Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 --- toombaru2006 <lastrain a écrit : > 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 > Sometimes intuition, reading between the lines, starting to understand someone, their way of expressing, their struggle, their sincerity, their intent, all that helps to a better understanding and communication. I understand better what Bill means by Now, it took me some searching within, I also know his intents because I`ve lend an ear, because there is an interest in the human being. Interaction is delightfull in all its imperfection. I find it intersting to understand all of us on this list. What would be the point otherwise? If freedoom means no interest, no lending, no giving space,...well, I`ll stay away from that. Patricia > > > > > > _________________________ Mail réinvente le mail ! Découvrez le nouveau Mail et son interface révolutionnaire. http://fr.mail. 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.