Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 > >P: And is not wise, to turn > > nightmares into peaceful dreams? T: The attempt to do so exacerbates the suffering. P: You know that is false. If someone is depressed, going to a doctor for a pill, or the gun shop for a bullet will end the depression. T: All efforts to alleviate suffering are futile. P: You are putting a lot of effort in posting here, if you really thought it was futile, you wouldn't do it. That is the basic insincerity of your position: you preach futility and nondoing to others, while remaining relentless in pushing your beliefs. T: When the understanding of the source of suffering dawns....it is no more relevant then a well made movie. P: Wrong again, understanding that all mental suffering comes from identification with an entity doesn't make your wife dying as irrelevant as a movie. But seeing that it didn't happened to " you, " that not only your wife died, but your 'life' also dies every second, helps the moving on, the not getting stuck in the past. Toomb 'then' is only used only to designate a past or future period of time, when comparing everything else 'than' is used. eg: " Then, I was working, now, I'm don't; so then, I had more money than now. Maybe I'll get a job again, and then, I'll have as much money as before. " T: If there is a 'you'......it suffers.....The suffering is itself a symptom of an perceptual imperfection. P: Yes T: The desire to avoid suffering.....leads to more suffering. P: The desire to understand suffering leads to freedom. T: There is way to end all suffering. P: Yes. Tell me about it T: All knowledge is ignorance. P: Why do you post, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > >P: And is not wise, to turn > > > nightmares into peaceful dreams? > > T: The attempt to do so exacerbates the suffering. > > P: You know that is false. If someone is depressed, > going to a doctor for a pill, or the gun shop for a bullet > will end the depression. > > T: All efforts to alleviate suffering are futile. > > P: You are putting a lot of effort in posting > here, if you really thought it was futile, you wouldn't > do it. That is the basic insincerity of your position: > you preach futility and nondoing to others, while > remaining relentless in pushing your beliefs. > > > > T: When the understanding of the source of suffering dawns....it is no > more relevant then a well made movie. > > P: Wrong again, understanding that all mental suffering comes > from identification with an entity doesn't make your wife dying as > irrelevant as a movie. But seeing that it didn't happened to " you, " > that not only your wife died, but your 'life' also dies every second, > helps the moving on, the not getting stuck in the past. > > Toomb 'then' is only used only to designate a past or future period > of time, > when comparing everything else 'than' is used. eg: " Then, I was > working, now, > I'm don't; so then, I had more money than now. Maybe I'll get a job > again, > and then, I'll have as much money as before. " > > > > T: If there is a 'you'......it suffers.....The suffering is itself a > symptom of an perceptual imperfection. > > P: Yes > > T: The desire to avoid suffering.....leads to more suffering. > > P: The desire to understand suffering leads to freedom. > > > > T: There is way to end all suffering. > > P: Yes. Tell me about it > > T: All knowledge is ignorance. > > P: Why do you post, then? > > > P, the things you say make perfect sense. T, on the other hand, is not trying to make sense in the ordinary logical sense of sense. He's appealing to what you might understand as a metalanguage. Both of you are right, in my language. However, what's the feeling behind your dialog? That's what interests me. There seems to be a feeling of annoyance and intellectual exuberance. I enjoy them both. lv ~*~ 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 , Pete S <pedsie5@> wrote: > > > > > >P: And is not wise, to turn > > > > nightmares into peaceful dreams? > > > > T: The attempt to do so exacerbates the suffering. > > > > P: You know that is false. If someone is depressed, > > going to a doctor for a pill, or the gun shop for a bullet > > will end the depression. > > > > T: All efforts to alleviate suffering are futile. > > > > P: You are putting a lot of effort in posting > > here, if you really thought it was futile, you wouldn't > > do it. That is the basic insincerity of your position: > > you preach futility and nondoing to others, while > > remaining relentless in pushing your beliefs. > > > > > > > > T: When the understanding of the source of suffering dawns....it is no > > more relevant then a well made movie. > > > > P: Wrong again, understanding that all mental suffering comes > > from identification with an entity doesn't make your wife dying as > > irrelevant as a movie. But seeing that it didn't happened to " you, " > > that not only your wife died, but your 'life' also dies every second, > > helps the moving on, the not getting stuck in the past. > > > > Toomb 'then' is only used only to designate a past or future period > > of time, > > when comparing everything else 'than' is used. eg: " Then, I was > > working, now, > > I'm don't; so then, I had more money than now. Maybe I'll get a job > > again, > > and then, I'll have as much money as before. " > > > > > > > > T: If there is a 'you'......it suffers.....The suffering is itself a > > symptom of an perceptual imperfection. > > > > P: Yes > > > > T: The desire to avoid suffering.....leads to more suffering. > > > > P: The desire to understand suffering leads to freedom. > > > > > > > > T: There is way to end all suffering. > > > > P: Yes. Tell me about it > > > > T: All knowledge is ignorance. > > > > P: Why do you post, then? > > > > > > > P, the things you say make perfect sense. T, on the other hand, is > not trying to make sense in the ordinary logical sense of sense. He's > appealing to what you might understand as a metalanguage. Both of you > are right, in my language. > > However, what's the feeling behind your dialog? That's what interests > me. There seems to be a feeling of annoyance and intellectual > exuberance. I enjoy them both. > > lv > ~*~ > You could call toombaru's usage a kind of metalanguage, but his writing really doesn't deserve that term because he is not rigorous with it in discussion. As a metalanguage his writing is full of serious holes, but he resists any rigorous dialog that goes to the root of it. Pete touches on one of those holes when he writes: > > P: You are putting a lot of effort in posting > > here, if you really thought it was futile, you wouldn't > > do it. That is the basic insincerity of your position: > > you preach futility and nondoing to others, while > > remaining relentless in pushing your beliefs. To me the issue is the insincerity that Pete mentions. Since you are weighing in here, it would be interesting to see what you have to say on that point regarding toombaru's posts here. I.e. when he responds to a challenge, is he open and honest about it? To me he seems to be essentially a Sophist... just concerned with winning the point. I'm not sure if he is truly dishonest or just so narrow-minded and unwilling to hear what anyone else says that he comes across that way. He reminds me of a friend that is very far to the right in his political views. My friend is not knowingly dishonest. But he is so welded to his " beliefs " that he always twists things around to where there is no discussing with him. In fact, toombaru reminds me of that friend a great deal. [Actually, toombaru is not really as bad, because there is that small percent of the time when he does come through and give up the hard-nosed stance.] Anyway, am interested in your view on this Sky... Bill PS to toombaru: chime in if you feel to! 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 , Pete S <pedsie5@> wrote: > > > > > > > >P: And is not wise, to turn > > > > > nightmares into peaceful dreams? > > > > > > T: The attempt to do so exacerbates the suffering. > > > > > > P: You know that is false. If someone is depressed, > > > going to a doctor for a pill, or the gun shop for a bullet > > > will end the depression. > > > > > > T: All efforts to alleviate suffering are futile. > > > > > > P: You are putting a lot of effort in posting > > > here, if you really thought it was futile, you wouldn't > > > do it. That is the basic insincerity of your position: > > > you preach futility and nondoing to others, while > > > remaining relentless in pushing your beliefs. > > > > > > > > > > > > T: When the understanding of the source of suffering dawns....it > is no > > > more relevant then a well made movie. > > > > > > P: Wrong again, understanding that all mental suffering comes > > > from identification with an entity doesn't make your wife dying as > > > irrelevant as a movie. But seeing that it didn't happened to " you, " > > > that not only your wife died, but your 'life' also dies every second, > > > helps the moving on, the not getting stuck in the past. > > > > > > Toomb 'then' is only used only to designate a past or future period > > > of time, > > > when comparing everything else 'than' is used. eg: " Then, I was > > > working, now, > > > I'm don't; so then, I had more money than now. Maybe I'll get a job > > > again, > > > and then, I'll have as much money as before. " > > > > > > > > > > > > T: If there is a 'you'......it suffers.....The suffering is itself a > > > symptom of an perceptual imperfection. > > > > > > P: Yes > > > > > > T: The desire to avoid suffering.....leads to more suffering. > > > > > > P: The desire to understand suffering leads to freedom. > > > > > > > > > > > > T: There is way to end all suffering. > > > > > > P: Yes. Tell me about it > > > > > > T: All knowledge is ignorance. > > > > > > P: Why do you post, then? > > > > > > > > > > > P, the things you say make perfect sense. T, on the other hand, is > > not trying to make sense in the ordinary logical sense of sense. He's > > appealing to what you might understand as a metalanguage. Both of you > > are right, in my language. > > > > However, what's the feeling behind your dialog? That's what interests > > me. There seems to be a feeling of annoyance and intellectual > > exuberance. I enjoy them both. > > > > lv > > ~*~ > > > > You could call toombaru's usage a kind of metalanguage, > but his writing really doesn't deserve that term because > he is not rigorous with it in discussion. > > As a metalanguage his writing is full of serious holes, > but he resists any rigorous dialog that goes to the root > of it. Pete touches on one of those holes when he writes: > > > > P: You are putting a lot of effort in posting > > > here, if you really thought it was futile, you wouldn't > > > do it. That is the basic insincerity of your position: > > > you preach futility and nondoing to others, while > > > remaining relentless in pushing your beliefs. > > To me the issue is the insincerity that Pete mentions. > Since you are weighing in here, it would be interesting > to see what you have to say on that point regarding > toombaru's posts here. I.e. when he responds to a challenge, > is he open and honest about it? > > To me he seems to be essentially a Sophist... just concerned > with winning the point. I'm not sure if he is truly dishonest > or just so narrow-minded and unwilling to hear what anyone > else says that he comes across that way. He reminds me of a > friend that is very far to the right in his political views. > My friend is not knowingly dishonest. But he is so welded to > his " beliefs " that he always twists things around to where > there is no discussing with him. In fact, toombaru reminds > me of that friend a great deal. [Actually, toombaru is not > really as bad, because there is that small percent of the > time when he does come through and give up the hard-nosed > stance.] > > Anyway, am interested in your view on this Sky... > > Bill > > PS to toombaru: chime in if you feel to! > Again, as far as I'm concerned, the big " mistake, " or " detour, " if you want, is that we seem to think that we're talking about " something. " You know, like a mathematical equation or a computer program. A lot of tech and science and philosophy " freaks " seem attracted to this " nonduality " gig. But, from my perspective, the psychotherapeutic one, which has its own detours, I'm sure, what we're really talking about is our own personal experience, so pontificating about " it " is really indirect. I'd rather just say that toomburry feels to me like he's offering up his version of what makes him feel " more liberated than. " And for him, it's a kind of spontaneous koanish way to zen it up. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for him to make any effort at contextual consistency. For him, he is the context. He feels he's earned that position from his personal experience among other like minded seekers. In fact, he's been so steeped in years of that experience, that he's built up a tremendous sense of self confidence in his manner. Others, however, having developed a self confidence, say, in your case, based on a different kind of rigor, experience dissonance when exposed to T's practice. For me, the whole thing is fascinating. I don't feel particularly offended by any one side, because of the context I'm coming from. And I certainly don't detect anything " bad " or " insincere, " because that's not the currency I want to mirror for myself, either here, or in general. It doesn't feel creative. I'd rather just understand better, ultimately, myself. Hope I don't sound too elitist in my own way. Seems we're all striking a certain elitist pose or another. Maybe I'm just projecting, as invariably we all are. I guess my question to you would be, when do you feel yourself to be " bad, " and " insincere " ? I don't mean this as a challenge. I'm really curious about it. lv ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 On Jun 25, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > SW: P, the things you say make perfect sense. T, on the other hand, is > not trying to make sense in the ordinary logical sense of sense. He's > appealing to what you might understand as a metalanguage. Both of you > are right, in my language. P: Is it not what you said above, your opinion, your feeling? Why should I take it as more valid than mine? I have read Toomb's stuff for 4 years now. How long have you read his stuff? Toomb is saying today, the same he said 4 years ago, and in exactly the same way. Matter of fact, he could save himself much typing by randomly copying and pasting his own stuff to any post. Few will notice his replies are total non sequiturs. Reading nonsensical snippets on list can't work as koans do. A single koan has to become an obsession for the intellectual program to crash down. And then, it's better to have a teacher at hand to help reboot the brain. > > SW However, what's the feeling behind your dialog? That's what > interests > me. There seems to be a feeling of annoyance and intellectual > exuberance. I enjoy them both. P: What you feel regarding my posts are your feelings, they're generated by your mind, not mine. That my feelings interest you only proves that you consider feelings important. I never hold on to any feeling. If I feel blissful I let that go; if I feel annoy, I let that go too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > On Jun 25, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > > > SW: P, the things you say make perfect sense. T, on the other hand, is > > not trying to make sense in the ordinary logical sense of sense. He's > > appealing to what you might understand as a metalanguage. Both of you > > are right, in my language. > > > P: Is it not what you said above, your opinion, your feeling? > Why should I take it as more valid than mine? I have read > Toomb's stuff for 4 years now. How long have you read his stuff? > > Toomb is saying today, the same he said 4 years ago, and in exactly > the same way. Matter of fact, he could save himself much typing > by randomly copying and pasting his own stuff to any post. Few will > notice his replies are total non sequiturs. Reading nonsensical > snippets on list can't work as koans do. A single koan has to > become an obsession for the intellectual program to crash down. > And then, it's better to have a teacher at hand to help reboot the > brain. > > > > > > > SW However, what's the feeling behind your dialog? That's what > > interests > > me. There seems to be a feeling of annoyance and intellectual > > exuberance. I enjoy them both. > > P: What you feel regarding my posts are your feelings, they're generated > by your mind, not mine. That my feelings interest you only proves that > you consider feelings important. I never hold on to any feeling. If I > feel > blissful I let that go; if I feel annoy, I let that go too. > > > Now ...........if you could only let go of that 'I' thing....... 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 , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > On Jun 25, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > > > SW: P, the things you say make perfect sense. T, on the other hand, is > > not trying to make sense in the ordinary logical sense of sense. He's > > appealing to what you might understand as a metalanguage. Both of you > > are right, in my language. > > > P: Is it not what you said above, your opinion, your feeling? > Why should I take it as more valid than mine? I have read > Toomb's stuff for 4 years now. How long have you read his stuff? > > Toomb is saying today, the same he said 4 years ago, and in exactly > the same way. Matter of fact, he could save himself much typing > by randomly copying and pasting his own stuff to any post. Few will > notice his replies are total non sequiturs. Reading nonsensical > snippets on list can't work as koans do. A single koan has to > become an obsession for the intellectual program to crash down. > And then, it's better to have a teacher at hand to help reboot the > brain. > > > > > > > SW However, what's the feeling behind your dialog? That's what > > interests > > me. There seems to be a feeling of annoyance and intellectual > > exuberance. I enjoy them both. > > P: What you feel regarding my posts are your feelings, they're generated > by your mind, not mine. That my feelings interest you only proves that > you consider feelings important. I never hold on to any feeling. If I > feel > blissful I let that go; if I feel annoy, I let that go too. > > > P: Is it not what you said above, your opinion, your feeling? > Why should I take it as more valid than mine? I have read > Toomb's stuff for 4 years now. How long have you read his stuff? > > Toomb is saying today, the same he said 4 years ago, and in exactly > the same way. Matter of fact, he could save himself much typing > by randomly copying and pasting his own stuff to any post. Few will > notice his replies are total non sequiturs. Reading nonsensical > snippets on list can't work as koans do. A single koan has to > become an obsession for the intellectual program to crash down. > And then, it's better to have a teacher at hand to help reboot the > brain. First of all, I never said mine were more valid than yours. I'm just saying that I'm not offended by T and I'm explaining why. P: What you feel regarding my posts are your feelings, they're generated > by your mind, not mine. That my feelings interest you only proves that > you consider feelings important. I never hold on to any feeling. If I > feel > blissful I let that go; if I feel annoy, I let that go too. > So, if your feelings are so transcient, then how long have you felt the way you do about T? 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.