Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. When the 'I am all' goes, 'I am' comes. When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... - Nisargadatta Maharaj ...... Era Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual wrote: > > > When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. > > When the 'I am all' > goes, 'I am' comes. > > When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... - > > Nisargadatta Maharaj > > ..... > Era > Reality also includes I am. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> wrote: > > > > > > When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. > > > > When the 'I am all' > > goes, 'I am' comes. > > > > When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... - > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > ..... > > Era > > > > > > Reality also includes I am. > > > toombaru > -me too: I am I am aren't we all ? what is the fuss about... Era Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual wrote: > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. > > > > > > When the 'I am all' > > > goes, 'I am' comes. > > > > > > When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... - > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > > > ..... > > > Era > > > > > > > > > > > Reality also includes I am. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > -me too: I am I am > > aren't we all ? what is the fuss about... > > Era > have you know your true nature since chilhood so to speak... or how did it happen ? ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual wrote: > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. > > > > > > When the 'I am all' > > > goes, 'I am' comes. > > > > > > When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... - > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > > > ..... > > > Era > > > > > > > > > > > Reality also includes I am. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > -me too: I am I am > > aren't we all ? what is the fuss about... > > Era > Indeed. Era...........what happened to you? There is a new emptiness that is most pleasant. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> wrote: > > > > > > When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. > > > > When the 'I am all' > > goes, 'I am' comes. > > > > When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... - > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > ..... > > Era > > > > Undeniably you have an idea what reality means to you, Toomb. But do you know what reality meant to Niz ? Werner > Reality also includes I am. > > > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. > > > > > > When the 'I am all' > > > goes, 'I am' comes. > > > > > > When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... - > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > > > ..... > > > Era > > > > > > > > > Undeniably you have an idea what reality means to you, Toomb. > > But do you know what reality meant to Niz ? > > Werner > > > > Reality also includes I am. > > > > > > toombaru > > > The words that came through him percolate through mnemonic circularity and the three part harmony breaks down the wall.....I am naked....fearless......standing out in the open. But..........the way some people smile....or a puppy.....can do the same thing. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> wrote: > > > > > > When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. > > > > When the 'I am all' > > goes, 'I am' comes. > > > > When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... - > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > ..... > > Era > > > > > > Reality also includes I am. > > > toombaru > speaking for yourself, that is... when the 'I' is gone, what then? why even call it Reality? perhaps Nis says that as a way to say, " As long as an 'I'... not Reality. " fair enough 'I' = I-llusion. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. > > > > > > When the 'I am all' > > > goes, 'I am' comes. > > > > > > When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... - > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > > > ..... > > > Era > > > > > > > > > > > Reality also includes I am. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > speaking for yourself, that is... > > when the 'I' is gone, > what then? > > why even call it Reality? > > perhaps Nis says that as a way to > say, " As long as an 'I'... not Reality. " > > fair enough > > 'I' = I-llusion. > > > Bill > Let THAT " who " is 'gone'... speak Let it say 'who' is 'gone', 'where' and, 'who' is it that is speaking Now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. > > > > > > > > When the 'I am all' > > > > goes, 'I am' comes. > > > > > > > > When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... - > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > > > > > ..... > > > > Era > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reality also includes I am. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > speaking for yourself, that is... > > > > when the 'I' is gone, > > what then? > > > > why even call it Reality? > > > > perhaps Nis says that as a way to > > say, " As long as an 'I'... not Reality. " > > > > fair enough > > > > 'I' = I-llusion. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Let THAT " who " is 'gone'... speak > > Let it say 'who' is 'gone', 'where' > and, 'who' is it that is speaking Now! > words arise simple enough yet no 'who' anywhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. > > > > > > > > > > When the 'I am all' > > > > > goes, 'I am' comes. > > > > > > > > > > When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... - > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > > > > > > > ..... > > > > > Era > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reality also includes I am. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > speaking for yourself, that is... > > > > > > when the 'I' is gone, > > > what then? > > > > > > why even call it Reality? > > > > > > perhaps Nis says that as a way to > > > say, " As long as an 'I'... not Reality. " > > > > > > fair enough > > > > > > 'I' = I-llusion. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Let THAT " who " is 'gone'... speak > > > > Let it say 'who' is 'gone', 'where' > > and, 'who' is it that is speaking Now! > > > > words arise > simple enough > > yet no 'who' anywhere Sure Bill! You seem to use language in a rather interesting way. In my usage of language, one can not respond 'as Bill' without an identified 'who'. But I gather that your usage is quite different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 <snip> > > > > > > > > speaking for yourself, that is... > > > > > > > > when the 'I' is gone, > > > > what then? > > > > > > > > why even call it Reality? > > > > > > > > perhaps Nis says that as a way to > > > > say, " As long as an 'I'... not Reality. " > > > > > > > > fair enough > > > > > > > > 'I' = I-llusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let THAT " who " is 'gone'... speak > > > > > > Let it say 'who' is 'gone', 'where' > > > and, 'who' is it that is speaking Now! > > > > > > > words arise > > simple enough > > > > yet no 'who' anywhere > > Sure Bill! > > You seem to use language in a rather > interesting way. In my usage of language, > one can not respond 'as Bill' without an > identified 'who'. > > But I gather that your usage is quite > different. > hard for others to understand sometimes (as in often) imagine, for example, a little white tornado of prajna emerging from the navel and entering at the top of the head, to then descend " as a cloud " down to emerge on keyboard as words typing. no who ever in that. just one example. usually just the fingers move and words... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > speaking for yourself, that is... > > > > > > > > > > when the 'I' is gone, > > > > > what then? > > > > > > > > > > why even call it Reality? > > > > > > > > > > perhaps Nis says that as a way to > > > > > say, " As long as an 'I'... not Reality. " > > > > > > > > > > fair enough > > > > > > > > > > 'I' = I-llusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let THAT " who " is 'gone'... speak > > > > > > > > Let it say 'who' is 'gone', 'where' > > > > and, 'who' is it that is speaking Now! > > > > > > > > > > words arise > > > simple enough > > > > > > yet no 'who' anywhere > > > > Sure Bill! > > > > You seem to use language in a rather > > interesting way. In my usage of language, > > one can not respond 'as Bill' without an > > identified 'who'. > > > > But I gather that your usage is quite > > different. > > > > hard for others to understand sometimes > (as in often) > > imagine, for example, a little white tornado > of prajna emerging from the navel and entering > at the top of the head, to then descend " as a cloud " > down to emerge on keyboard as words typing. > > > no who ever in that. > > just one example. > > usually just the fingers move and words... > In my usage, that would be just a differenet way of speech, Bill! If what you state above was the case, I would call that 'little white tornado of prajna' a " who " . An 'identified' " who " ! I notice that when this 'little white tornado of prajna' rests as in deep sleep - there is so no questions, no answers, no explanations and no one to understand or respond to the call of 'Arvind' and 'Bill'. Right now, when the " boss " calls 'Arvind' the identified consciouness is there to respond. I guess it might have been even true for folks 'identified' as Ramana and Niz... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaking for yourself, that is... > > > > > > > > > > > > when the 'I' is gone, > > > > > > what then? > > > > > > > > > > > > why even call it Reality? > > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps Nis says that as a way to > > > > > > say, " As long as an 'I'... not Reality. " > > > > > > > > > > > > fair enough > > > > > > > > > > > > 'I' = I-llusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let THAT " who " is 'gone'... speak > > > > > > > > > > Let it say 'who' is 'gone', 'where' > > > > > and, 'who' is it that is speaking Now! > > > > > > > > > > > > > words arise > > > > simple enough > > > > > > > > yet no 'who' anywhere > > > > > > Sure Bill! > > > > > > You seem to use language in a rather > > > interesting way. In my usage of language, > > > one can not respond 'as Bill' without an > > > identified 'who'. > > > > > > But I gather that your usage is quite > > > different. > > > > > > > hard for others to understand sometimes > > (as in often) > > > > imagine, for example, a little white tornado > > of prajna emerging from the navel and entering > > at the top of the head, to then descend " as a cloud " > > down to emerge on keyboard as words typing. > > > > > > no who ever in that. > > > > just one example. > > > > usually just the fingers move and words... > > > > In my usage, that would be just > a differenet way of speech, Bill! > > If what you state above was the case, > I would call that 'little white tornado > of prajna' a " who " . An 'identified' " who " ! > > > I notice that when this > 'little white tornado of prajna' > rests as in deep sleep - there is > so no questions, no answers, no > explanations and no one to understand > or respond to the call of 'Arvind' > and 'Bill'. > > > Right now, when the " boss " calls > 'Arvind' the identified consciouness > is there to respond. > > I guess it might have been even true > for folks 'identified' as Ramana and Niz... > in times past there was a " sense of I " and a " sense of me " . Now there is none of that. It is as if in a vast vacuity, things unfold. Should the wind blow a sheet from the clothesline across the yard, there is no 'who' in that. why speak of a 'who' when there is no sense of one? this started with the words: 'I' = I-llusion revision: sense of I = illusion sense of me = illusion sense of self = illusion what is here is not anything that coalesces around a meaningful term what is here is not anything that coalesces what is here is not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaking for yourself, that is... > > > > > > > > > > > > when the 'I' is gone, > > > > > > what then? > > > > > > > > > > > > why even call it Reality? > > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps Nis says that as a way to > > > > > > say, " As long as an 'I'... not Reality. " > > > > > > > > > > > > fair enough > > > > > > > > > > > > 'I' = I-llusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let THAT " who " is 'gone'... speak > > > > > > > > > > Let it say 'who' is 'gone', 'where' > > > > > and, 'who' is it that is speaking Now! > > > > > > > > > > > > > words arise > > > > simple enough > > > > > > > > yet no 'who' anywhere > > > > > > Sure Bill! > > > > > > You seem to use language in a rather > > > interesting way. In my usage of language, > > > one can not respond 'as Bill' without an > > > identified 'who'. > > > > > > But I gather that your usage is quite > > > different. > > > > > > > hard for others to understand sometimes > > (as in often) > > > > imagine, for example, a little white tornado > > of prajna emerging from the navel and entering > > at the top of the head, to then descend " as a cloud " > > down to emerge on keyboard as words typing. > > > > > > no who ever in that. > > > > just one example. > > > > usually just the fingers move and words... > > > > In my usage, that would be just > a differenet way of speech, Bill! > > If what you state above was the case, > I would call that 'little white tornado > of prajna' a " who " . An 'identified' " who " ! > > > I notice that when this > 'little white tornado of prajna' > rests as in deep sleep - there is > so no questions, no answers, no > explanations and no one to understand > or respond to the call of 'Arvind' > and 'Bill'. > > > Right now, when the " boss " calls > 'Arvind' the identified consciouness > is there to respond. > > I guess it might have been even true > for folks 'identified' as Ramana and Niz... But, once the " sense of self " is gone this 'identification' works in a different way. Wheras, before it was like a concrete entity almsot always in place and had solid form identification via the heart knot - now, it is just a 'function'* that the Consciouness can perform. ---- * In place of acting like an always present viel, the identification becomes a 'function' of consciousness just like other functions that Consciouness performs including memory, thinking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 <snip> > > > > > > hard for others to understand sometimes > > > (as in often) > > > > > > imagine, for example, a little white tornado > > > of prajna emerging from the navel and entering > > > at the top of the head, to then descend " as a cloud " > > > down to emerge on keyboard as words typing. > > > > > > > > > no who ever in that. > > > > > > just one example. > > > > > > usually just the fingers move and words... > > > > > > > In my usage, that would be just > > a differenet way of speech, Bill! > > > > If what you state above was the case, > > I would call that 'little white tornado > > of prajna' a " who " . An 'identified' " who " ! > > > > > > I notice that when this > > 'little white tornado of prajna' > > rests as in deep sleep - there is > > so no questions, no answers, no > > explanations and no one to understand > > or respond to the call of 'Arvind' > > and 'Bill'. > > > > > > Right now, when the " boss " calls > > 'Arvind' the identified consciouness > > is there to respond. > > > > I guess it might have been even true > > for folks 'identified' as Ramana and Niz... > > But, once the " sense of self " is gone > this 'identification' works in a different > way. Wheras, before it was like a concrete > entity almsot always in place and had solid > form identification via the heart knot - now, > it is just a 'function'* that the Consciouness > can perform. yes quite so and good that you made that clarification. we quite agree Arvind. just different preferences on use of terms. Bill > > > ---- > > * In place of acting like an always present > viel, the identification becomes a 'function' > of consciousness just like other functions > that Consciouness performs including memory, > thinking... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > speaking for yourself, that is... > > > > > > > > > > when the 'I' is gone, > > > > > what then? > > > > > > > > > > why even call it Reality? > > > > > > > > > > perhaps Nis says that as a way to > > > > > say, " As long as an 'I'... not Reality. " > > > > > > > > > > fair enough > > > > > > > > > > 'I' = I-llusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let THAT " who " is 'gone'... speak > > > > > > > > Let it say 'who' is 'gone', 'where' > > > > and, 'who' is it that is speaking Now! > > > > > > > > > > words arise > > > simple enough > > > > > > yet no 'who' anywhere > > > > Sure Bill! > > > > You seem to use language in a rather > > interesting way. In my usage of language, > > one can not respond 'as Bill' without an > > identified 'who'. > > > > But I gather that your usage is quite > > different. > > > > hard for others to understand sometimes > (as in often) > > imagine, for example, a little white tornado > of prajna emerging from the navel and entering > at the top of the head, to then descend " as a cloud " > down to emerge on keyboard as words typing. > Evocative....beautiful. toombaru > no who ever in that. > > just one example. > > usually just the fingers move and words... > 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.