Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with thoughts.... ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with thoughts.... > ...iietsa > and then we go on with all kinds of monkey-buisness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with thoughts.... > ...iietsa > Wow ! It means you must have known your 'true nature' else you couldn't forget it. Or are you just speculating because you already have read to much of that kind ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with thoughts.... > > ...iietsa > > > > Wow ! > > It means you must have known your 'true nature' else you couldn't > forget it. > > Or are you just speculating because you already have read to much of > that kind ? > > Werner > I guess you can fuss about this as well... but it will never take you out of the fussing-buisness...mind-area .....being involved with thoughts, so to speak.... ....if you get involved with thoughts.... ....you go away from your real " self " ... ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > thoughts.... > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > Wow ! > > > > It means you must have known your 'true nature' else you couldn't > > forget it. > > > > Or are you just speculating because you already have read to much > of > > that kind ? > > > > Werner > > > > > I guess you can fuss about this as well... > but it will never take you out of the fussing-buisness...mind-area > ....being involved with thoughts, so to speak.... > > ...if you get involved with thoughts.... > ...you go away from your real " self " ... > ...iietsa > Oh dear, Your 'truths' are like stale beer, commonplaces endlessly repeated. But ok, you don't see it else you would't post that stuff, so I hope you forgive me. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > > thoughts.... > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > Wow ! > > > > > > It means you must have known your 'true nature' else you couldn't > > > forget it. > > > > > > Or are you just speculating because you already have read to much > > of > > > that kind ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > I guess you can fuss about this as well... > > but it will never take you out of the fussing-buisness...mind- area > > ....being involved with thoughts, so to speak.... > > > > ...if you get involved with thoughts.... > > ...you go away from your real " self " ... > > ...iietsa > > > > Oh dear, > > Your 'truths' are like stale beer, commonplaces endlessly repeated. > > But ok, you don't see it else you would't post that stuff, so I hope > you forgive me. > > Werner > exactly what " truths " are you talking about ? ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with thoughts.... > ...iietsa > We have no true nature. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > thoughts.... > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > Wow ! > > > > It means you must have known your 'true nature' else you couldn't > > forget it. > > > > Or are you just speculating because you already have read to much > of > > that kind ? > > > > Werner > > > > > I guess you can fuss about this as well... > but it will never take you out of the fussing-buisness...mind-area > ....being involved with thoughts, so to speak.... > > ...if you get involved with thoughts.... > ...you go away from your real " self " ... > ...iietsa > You are nothing but thoughts. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with thoughts.... > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > We have no true nature. > > > toombaru you appear to focus to much on the word-world...(maby you are not) beyong all words... beyond all thoughts... (...beyond the mind...) there is no longer right and wrong... there is no longer true and false there is no longer any knowledge there is no longer anybody saying anything at all... nothing is there.... only I-AM-NESS...(those are just words trying to say something beyond them selves) dont get stuck to the words....I dont say you do let them be what they are...I dont say you dont there is nothing to protect...I dont say you do and nothing to fight...I dont say you do no pride to defend...dito ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with thoughts.... > ...iietsa > what do you mean by " involved with " ? there can be thought without any personal attachment involved. for example, one does not have to, necessarily, " forget one's own true nature " to solve a math problem, even though it involves thought. so the key is not thought, but " involved with " . we forget our own true nature when we get " involved with " X, for any X. [depending on your definition of " involved with " of course]. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > > thoughts.... > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have no true nature. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > you appear to focus to much on the word-world...(maby you are not) > > > > > No ideation can contain a life that is vital and changing and fully > energetic. > > What is the 'true nature' of a wave......the sun.....a child? > > > > > toombaru > nature is truth truth is love waves return to the sea touch the sun in the eyes of a child... Love you toombaru and pray tell, what is toombaru's truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > > > thoughts.... > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have no true nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > you appear to focus to much on the word-world...(maby you are > not) > > > > > > > > > No ideation can contain a life that is vital and changing and fully > > energetic. > > > > What is the 'true nature' of a wave......the sun.....a child? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > nature is truth > truth is love > waves return to the sea > touch the sun > in the eyes of a child... > > > Love you toombaru > and pray tell, what is toombaru's truth? > This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > > > > thoughts.... > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have no true nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > you appear to focus to much on the word-world...(maby you are > > not) > > > > > > > > > > > > > No ideation can contain a life that is vital and changing and fully > > > energetic. > > > > > > What is the 'true nature' of a wave......the sun.....a child? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > nature is truth > > truth is love > > waves return to the sea > > touch the sun > > in the eyes of a child... > > > > > > Love you toombaru > > and pray tell, what is toombaru's truth? > > > > > > > This > good... so is it full... or empty...? Am I part of your truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > <lastrain@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > > > > > thoughts.... > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have no true nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > you appear to focus to much on the word-world...(maby you > are > > > not) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No ideation can contain a life that is vital and changing and > fully > > > > energetic. > > > > > > > > What is the 'true nature' of a wave......the sun.....a child? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > nature is truth > > > truth is love > > > waves return to the sea > > > touch the sun > > > in the eyes of a child... > > > > > > > > > Love you toombaru > > > and pray tell, what is toombaru's truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > This > > > > > good... so is it full... or empty...? > > Am I part of your truth? > Yes and no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with thoughts.... > > ...iietsa > > > > what do you mean by " involved with " ? > > there can be thought without any personal > attachment involved. > > for example, one does not have to, necessarily, > " forget one's own true nature " to solve a math > problem, even though it involves thought. > > so the key is not thought, but " involved with " . > > we forget our own true nature when we get > " involved with " X, for any X. [depending > on your definition of " involved with " of > course]. > > Bill > iietsa may be making a descriptive rather than a prescriptive statement. He seems to shift, depending on the moment to moment dialectic, as seems the case throughout, including this list, of course. That's why it's alternatively nonsense, good sense. I believe it's impossible to be wrong. But this statement is open to relevant (mis)understanding, as well. Taken descriptively, though, iietsa's statement is easily promoted, thus: I know I " forget my true nature " when I get involved in most/all (depends on context) thoughts or anything else. Nothing " wrong " with " forgetting our true nature, " is there? It's just a simple (or complex, you tell me, depends, too, doesn't it?) lapse. Since you seem to take it as a prescriptive statement, you're therefore, perhaps, almost compelled to make the necessary " corrections. " No problem there, either. luv ya ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > > > > thoughts.... > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have no true nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > you appear to focus to much on the word-world...(maby you are > > not) > > > > > > > > > > > > > No ideation can contain a life that is vital and changing and fully > > > energetic. > > > > > > What is the 'true nature' of a wave......the sun.....a child? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > nature is truth > > truth is love > > waves return to the sea > > touch the sun > > in the eyes of a child... > > > > > > Love you toombaru > > and pray tell, what is toombaru's truth? > > > > > > > This > Ahhh... you actually say something positive here... and while words can't *describe* that words can *emanate from* that. words that do not seek, nor have a purpose... " I talk because the words naturally come out. There is no intention behind my talks that you should get knowledge. " -- Nisargadatta Majaraj *Consciousness and the Absolute* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > > > > > thoughts.... > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have no true nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > you appear to focus to much on the word-world...(maby you are > > > not) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No ideation can contain a life that is vital and changing and fully > > > > energetic. > > > > > > > > What is the 'true nature' of a wave......the sun.....a child? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > nature is truth > > > truth is love > > > waves return to the sea > > > touch the sun > > > in the eyes of a child... > > > > > > > > > Love you toombaru > > > and pray tell, what is toombaru's truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > This > > > > Ahhh... you actually say something positive here... > > and while words can't *describe* that > words can *emanate from* that. > > words that do not seek, nor have a purpose... > > > " I talk because the words naturally come out. > There is no intention behind my talks that > you should get knowledge. " > > -- Nisargadatta Majaraj > *Consciousness and the Absolute* > Yes! Because teaching is a pain in the ass. No one wants to teach/be " taught a lesson " (in T's zen terms, it might be " taut a lessen " , there's a vindictive undercurrent, as the cliche proves). But T seems compelled to teach. Thus, his " ass " is mired in the " asphault " of his own imagery. We are as we believe, both of ourselves and of others. As of others, as of ourselves, invariably, I preach! I love Toombaru, he is me. What a kick! luv ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > > > > > thoughts.... > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have no true nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > you appear to focus to much on the word-world...(maby you are > > > not) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No ideation can contain a life that is vital and changing and fully > > > > energetic. > > > > > > > > What is the 'true nature' of a wave......the sun.....a child? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > nature is truth > > > truth is love > > > waves return to the sea > > > touch the sun > > > in the eyes of a child... > > > > > > > > > Love you toombaru > > > and pray tell, what is toombaru's truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > This > > > > Ahhh... you actually say something positive here... > > and while words can't *describe* that > words can *emanate from* that. > > words that do not seek, nor have a purpose... > > > " I talk because the words naturally come out. > There is no intention behind my talks that > you should get knowledge. " > > -- Nisargadatta Majaraj > *Consciousness and the Absolute* > The knowledge that the master provides in the form of teaching is ultimately not true, in the sense that the teaching is essentially just a system of ideas or set of concepts offered to the aspirant as a way to make sense of his or her experiences. Ideas and concepts, however useful within the illusion, are still within that illusion and so are not true. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with thoughts.... > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > what do you mean by " involved with " ? > > > > there can be thought without any personal > > attachment involved. > > > > for example, one does not have to, necessarily, > > " forget one's own true nature " to solve a math > > problem, even though it involves thought. > > > > so the key is not thought, but " involved with " . > > > > we forget our own true nature when we get > > " involved with " X, for any X. [depending > > on your definition of " involved with " of > > course]. > > > > Bill > > > iietsa may be making a descriptive rather than a prescriptive > statement. He seems to shift, depending on the moment to moment > dialectic, as seems the case throughout, including this list, of > course. That's why it's alternatively nonsense, good sense. > > I believe it's impossible to be wrong. But this statement is open to > relevant (mis)understanding, as well. > > Taken descriptively, though, iietsa's statement is easily promoted, thus: > > I know I " forget my true nature " when I get involved in most/all > (depends on context) thoughts or anything else. Nothing " wrong " with > " forgetting our true nature, " is there? It's just a simple (or > complex, you tell me, depends, too, doesn't it?) lapse. > > Since you seem to take it as a prescriptive statement, you're > therefore, perhaps, almost compelled to make the necessary > " corrections. " No problem there, either. > > luv > ya > > ~*~ > golly Sky you really missed on that one! I didn't see as prescriptive at all! I thought my point was pretty clear: " involved with " is the thing, not " thought " Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > > thoughts.... > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have no true nature. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > you appear to focus to much on the word-world...(maby you are not) > > > > > No ideation can contain a life that is vital and changing and fully > energetic. > > What is the 'true nature' of a wave......the sun.....a child? > > > > > toombaru > you appear to focus on the wave...the sun...a child ? ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with thoughts.... > > ...iietsa > > > > what do you mean by " involved with " ? > > there can be thought without any personal > attachment involved. > > for example, one does not have to, necessarily, > " forget one's own true nature " to solve a math > problem, even though it involves thought. > > so the key is not thought, but " involved with " . > > we forget our own true nature when we get > " involved with " X, for any X. [depending > on your definition of " involved with " of > course]. > > Bill yes...involfed with...or interfered with...or focused on.... all those is the ego-persons relations to and with X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > thoughts.... > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > what do you mean by " involved with " ? > > > > there can be thought without any personal > > attachment involved. > > > > for example, one does not have to, necessarily, > > " forget one's own true nature " to solve a math > > problem, even though it involves thought. > > > > so the key is not thought, but " involved with " . > > > > we forget our own true nature when we get > > " involved with " X, for any X. [depending > > on your definition of " involved with " of > > course]. > > > > Bill > > yes...involfed with...or interfered with...or focused on.... > all those is the ego-persons relations to and with X > you know... that may be a very good way to get at the so-called " ego " thing... " involved with " especially... for example " Where am I 'involved'? " as a test of " Where I am not detached. " much appreciation, Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > thoughts.... > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > what do you mean by " involved with " ? > > > > > > there can be thought without any personal > > > attachment involved. > > > > > > for example, one does not have to, necessarily, > > > " forget one's own true nature " to solve a math > > > problem, even though it involves thought. > > > > > > so the key is not thought, but " involved with " . > > > > > > we forget our own true nature when we get > > > " involved with " X, for any X. [depending > > > on your definition of " involved with " of > > > course]. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > iietsa may be making a descriptive rather than a prescriptive > > statement. He seems to shift, depending on the moment to moment > > dialectic, as seems the case throughout, including this list, of > > course. That's why it's alternatively nonsense, good sense. > > > > I believe it's impossible to be wrong. But this statement is open to > > relevant (mis)understanding, as well. > > > > Taken descriptively, though, iietsa's statement is easily promoted, > thus: > > > > I know I " forget my true nature " when I get involved in most/all > > (depends on context) thoughts or anything else. Nothing " wrong " with > > " forgetting our true nature, " is there? It's just a simple (or > > complex, you tell me, depends, too, doesn't it?) lapse. > > > > Since you seem to take it as a prescriptive statement, you're > > therefore, perhaps, almost compelled to make the necessary > > " corrections. " No problem there, either. > > > > luv > > ya > > > > ~*~ > > > > golly Sky > you really missed on that one! > > I didn't see as prescriptive at all! > > I thought my point was pretty clear: > " involved with " is the thing, > not " thought " > > Bill > Repeating yourself doesn't clarify, nor do expletives. golly Bill, we're not talking about " the thing, " we're talking to each other about ourselves. ;-) ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > > thoughts.... > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > what do you mean by " involved with " ? > > > > > > > > there can be thought without any personal > > > > attachment involved. > > > > > > > > for example, one does not have to, necessarily, > > > > " forget one's own true nature " to solve a math > > > > problem, even though it involves thought. > > > > > > > > so the key is not thought, but " involved with " . > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature when we get > > > > " involved with " X, for any X. [depending > > > > on your definition of " involved with " of > > > > course]. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > iietsa may be making a descriptive rather than a prescriptive > > > statement. He seems to shift, depending on the moment to moment > > > dialectic, as seems the case throughout, including this list, of > > > course. That's why it's alternatively nonsense, good sense. > > > > > > I believe it's impossible to be wrong. But this statement is open to > > > relevant (mis)understanding, as well. > > > > > > Taken descriptively, though, iietsa's statement is easily promoted, > > thus: > > > > > > I know I " forget my true nature " when I get involved in most/all > > > (depends on context) thoughts or anything else. Nothing " wrong " with > > > " forgetting our true nature, " is there? It's just a simple (or > > > complex, you tell me, depends, too, doesn't it?) lapse. > > > > > > Since you seem to take it as a prescriptive statement, you're > > > therefore, perhaps, almost compelled to make the necessary > > > " corrections. " No problem there, either. > > > > > > luv > > > ya > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > golly Sky > > you really missed on that one! > > > > I didn't see as prescriptive at all! > > > > I thought my point was pretty clear: > > " involved with " is the thing, > > not " thought " > > > > Bill > > > Repeating yourself doesn't clarify, nor do expletives. > > golly Bill, we're not talking about " the thing, " we're talking to each > other about ourselves. > > ;-) > > ~*~ > you said something about descriptive vs. prescriptive. I am simply saying that I completely disagree with your assessment in that regard. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature, when we get involved with > > > thoughts.... > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what do you mean by " involved with " ? > > > > > > > > > > there can be thought without any personal > > > > > attachment involved. > > > > > > > > > > for example, one does not have to, necessarily, > > > > > " forget one's own true nature " to solve a math > > > > > problem, even though it involves thought. > > > > > > > > > > so the key is not thought, but " involved with " . > > > > > > > > > > we forget our own true nature when we get > > > > > " involved with " X, for any X. [depending > > > > > on your definition of " involved with " of > > > > > course]. > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > iietsa may be making a descriptive rather than a prescriptive > > > > statement. He seems to shift, depending on the moment to moment > > > > dialectic, as seems the case throughout, including this list, of > > > > course. That's why it's alternatively nonsense, good sense. > > > > > > > > I believe it's impossible to be wrong. But this statement is > open to > > > > relevant (mis)understanding, as well. > > > > > > > > Taken descriptively, though, iietsa's statement is easily promoted, > > > thus: > > > > > > > > I know I " forget my true nature " when I get involved in most/all > > > > (depends on context) thoughts or anything else. Nothing " wrong " > with > > > > " forgetting our true nature, " is there? It's just a simple (or > > > > complex, you tell me, depends, too, doesn't it?) lapse. > > > > > > > > Since you seem to take it as a prescriptive statement, you're > > > > therefore, perhaps, almost compelled to make the necessary > > > > " corrections. " No problem there, either. > > > > > > > > luv > > > > ya > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > golly Sky > > > you really missed on that one! > > > > > > I didn't see as prescriptive at all! > > > > > > I thought my point was pretty clear: > > > " involved with " is the thing, > > > not " thought " > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Repeating yourself doesn't clarify, nor do expletives. > > > > golly Bill, we're not talking about " the thing, " we're talking to each > > other about ourselves. > > > > ;-) > > > > ~*~ > > > you said something about descriptive vs. prescriptive. > > I am simply saying that I completely disagree with > your assessment in that regard. > > Bill > Well, that doesn't sound like much of a contribution. I thought you had the energy to make your views sympathetic as opposed to merely negative. No problem, though, really. lv ~*~ 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.