Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 " OK, let me see if I understand you. What you seem to be saying is that we have a choice between hissing and blissing. We actually have that absolute freedom. But that we unconsciously choose to suffer because we feel compelled to make others suffer. So called 'enlightenment' is when it becomes crystal clear to us that when we feel compelled to cause suffering, what we're really doing is compelling ourselves to suffer. It's as simple as that. You're saying that we're under the delusion that others need to be made to suffer so that we may be protected. But that the truth is, we're only subverting ourselves when we subvert others. " Well, I guess I've heard that all my life, and yet I still find myself suffering, so what's the deal? In response, you say, that it's so obvious that we just don't see it and that our blindness is so insidious that we don't even know when we're making both ourselves and each other suffer. What some call pleasure, you say, is really pain; and what others call pain is really pleasure. " So, you add, it takes a so called 'enlightened' person to clue us in to what is actually self-torture and what is actually self-nurture or liberation. You say that the difference between these two seemingly vast differences is clouded by our incomparable blindness. So much so, that it takes a tremendous and miraculous transformation for one to drop this self abuse you refer to. " Is that right? And, you say, that all it takes for one to quite simply liberate oneself, is for one to just simply 'let go' of any and all self-torture. And, you hasten to say, everything but, what you call the ineffable, that which is beyond language, beyond naming, is self-torture, or delusion. You say that any thing, any action, any doing, that can be named, is, in the very naming, self-torture. But that in the not doing, in a sense, there is the not engaging in self-torture. " And, lastly, when I ask you if I've understood, you answer with no answer, thus implying, to me, in any case, that even this question is itself a form of self-torture. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > " OK, let me see if I understand you. What you seem to be saying is > that we have a choice between hissing and blissing. We actually have > that absolute freedom. But that we unconsciously choose to suffer > because we feel compelled to make others suffer. So called > 'enlightenment' is when it becomes crystal clear to us that when we > feel compelled to cause suffering, what we're really doing is > compelling ourselves to suffer. It's as simple as that. You're > saying that we're under the delusion that others need to be made to > suffer so that we may be protected. But that the truth is, we're only > subverting ourselves when we subvert others. > > " Well, I guess I've heard that all my life, and yet I still find > myself suffering, so what's the deal? In response, you say, that it's > so obvious that we just don't see it and that our blindness is so > insidious that we don't even know when we're making both ourselves and > each other suffer. What some call pleasure, you say, is really pain; > and what others call pain is really pleasure. > > " So, you add, it takes a so called 'enlightened' person to clue us in > to what is actually self-torture and what is actually self-nurture or > liberation. You say that the difference between these two seemingly > vast differences is clouded by our incomparable blindness. So much > so, that it takes a tremendous and miraculous transformation for one > to drop this self abuse you refer to. > > " Is that right? And, you say, that all it takes for one to quite > simply liberate oneself, is for one to just simply 'let go' of any and > all self-torture. And, you hasten to say, everything but, what you > call the ineffable, that which is beyond language, beyond naming, is > self-torture, or delusion. You say that any thing, any action, any > doing, that can be named, is, in the very naming, self-torture. But > that in the not doing, in a sense, there is the not engaging in > self-torture. > > " And, lastly, when I ask you if I've understood, you answer with no > answer, thus implying, to me, in any case, that even this question is > itself a form of self-torture. " > Compulsion is self-torture. Where no compulsion... no problem. Forget letting go of 'self-torture'. Look at the formula: " Let go of X. " For all X, it seems that " Let go of X " is is good suggestion... What is there to *not* let go of? As long as there is some X that has been *identified*, there is constriction/ restriction. So open the gate and let all dem little X's out of their pen. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > " OK, let me see if I understand you. What you seem to be saying is > that we have a choice between hissing and blissing. We actually have > that absolute freedom. But that we unconsciously choose to suffer > because we feel compelled to make others suffer. So called > 'enlightenment' is when it becomes crystal clear to us that when we > feel compelled to cause suffering, what we're really doing is > compelling ourselves to suffer. It's as simple as that. You're > saying that we're under the delusion that others need to be made to > suffer so that we may be protected. But that the truth is, we're only > subverting ourselves when we subvert others. > > " Well, I guess I've heard that all my life, and yet I still find > myself suffering, so what's the deal? In response, you say, that it's > so obvious that we just don't see it and that our blindness is so > insidious that we don't even know when we're making both ourselves and > each other suffer. What some call pleasure, you say, is really pain; > and what others call pain is really pleasure. > > " So, you add, it takes a so called 'enlightened' person to clue us in > to what is actually self-torture and what is actually self-nurture or > liberation. You say that the difference between these two seemingly > vast differences is clouded by our incomparable blindness. So much > so, that it takes a tremendous and miraculous transformation for one > to drop this self abuse you refer to. > > " Is that right? And, you say, that all it takes for one to quite > simply liberate oneself, is for one to just simply 'let go' of any and > all self-torture. And, you hasten to say, everything but, what you > call the ineffable, that which is beyond language, beyond naming, is > self-torture, or delusion. You say that any thing, any action, any > doing, that can be named, is, in the very naming, self-torture. But > that in the not doing, in a sense, there is the not engaging in > self-torture. > > " And, lastly, when I ask you if I've understood, you answer with no > answer, thus implying, to me, in any case, that even this question is > itself a form of self-torture. " > You are searching within the problem for answers to questions about the problem. Tonight......in your dream.........if a problem occurs...you will not find the solution within the dream. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > " OK, let me see if I understand you. What you seem to be saying is > > that we have a choice between hissing and blissing. We actually have > > that absolute freedom. But that we unconsciously choose to suffer > > because we feel compelled to make others suffer. So called > > 'enlightenment' is when it becomes crystal clear to us that when we > > feel compelled to cause suffering, what we're really doing is > > compelling ourselves to suffer. It's as simple as that. You're > > saying that we're under the delusion that others need to be made to > > suffer so that we may be protected. But that the truth is, we're only > > subverting ourselves when we subvert others. > > > > " Well, I guess I've heard that all my life, and yet I still find > > myself suffering, so what's the deal? In response, you say, that it's > > so obvious that we just don't see it and that our blindness is so > > insidious that we don't even know when we're making both ourselves and > > each other suffer. What some call pleasure, you say, is really pain; > > and what others call pain is really pleasure. > > > > " So, you add, it takes a so called 'enlightened' person to clue us in > > to what is actually self-torture and what is actually self-nurture or > > liberation. You say that the difference between these two seemingly > > vast differences is clouded by our incomparable blindness. So much > > so, that it takes a tremendous and miraculous transformation for one > > to drop this self abuse you refer to. > > > > " Is that right? And, you say, that all it takes for one to quite > > simply liberate oneself, is for one to just simply 'let go' of any and > > all self-torture. And, you hasten to say, everything but, what you > > call the ineffable, that which is beyond language, beyond naming, is > > self-torture, or delusion. You say that any thing, any action, any > > doing, that can be named, is, in the very naming, self-torture. But > > that in the not doing, in a sense, there is the not engaging in > > self-torture. > > > > " And, lastly, when I ask you if I've understood, you answer with no > > answer, thus implying, to me, in any case, that even this question is > > itself a form of self-torture. " > > > > > > > You are searching within the problem for answers to questions about > the problem. > > > Tonight......in your dream.........if a problem occurs...you will not > find the solution within the dream. > > > > toombaru > Compulsion is self-torture. Where no compulsion... no problem. Forget letting go of 'self-torture'. Look at the formula: " Let go of X. " For all X, it seems that " Let go of X " is is good suggestion... What is there to *not* let go of? As long as there is some X that has been *identified*, there is constriction/ restriction. So open the gate and let all dem little X's out of their pen. Bill & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or ( ... alternatively It's really quite simple: ) No self = No torture ( ... and/or alternatively: It/All/Nothing Is/Isn't Quite/Partially/Barely Simple/Complex -- No/Yes Self/noself -- No/Torture ) Fullness/Emptiness In/Out of/to Love ~*~ Sky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > " OK, let me see if I understand you. What you seem to be saying is > > > that we have a choice between hissing and blissing. We actually have > > > that absolute freedom. But that we unconsciously choose to suffer > > > because we feel compelled to make others suffer. So called > > > 'enlightenment' is when it becomes crystal clear to us that when we > > > feel compelled to cause suffering, what we're really doing is > > > compelling ourselves to suffer. It's as simple as that. You're > > > saying that we're under the delusion that others need to be made to > > > suffer so that we may be protected. But that the truth is, we're only > > > subverting ourselves when we subvert others. > > > > > > " Well, I guess I've heard that all my life, and yet I still find > > > myself suffering, so what's the deal? In response, you say, that it's > > > so obvious that we just don't see it and that our blindness is so > > > insidious that we don't even know when we're making both ourselves and > > > each other suffer. What some call pleasure, you say, is really pain; > > > and what others call pain is really pleasure. > > > > > > " So, you add, it takes a so called 'enlightened' person to clue us in > > > to what is actually self-torture and what is actually self- nurture or > > > liberation. You say that the difference between these two seemingly > > > vast differences is clouded by our incomparable blindness. So much > > > so, that it takes a tremendous and miraculous transformation for one > > > to drop this self abuse you refer to. > > > > > > " Is that right? And, you say, that all it takes for one to quite > > > simply liberate oneself, is for one to just simply 'let go' of any and > > > all self-torture. And, you hasten to say, everything but, what you > > > call the ineffable, that which is beyond language, beyond naming, is > > > self-torture, or delusion. You say that any thing, any action, any > > > doing, that can be named, is, in the very naming, self- torture. But > > > that in the not doing, in a sense, there is the not engaging in > > > self-torture. > > > > > > " And, lastly, when I ask you if I've understood, you answer with no > > > answer, thus implying, to me, in any case, that even this question is > > > itself a form of self-torture. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are searching within the problem for answers to questions about > > the problem. > > > > > > Tonight......in your dream.........if a problem occurs...you will not > > find the solution within the dream. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Compulsion is self-torture. > > Where no compulsion... no problem. > > Forget letting go of 'self-torture'. > > Look at the formula: " Let go of X. " > > For all X, it seems that " Let go of X " is > is good suggestion... > > What is there to *not* let go of? > > As long as there is some X that has been > *identified*, there is constriction/ > restriction. > > So open the gate and let all dem little X's > out of their pen. > > Bill > > > & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or > > > > ( ... alternatively > > > It's really quite simple: ) > > No self = > No torture > > ( ... and/or alternatively: > > > It/All/Nothing > Is/Isn't > Quite/Partially/Barely > Simple/Complex -- > No/Yes > Self/noself -- > No/Torture ) > > Fullness/Emptiness > In/Out > of/to > > Love > ~*~ > Sky > re: > No self = > No torture and the relation between " self " and " I " ? or between " self " and " I am " ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > " OK, let me see if I understand you. What you seem to be > saying is > > > > that we have a choice between hissing and blissing. We > actually have > > > > that absolute freedom. But that we unconsciously choose to > suffer > > > > because we feel compelled to make others suffer. So called > > > > 'enlightenment' is when it becomes crystal clear to us that > when we > > > > feel compelled to cause suffering, what we're really doing is > > > > compelling ourselves to suffer. It's as simple as that. You're > > > > saying that we're under the delusion that others need to be > made to > > > > suffer so that we may be protected. But that the truth is, > we're only > > > > subverting ourselves when we subvert others. > > > > > > > > " Well, I guess I've heard that all my life, and yet I still find > > > > myself suffering, so what's the deal? In response, you say, > that it's > > > > so obvious that we just don't see it and that our blindness is > so > > > > insidious that we don't even know when we're making both > ourselves and > > > > each other suffer. What some call pleasure, you say, is really > pain; > > > > and what others call pain is really pleasure. > > > > > > > > " So, you add, it takes a so called 'enlightened' person to clue > us in > > > > to what is actually self-torture and what is actually self- > nurture or > > > > liberation. You say that the difference between these two > seemingly > > > > vast differences is clouded by our incomparable blindness. So > much > > > > so, that it takes a tremendous and miraculous transformation > for one > > > > to drop this self abuse you refer to. > > > > > > > > " Is that right? And, you say, that all it takes for one to > quite > > > > simply liberate oneself, is for one to just simply 'let go' of > any and > > > > all self-torture. And, you hasten to say, everything but, what > you > > > > call the ineffable, that which is beyond language, beyond > naming, is > > > > self-torture, or delusion. You say that any thing, any action, > any > > > > doing, that can be named, is, in the very naming, self- > torture. But > > > > that in the not doing, in a sense, there is the not engaging in > > > > self-torture. > > > > > > > > " And, lastly, when I ask you if I've understood, you answer > with no > > > > answer, thus implying, to me, in any case, that even this > question is > > > > itself a form of self-torture. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are searching within the problem for answers to questions > about > > > the problem. > > > > > > > > > Tonight......in your dream.........if a problem occurs...you will > not > > > find the solution within the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > Compulsion is self-torture. > > > > Where no compulsion... no problem. > > > > Forget letting go of 'self-torture'. > > > > Look at the formula: " Let go of X. " > > > > For all X, it seems that " Let go of X " is > > is good suggestion... > > > > What is there to *not* let go of? > > > > As long as there is some X that has been > > *identified*, there is constriction/ > > restriction. > > > > So open the gate and let all dem little X's > > out of their pen. > > > > Bill > > > > > > & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or > > > > > > > > ( ... alternatively > > > > > > It's really quite simple: ) > > > > No self = > > No torture > > > > ( ... and/or alternatively: > > > > > > It/All/Nothing > > Is/Isn't > > Quite/Partially/Barely > > Simple/Complex -- > > No/Yes > > Self/noself -- > > No/Torture ) > > > > Fullness/Emptiness > > In/Out > > of/to > > > > Love > > ~*~ > > Sky > > > re: > > No self = > > No torture > > and the relation between > " self " and " I " ? > or between > " self " and " I am " ? > They're all one. But I expect that's your point, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 <snip> > > > > > > Compulsion is self-torture. > > > > > > Where no compulsion... no problem. > > > > > > Forget letting go of 'self-torture'. > > > > > > Look at the formula: " Let go of X. " > > > > > > For all X, it seems that " Let go of X " is > > > is good suggestion... > > > > > > What is there to *not* let go of? > > > > > > As long as there is some X that has been > > > *identified*, there is constriction/ > > > restriction. > > > > > > So open the gate and let all dem little X's > > > out of their pen. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or > > > > > > > > > > > > ( ... alternatively > > > > > > > > > It's really quite simple: ) > > > > > > No self = > > > No torture > > > > > > ( ... and/or alternatively: > > > > > > > > > It/All/Nothing > > > Is/Isn't > > > Quite/Partially/Barely > > > Simple/Complex -- > > > No/Yes > > > Self/noself -- > > > No/Torture ) > > > > > > Fullness/Emptiness > > > In/Out > > > of/to > > > > > > Love > > > ~*~ > > > Sky > > > > > re: > > > No self = > > > No torture > > > > and the relation between > > " self " and " I " ? > > or between > > " self " and " I am " ? > > > > They're all one. But I expect that's your point, as well. > It wasn't a rhetorical question. I asked because I wanted to know what you would say. So then.... do you continue with: No " I am " = No torture ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > Compulsion is self-torture. > > > > > > > > Where no compulsion... no problem. > > > > > > > > Forget letting go of 'self-torture'. > > > > > > > > Look at the formula: " Let go of X. " > > > > > > > > For all X, it seems that " Let go of X " is > > > > is good suggestion... > > > > > > > > What is there to *not* let go of? > > > > > > > > As long as there is some X that has been > > > > *identified*, there is constriction/ > > > > restriction. > > > > > > > > So open the gate and let all dem little X's > > > > out of their pen. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ( ... alternatively > > > > > > > > > > > > It's really quite simple: ) > > > > > > > > No self = > > > > No torture > > > > > > > > ( ... and/or alternatively: > > > > > > > > > > > > It/All/Nothing > > > > Is/Isn't > > > > Quite/Partially/Barely > > > > Simple/Complex -- > > > > No/Yes > > > > Self/noself -- > > > > No/Torture ) > > > > > > > > Fullness/Emptiness > > > > In/Out > > > > of/to > > > > > > > > Love > > > > ~*~ > > > > Sky > > > > > > > re: > > > > No self = > > > > No torture > > > > > > and the relation between > > > " self " and " I " ? > > > or between > > > " self " and " I am " ? > > > > > > > They're all one. But I expect that's your point, as well. > > > > It wasn't a rhetorical question. > I asked because I wanted to know what > you would say. > > So then.... > > do you continue with: > > No " I am " = No torture ? > I'm not going to respond in code, right now. Rather, I will say that your tone sounds a bit condescending. So, why don't you let me know what you're up to, where you want to go with this. You don't seem to like it when others " interrogate " you, but I'm starting to get the sense that that's what you, in turn, are doing. If you're not, I should be able to sense it. Please proceed with something more inviting than, " do you continue with.... " Thank you in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 L.E: Just a reminder. The following a a conversation that god is having with itself, so to speak. Or that life is having with itself. That this conversations appears to be between two, and that itself is the game, the dance, the show, the performance, purpose and intension of the Infinite. Strange as it may seems. In a message dated 6/11/2006 3:35:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, skywords writes: > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart > wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>( ... alternatively > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>It's really quite simple: ) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No self = > >>>>>>No torture > >>>>>> > >>>>>>( ... and/or alternatively: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>It/All/Nothing > >>>>>>Is/Isn't > >>>>>>Quite/Partially/Barely > >>>>>>Simple/Complex -- > >>>>>>No/Yes > >>>>>>Self/noself -- > >>>>>>No/Torture ) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Fullness/Emptiness > >>>>>>In/Out > >>>>>>of/to > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Love > >>>>>>~*~ > >>>>>>Sky > >>>>>> > >>>>>re: > >>>>>>No self = > >>>>>>No torture > >>>>> > >>>>>and the relation between > >>>>> " self " and " I " ? > >>>>>or between > >>>>> " self " and " I am " ? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>They're all one. But I expect that's your point, as well. > >>>> > >>> > >>>It wasn't a rhetorical question. > >>>I asked because I wanted to know what > >>>you would say. > >>> > >>>So then.... > >>> > >>>do you continue with: > >>> > >>>No " I am " = No torture ? > >>> > >> > >>I'm not going to respond in code, right now. Rather, I will say > >that > >>your tone sounds a bit condescending. So, why don't you let me know > >>what you're up to, where you want to go with this. You don't seem > >to > >>like it when others " interrogate " you, but I'm starting to get the > >>sense that that's what you, in turn, are doing. If you're not, I > >>should be able to sense it. Please proceed with something more > >>inviting than, " do you continue with.... " > >> > >>Thank you in advance. > >> > > > >Puzzled at " sounds condescending " ... > > > >You said: no self = no torture > > > >You had been seeming to embrace the notion " I am " > >very strongly. > > > >And, as I see it anyway, " I am " *is* a sense of self. > > > >So I wondered if I was seeing a contradiction. > > > >See what I mean? > > > >if self = " I am " > >and no self = no torture > >then no " I am " = no torture > > > >That is all I was getting at. > > > >Bill > > > > OK, " I " was being tortured by the fear of identification with another > illusion. " I " is not saying that " I " is beyond self-torture. As long > as there's an " I, " yes, there is self-torture. Dialog, twoness, is > self-torture. " I " is engaged in self-torture right now. > > But when it occurs that there is no " I, " there is no self, therefore, > no self-torture. Thanks for the clarification, it reduced the > self-torture, or, rather, reduces the sense of " I. " > > ~*~ > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ( ... alternatively > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's really quite simple: ) > > > > > > > > > > No self = > > > > > No torture > > > > > > > > > > ( ... and/or alternatively: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It/All/Nothing > > > > > Is/Isn't > > > > > Quite/Partially/Barely > > > > > Simple/Complex -- > > > > > No/Yes > > > > > Self/noself -- > > > > > No/Torture ) > > > > > > > > > > Fullness/Emptiness > > > > > In/Out > > > > > of/to > > > > > > > > > > Love > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > Sky > > > > > > > > > re: > > > > > No self = > > > > > No torture > > > > > > > > and the relation between > > > > " self " and " I " ? > > > > or between > > > > " self " and " I am " ? > > > > > > > > > > They're all one. But I expect that's your point, as well. > > > > > > > It wasn't a rhetorical question. > > I asked because I wanted to know what > > you would say. > > > > So then.... > > > > do you continue with: > > > > No " I am " = No torture ? > > > > I'm not going to respond in code, right now. Rather, I will say that > your tone sounds a bit condescending. So, why don't you let me know > what you're up to, where you want to go with this. You don't seem to > like it when others " interrogate " you, but I'm starting to get the > sense that that's what you, in turn, are doing. If you're not, I > should be able to sense it. Please proceed with something more > inviting than, " do you continue with.... " > > Thank you in advance. > Puzzled at " sounds condescending " ... You said: no self = no torture You had been seeming to embrace the notion " I am " very strongly. And, as I see it anyway, " I am " *is* a sense of self. So I wondered if I was seeing a contradiction. See what I mean? if self = " I am " and no self = no torture then no " I am " = no torture That is all I was getting at. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ( ... alternatively > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's really quite simple: ) > > > > > > > > > > > > No self = > > > > > > No torture > > > > > > > > > > > > ( ... and/or alternatively: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It/All/Nothing > > > > > > Is/Isn't > > > > > > Quite/Partially/Barely > > > > > > Simple/Complex -- > > > > > > No/Yes > > > > > > Self/noself -- > > > > > > No/Torture ) > > > > > > > > > > > > Fullness/Emptiness > > > > > > In/Out > > > > > > of/to > > > > > > > > > > > > Love > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > Sky > > > > > > > > > > > re: > > > > > > No self = > > > > > > No torture > > > > > > > > > > and the relation between > > > > > " self " and " I " ? > > > > > or between > > > > > " self " and " I am " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're all one. But I expect that's your point, as well. > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't a rhetorical question. > > > I asked because I wanted to know what > > > you would say. > > > > > > So then.... > > > > > > do you continue with: > > > > > > No " I am " = No torture ? > > > > > > > I'm not going to respond in code, right now. Rather, I will say > that > > your tone sounds a bit condescending. So, why don't you let me know > > what you're up to, where you want to go with this. You don't seem > to > > like it when others " interrogate " you, but I'm starting to get the > > sense that that's what you, in turn, are doing. If you're not, I > > should be able to sense it. Please proceed with something more > > inviting than, " do you continue with.... " > > > > Thank you in advance. > > > > Puzzled at " sounds condescending " ... > > You said: no self = no torture > > You had been seeming to embrace the notion " I am " > very strongly. > > And, as I see it anyway, " I am " *is* a sense of self. > > So I wondered if I was seeing a contradiction. > > See what I mean? > > if self = " I am " > and no self = no torture > then no " I am " = no torture > > That is all I was getting at. > > Bill > OK, " I " was being tortured by the fear of identification with another illusion. " I " is not saying that " I " is beyond self-torture. As long as there's an " I, " yes, there is self-torture. Dialog, twoness, is self-torture. " I " is engaged in self-torture right now. But when it occurs that there is no " I, " there is no self, therefore, no self-torture. Thanks for the clarification, it reduced the self-torture, or, rather, reduces the sense of " I. " ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or/ & /or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ( ... alternatively > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's really quite simple: ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No self = > > > > > > > No torture > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ( ... and/or alternatively: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It/All/Nothing > > > > > > > Is/Isn't > > > > > > > Quite/Partially/Barely > > > > > > > Simple/Complex -- > > > > > > > No/Yes > > > > > > > Self/noself -- > > > > > > > No/Torture ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fullness/Emptiness > > > > > > > In/Out > > > > > > > of/to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > Sky > > > > > > > > > > > > > re: > > > > > > > No self = > > > > > > > No torture > > > > > > > > > > > > and the relation between > > > > > > " self " and " I " ? > > > > > > or between > > > > > > " self " and " I am " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're all one. But I expect that's your point, as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't a rhetorical question. > > > > I asked because I wanted to know what > > > > you would say. > > > > > > > > So then.... > > > > > > > > do you continue with: > > > > > > > > No " I am " = No torture ? > > > > > > > > > > I'm not going to respond in code, right now. Rather, I will say > > that > > > your tone sounds a bit condescending. So, why don't you let me know > > > what you're up to, where you want to go with this. You don't seem > > to > > > like it when others " interrogate " you, but I'm starting to get the > > > sense that that's what you, in turn, are doing. If you're not, I > > > should be able to sense it. Please proceed with something more > > > inviting than, " do you continue with.... " > > > > > > Thank you in advance. > > > > > > > Puzzled at " sounds condescending " ... > > > > You said: no self = no torture > > > > You had been seeming to embrace the notion " I am " > > very strongly. > > > > And, as I see it anyway, " I am " *is* a sense of self. > > > > So I wondered if I was seeing a contradiction. > > > > See what I mean? > > > > if self = " I am " > > and no self = no torture > > then no " I am " = no torture > > > > That is all I was getting at. > > > > Bill > > > > > OK, " I " was being tortured by the fear of identification with another > illusion. " I " is not saying that " I " is beyond self-torture. As long > as there's an " I, " yes, there is self-torture. Dialog, twoness, is > self-torture. " I " is engaged in self-torture right now. > > But when it occurs that there is no " I, " there is no self, therefore, > no self-torture. Thanks for the clarification, it reduced the > self-torture, or, rather, reduces the sense of " I. " > > ~*~ > since you like word-play: reduces the sense of " I " = I-rosion and does seem what happens as " I " becomes less and less and less until " " am 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.