > purely there. I find no disagreement, not even with the > > > > " disagreement " : It's just a question of reference point. > > > > > > An amazing parallel to the words you express above occurs > > > on this end. When you first started posting on this list I thought, > > > " Wow. This one writes like I do! " I mentioned that to a friend > > > and she said she was struck the same way. > > > > > > And when I wrote: > > > " I like it when you let yourself happen here. " > > > I meant that literally with respect to *you*. > > > > > > > I see everything (relatively speaking) you refer to as that which is > > > > being witnessed. Relative to the observed, the observer > " chooses " how > > > > to maintain itself and it's particular balance. Relative to > contexts > > > > wherein the witness's so called agency is eclipsed, this witness > > > > witnesses it's lack of " choice. " > > > > > > > > Am I making any sense? > > > > > > Have read that over several times. Can't say it really clicks. > > > Am especially puzzled by, " Relative to contexts wherein the witness's > > > so called agency is eclipsed... " > > > > > > When you say: > > > " I see everything (relatively speaking) you refer to as that which is > > > being witnessed. " > > > Then perhaps you mean that when I say, for example: > > > > > it is as if there is just Life here > > > > > happening... > > > > > and words come out > > > > > and mostly others don't understand > > > > > but it just keeps happening > > > > > regardless > > > > > irrespective > > > you see that as that which is being witnessed? > > > > > > Sorry, but it's not really clear. > > > > > > The sense of " it is as if there is just Life here > > > happening... " is not as something independent > > > that I am witnessing. It is like the " Life here > > > happening " is what *I am doing* BUT, that the > > > " I am " part is not where it begins... *that* is > > > just the culminating nomenclature. And I know that > > > has got to be pretty opaque. > > > > > > I'll try again: the sense here is of " Life happening " > > > and in the swirl of it there is a little " I am " hat > > > bobbing out of it now and then, but that " I am " hat > > > is not *primary*. It does not START with that " I am " > > > bit. It starts with the burgeoning vitality of Life, > > > and the " I am " appearance is just an aspect of how > > > it can appear. The " I am " is not the root nature. > > > > > > Hope you can sort something out, as this is quite > > > interesting. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > I am quite certain of this: who or what is it that noticed ALL of the > > above? I mean it. This isn't a game. You know the answer, right? > > > > Well, it's the real " I am, " not the little one. The real " I am " is > > Always watching or you would never be able to say that anything was > > ever absent. There can never be an assertion of absence without some > > presence to have witnessed it. > > > > I know, it's too obvious to even see. A lot of people miss it. > > > > Right? > > > > ~*~ > > > > This " real I am " that you refer to... brings to mind: > > The Heart is the Thunder of Now > The piercing Essence of Presence > It cannot be touched, known, or seen > yet there is nothing that is not Its > knowing, touching, and seeing. > > Seems the same as what you are calling the " real I am " . > > I feel not inclined to call that " I am " ... > but if that stanza says the same as what you > mean by " the real I am " ... then it seems we > are talking the same, but with difference > preferences in terms of nomenclature. > > Bill > Yeah, that's why I think we've been saying the same thing all along. ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate your manifestation, on every level. I'm convinced > > I know > > > > > exactly where you're coming from, that is, I recognize myself > quite > > > > > purely there. I find no disagreement, not even with the > > > > > " disagreement " : It's just a question of reference point. > > > > > > > > An amazing parallel to the words you express above occurs > > > > on this end. When you first started posting on this list I thought, > > > > " Wow. This one writes like I do! " I mentioned that to a friend > > > > and she said she was struck the same way. > > > > > > > > And when I wrote: > > > > " I like it when you let yourself happen here. " > > > > I meant that literally with respect to *you*. > > > > > > > > > I see everything (relatively speaking) you refer to as that > which is > > > > > being witnessed. Relative to the observed, the observer > > " chooses " how > > > > > to maintain itself and it's particular balance. Relative to > > contexts > > > > > wherein the witness's so called agency is eclipsed, this witness > > > > > witnesses it's lack of " choice. " > > > > > > > > > > Am I making any sense? > > > > > > > > Have read that over several times. Can't say it really clicks. > > > > Am especially puzzled by, " Relative to contexts wherein the > witness's > > > > so called agency is eclipsed... " > > > > > > > > When you say: > > > > " I see everything (relatively speaking) you refer to as that > which is > > > > being witnessed. " > > > > Then perhaps you mean that when I say, for example: > > > > > > it is as if there is just Life here > > > > > > happening... > > > > > > and words come out > > > > > > and mostly others don't understand > > > > > > but it just keeps happening > > > > > > regardless > > > > > > irrespective > > > > you see that as that which is being witnessed? > > > > > > > > Sorry, but it's not really clear. > > > > > > > > The sense of " it is as if there is just Life here > > > > happening... " is not as something independent > > > > that I am witnessing. It is like the " Life here > > > > happening " is what *I am doing* BUT, that the > > > > " I am " part is not where it begins... *that* is > > > > just the culminating nomenclature. And I know that > > > > has got to be pretty opaque. > > > > > > > > I'll try again: the sense here is of " Life happening " > > > > and in the swirl of it there is a little " I am " hat > > > > bobbing out of it now and then, but that " I am " hat > > > > is not *primary*. It does not START with that " I am " > > > > bit. It starts with the burgeoning vitality of Life, > > > > and the " I am " appearance is just an aspect of how > > > > it can appear. The " I am " is not the root nature. > > > > > > > > Hope you can sort something out, as this is quite > > > > interesting. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > I am quite certain of this: who or what is it that noticed ALL of the > > > above? I mean it. This isn't a game. You know the answer, right? > > > > > > Well, it's the real " I am, " not the little one. The real " I am " is > > > Always watching or you would never be able to say that anything was > > > ever absent. There can never be an assertion of absence without some > > > presence to have witnessed it. > > > > > > I know, it's too obvious to even see. A lot of people miss it. > > > > > > Right? > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > This " real I am " that you refer to... brings to mind: > > > > The Heart is the Thunder of Now > > The piercing Essence of Presence > > It cannot be touched, known, or seen > > yet there is nothing that is not Its > > knowing, touching, and seeing. > > > > Seems the same as what you are calling the " real I am " . > > > > I feel not inclined to call that " I am " ... > > but if that stanza says the same as what you > > mean by " the real I am " ... then it seems we > > are talking the same, but with difference > > preferences in terms of nomenclature. > > > > Bill > > > > > Yeah, that's why I think we've been saying the same thing all along. > > ~*~ yes, in fact, as I look now at the lines: > It cannot be touched, known, or seen > yet there is nothing that is not Its > knowing, touching, and seeing. that seems to match your " real I am " exactly. 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.