Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > some may say, that some knowledge is better than other > > > > knowledge.... > > > > > > but that is just knowledge.......ignorance > > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of one has acquired a habit of continually returning > > > > > to the now, to the present moment, is that habit > > > > > knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > and if so is it ignorance? > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to return to the now.....one would have to somehow have > > > gotten outside of the now....and then by definition would be forever > > > lost in some strange place. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > I'm sort of with you on that... > > > > any not-in-the-now-ness would have to be virtual, > > not real, as now is always necessarily the case. > > > > hence any " return to the now " would have to be > > virtual as well. > > > > which is a kind of strangeness. > > > > but then the " forever lost " part of your argument > > does not apply. > > > > do we agree that sometimes it happens that a case > > of not-in-the-now can undergoe some sort of (virtual) > > " transformation " such that no longer not-in-the-now? > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > No.........we do not agree. > > > 'Now' is a concept involving another concept 'time'. > > Time would have to be able to be divided into tiny segments in order > for there to be a definite now. > > When the secondary conceptual overlay is seen for what it is..(by no > one)......It falls apart......and in its place......the most pristine > naturalness shines through. OK... so what does that have to do with " now " ? Nothing? And " now " is a concept etc. etc. but " the most pristine naturalness " is not, I suppose. And speaking of CONCEPTS, your " secondary conceptual overlay " really takes the cake! Talk about indulging in thought systems! You are in NO PLACE to talk! Bill > But it cannot be captured with words. > > > 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 , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some may say, that some knowledge is better than other > > > > > knowledge.... > > > > > > > but that is just knowledge.......ignorance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of one has acquired a habit of continually returning > > > > > > to the now, to the present moment, is that habit > > > > > > knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > > > and if so is it ignorance? > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to return to the now.....one would have to somehow have > > > > gotten outside of the now....and then by definition would be forever > > > > lost in some strange place. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > I'm sort of with you on that... > > > > > > any not-in-the-now-ness would have to be virtual, > > > not real, as now is always necessarily the case. > > > > > > hence any " return to the now " would have to be > > > virtual as well. > > > > > > which is a kind of strangeness. > > > > > > but then the " forever lost " part of your argument > > > does not apply. > > > > > > do we agree that sometimes it happens that a case > > > of not-in-the-now can undergoe some sort of (virtual) > > > " transformation " such that no longer not-in-the-now? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > No.........we do not agree. > > > > > > 'Now' is a concept involving another concept 'time'. > > > > Time would have to be able to be divided into tiny segments in order > > for there to be a definite now. > > > > When the secondary conceptual overlay is seen for what it is..(by no > > one)......It falls apart......and in its place......the most pristine > > naturalness shines through. > > OK... so what does that have to do with " now " ? > Nothing? > > And " now " is a concept etc. etc. > but " the most pristine naturalness " is not, I suppose. > > And speaking of CONCEPTS, your " secondary conceptual overlay " > really takes the cake! > > Talk about indulging in thought systems! > You are in NO PLACE to talk! > > Bill Then don't listen to me. 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 , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some may say, that some knowledge is better than other > > > > > > knowledge.... > > > > > > > > but that is just knowledge.......ignorance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of one has acquired a habit of continually returning > > > > > > > to the now, to the present moment, is that habit > > > > > > > knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and if so is it ignorance? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to return to the now.....one would have to somehow have > > > > > gotten outside of the now....and then by definition would be > forever > > > > > lost in some strange place. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sort of with you on that... > > > > > > > > any not-in-the-now-ness would have to be virtual, > > > > not real, as now is always necessarily the case. > > > > > > > > hence any " return to the now " would have to be > > > > virtual as well. > > > > > > > > which is a kind of strangeness. > > > > > > > > but then the " forever lost " part of your argument > > > > does not apply. > > > > > > > > do we agree that sometimes it happens that a case > > > > of not-in-the-now can undergoe some sort of (virtual) > > > > " transformation " such that no longer not-in-the-now? > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No.........we do not agree. > > > > > > > > > 'Now' is a concept involving another concept 'time'. > > > > > > Time would have to be able to be divided into tiny segments in order > > > for there to be a definite now. > > > > > > When the secondary conceptual overlay is seen for what it is..(by no > > > one)......It falls apart......and in its place......the most pristine > > > naturalness shines through. > > > > OK... so what does that have to do with " now " ? > > Nothing? > > > > And " now " is a concept etc. etc. > > but " the most pristine naturalness " is not, I suppose. > > > > And speaking of CONCEPTS, your " secondary conceptual overlay " > > really takes the cake! > > > > Talk about indulging in thought systems! > > You are in NO PLACE to talk! > > > > Bill > > > > Then don't listen to me. > > > > toombaru > it has never been about " listening to you " .... You go around this list calling everyone on what you claim to be nonsense in their posts. I'm calling you on what I regard as nonsense in what you post. You refer to " now " is a concept as if that dismisses it. So I ask you, how is " the most pristine naturalness " any different? Similarly with your " secondary conceptual overlay " . Do you see what I mean about how you seem to apply a double standard? Please explain to me how you are not applying a double standard. 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 , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some may say, that some knowledge is better than other > > > > > > > knowledge.... > > > > > > > > > but that is just knowledge.......ignorance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of one has acquired a habit of continually returning > > > > > > > > to the now, to the present moment, is that habit > > > > > > > > knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and if so is it ignorance? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to return to the now.....one would have to somehow have > > > > > > gotten outside of the now....and then by definition would be > > forever > > > > > > lost in some strange place. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sort of with you on that... > > > > > > > > > > any not-in-the-now-ness would have to be virtual, > > > > > not real, as now is always necessarily the case. > > > > > > > > > > hence any " return to the now " would have to be > > > > > virtual as well. > > > > > > > > > > which is a kind of strangeness. > > > > > > > > > > but then the " forever lost " part of your argument > > > > > does not apply. > > > > > > > > > > do we agree that sometimes it happens that a case > > > > > of not-in-the-now can undergoe some sort of (virtual) > > > > > " transformation " such that no longer not-in-the-now? > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No.........we do not agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Now' is a concept involving another concept 'time'. > > > > > > > > Time would have to be able to be divided into tiny segments in order > > > > for there to be a definite now. > > > > > > > > When the secondary conceptual overlay is seen for what it is..(by no > > > > one)......It falls apart......and in its place......the most > pristine > > > > naturalness shines through. > > > > > > OK... so what does that have to do with " now " ? > > > Nothing? > > > > > > And " now " is a concept etc. etc. > > > but " the most pristine naturalness " is not, I suppose. > > > > > > And speaking of CONCEPTS, your " secondary conceptual overlay " > > > really takes the cake! > > > > > > Talk about indulging in thought systems! > > > You are in NO PLACE to talk! > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Then don't listen to me. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > it has never been about " listening to you " .... > > You go around this list calling everyone on > what you claim to be nonsense in their posts. > I'm calling you on what I regard as nonsense > in what you post. > > You refer to " now " is a concept as if that > dismisses it. So I ask you, how is " the most > pristine naturalness " any different? > > Similarly with your " secondary conceptual overlay " . > > Do you see what I mean about how you seem to > apply a double standard? Please explain to me how > you are not applying a double standard. > > Bill > My impression is that the very nature of authority is what appears to be hypocrisy: do as I say, not as I do. It's the essence of power. Since T considers himself an authority, it only confirms his view of himself for you to see him as hypocritical. Another way that you feed his identity is in your anger. Your anger confirms his view that he is more centered than you are. I would have to, in a sense, agree with him. And, lastly, it is that part of you which wants to be the authority that is offended by his authority. Just as it is mine that would be offended by yours. Offended by your hypocrisy, as it were. ;-)) 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 , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some may say, that some knowledge is better than other > > > > > > > > knowledge.... > > > > > > > > > > but that is just knowledge.......ignorance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of one has acquired a habit of continually returning > > > > > > > > > to the now, to the present moment, is that habit > > > > > > > > > knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and if so is it ignorance? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to return to the now.....one would have to > somehow have > > > > > > > gotten outside of the now....and then by definition would be > > > forever > > > > > > > lost in some strange place. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sort of with you on that... > > > > > > > > > > > > any not-in-the-now-ness would have to be virtual, > > > > > > not real, as now is always necessarily the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > hence any " return to the now " would have to be > > > > > > virtual as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > which is a kind of strangeness. > > > > > > > > > > > > but then the " forever lost " part of your argument > > > > > > does not apply. > > > > > > > > > > > > do we agree that sometimes it happens that a case > > > > > > of not-in-the-now can undergoe some sort of (virtual) > > > > > > " transformation " such that no longer not-in-the-now? > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No.........we do not agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Now' is a concept involving another concept 'time'. > > > > > > > > > > Time would have to be able to be divided into tiny segments in > order > > > > > for there to be a definite now. > > > > > > > > > > When the secondary conceptual overlay is seen for what it > is..(by no > > > > > one)......It falls apart......and in its place......the most > > pristine > > > > > naturalness shines through. > > > > > > > > OK... so what does that have to do with " now " ? > > > > Nothing? > > > > > > > > And " now " is a concept etc. etc. > > > > but " the most pristine naturalness " is not, I suppose. > > > > > > > > And speaking of CONCEPTS, your " secondary conceptual overlay " > > > > really takes the cake! > > > > > > > > Talk about indulging in thought systems! > > > > You are in NO PLACE to talk! > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Then don't listen to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > it has never been about " listening to you " .... > > > > You go around this list calling everyone on > > what you claim to be nonsense in their posts. > > I'm calling you on what I regard as nonsense > > in what you post. > > > > You refer to " now " is a concept as if that > > dismisses it. So I ask you, how is " the most > > pristine naturalness " any different? > > > > Similarly with your " secondary conceptual overlay " . > > > > Do you see what I mean about how you seem to > > apply a double standard? Please explain to me how > > you are not applying a double standard. > > > > Bill > > > > > My impression is that the very nature of authority is what appears to > be hypocrisy: do as I say, not as I do. It's the essence of power. > Since T considers himself an authority, it only confirms his view of > himself for you to see him as hypocritical. > > Another way that you feed his identity is in your anger. Your anger > confirms his view that he is more centered than you are. I would have > to, in a sense, agree with him. > > And, lastly, it is that part of you which wants to be the authority > that is offended by his authority. Just as it is mine that would be > offended by yours. Offended by your hypocrisy, as it were. > > ;-)) > > lv > > ~*~ > " pride " is a bitter piece of food......iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some may say, that some knowledge is better than other > > > > > > > knowledge.... > > > > > > > > > but that is just knowledge.......ignorance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of one has acquired a habit of continually returning > > > > > > > > to the now, to the present moment, is that habit > > > > > > > > knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and if so is it ignorance? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to return to the now.....one would have to somehow have > > > > > > gotten outside of the now....and then by definition would be > > forever > > > > > > lost in some strange place. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sort of with you on that... > > > > > > > > > > any not-in-the-now-ness would have to be virtual, > > > > > not real, as now is always necessarily the case. > > > > > > > > > > hence any " return to the now " would have to be > > > > > virtual as well. > > > > > > > > > > which is a kind of strangeness. > > > > > > > > > > but then the " forever lost " part of your argument > > > > > does not apply. > > > > > > > > > > do we agree that sometimes it happens that a case > > > > > of not-in-the-now can undergoe some sort of (virtual) > > > > > " transformation " such that no longer not-in-the-now? > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No.........we do not agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Now' is a concept involving another concept 'time'. > > > > > > > > Time would have to be able to be divided into tiny segments in order > > > > for there to be a definite now. > > > > > > > > When the secondary conceptual overlay is seen for what it is..(by no > > > > one)......It falls apart......and in its place......the most > pristine > > > > naturalness shines through. > > > > > > OK... so what does that have to do with " now " ? > > > Nothing? > > > > > > And " now " is a concept etc. etc. > > > but " the most pristine naturalness " is not, I suppose. > > > > > > And speaking of CONCEPTS, your " secondary conceptual overlay " > > > really takes the cake! > > > > > > Talk about indulging in thought systems! > > > You are in NO PLACE to talk! > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Then don't listen to me. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > it has never been about " listening to you " .... > > You go around this list calling everyone on > what you claim to be nonsense in their posts. > I'm calling you on what I regard as nonsense > in what you post. > > You refer to " now " is a concept as if that > dismisses it. So I ask you, how is " the most > pristine naturalness " any different? > > Similarly with your " secondary conceptual overlay " . > > Do you see what I mean about how you seem to > apply a double standard? Please explain to me how > you are not applying a double standard. > > Bill > Of course I am applying a double standard. That is what language does. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 <snip> > > > > it has never been about " listening to you " .... > > > > You go around this list calling everyone on > > what you claim to be nonsense in their posts. > > I'm calling you on what I regard as nonsense > > in what you post. > > > > You refer to " now " is a concept as if that > > dismisses it. So I ask you, how is " the most > > pristine naturalness " any different? > > > > Similarly with your " secondary conceptual overlay " . > > > > Do you see what I mean about how you seem to > > apply a double standard? Please explain to me how > > you are not applying a double standard. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > Of course I am applying a double standard. > > That is what language does. > > > toombaru > a cop-out why does it take me so long to simply accept that you really don't want to communicate, that you have your thing you like to do here and just leave you alone while you do it. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > it has never been about " listening to you " .... > > > > > > You go around this list calling everyone on > > > what you claim to be nonsense in their posts. > > > I'm calling you on what I regard as nonsense > > > in what you post. > > > > > > You refer to " now " is a concept as if that > > > dismisses it. So I ask you, how is " the most > > > pristine naturalness " any different? > > > > > > Similarly with your " secondary conceptual overlay " . > > > > > > Do you see what I mean about how you seem to > > > apply a double standard? Please explain to me how > > > you are not applying a double standard. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course I am applying a double standard. > > > > That is what language does. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > a cop-out > > why does it take me so long to simply accept > that you really don't want to communicate, > that you have your thing you like to do here > and just leave you alone while you do it. > > Bill > You can try. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > it has never been about " listening to you " .... > > > > > > You go around this list calling everyone on > > > what you claim to be nonsense in their posts. > > > I'm calling you on what I regard as nonsense > > > in what you post. > > > > > > You refer to " now " is a concept as if that > > > dismisses it. So I ask you, how is " the most > > > pristine naturalness " any different? > > > > > > Similarly with your " secondary conceptual overlay " . > > > > > > Do you see what I mean about how you seem to > > > apply a double standard? Please explain to me how > > > you are not applying a double standard. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course I am applying a double standard. > > > > That is what language does. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > a cop-out > > why does it take me so long to simply accept > that you really don't want to communicate, > that you have your thing you like to do here > and just leave you alone while you do it. > > Bill > For you to answer that honestly would not be a cop out. lv ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > it has never been about " listening to you " .... > > > > > > > > You go around this list calling everyone on > > > > what you claim to be nonsense in their posts. > > > > I'm calling you on what I regard as nonsense > > > > in what you post. > > > > > > > > You refer to " now " is a concept as if that > > > > dismisses it. So I ask you, how is " the most > > > > pristine naturalness " any different? > > > > > > > > Similarly with your " secondary conceptual overlay " . > > > > > > > > Do you see what I mean about how you seem to > > > > apply a double standard? Please explain to me how > > > > you are not applying a double standard. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course I am applying a double standard. > > > > > > That is what language does. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > a cop-out > > > > why does it take me so long to simply accept > > that you really don't want to communicate, > > that you have your thing you like to do here > > and just leave you alone while you do it. > > > > Bill > > > > > For you to answer that honestly would not be a cop out. > > lv > ~*~ > Thanks for that Sky. Len I could just turn off. I simply stopped reading his posts. Not so easy with toombaru. As Patricia just wrote, it makes a different if you care. But I need to stop trying. There comes a point. It is not that I have wanted to change him. It is that I have wanted to connect. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it has never been about " listening to you " .... > > > > > > > > > > You go around this list calling everyone on > > > > > what you claim to be nonsense in their posts. > > > > > I'm calling you on what I regard as nonsense > > > > > in what you post. > > > > > > > > > > You refer to " now " is a concept as if that > > > > > dismisses it. So I ask you, how is " the most > > > > > pristine naturalness " any different? > > > > > > > > > > Similarly with your " secondary conceptual overlay " . > > > > > > > > > > Do you see what I mean about how you seem to > > > > > apply a double standard? Please explain to me how > > > > > you are not applying a double standard. > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course I am applying a double standard. > > > > > > > > That is what language does. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > a cop-out > > > > > > why does it take me so long to simply accept > > > that you really don't want to communicate, > > > that you have your thing you like to do here > > > and just leave you alone while you do it. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > For you to answer that honestly would not be a cop out. > > > > lv > > ~*~ > > > > Thanks for that Sky. > > Len I could just turn off. > I simply stopped reading his posts. > Not so easy with toombaru. > As Patricia just wrote, it makes > a different if you care. > > But I need to stop trying. > There comes a point. > > It is not that I have wanted to change him. > It is that I have wanted to connect. > > Bill > What makes you think you're not connecting? Is it because he's not responding in the way you'd like him to? I've found that to be the case with myself. When I let go of my demands, I found out who the other " really was, " relatively speaking. Because my demands had made me blind. 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.