Guest guest Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 I am the consciousness which observes that it has no beginning, no interruption, no ending, and I shall never die. (D. E. Harding) http://www.wie.org/j28/pulpit.asp?page=2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 Nisargadatta , " odan_headlesshorseman " <odan_headlesshorseman wrote: > > " I am the consciousness which observes that it has no beginning, no > interruption, no ending, and I shall never die. " > > (D. E. Harding) > (....with....or without head?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 One must realize "there is only Me" (wordlessly), before "there is no me" makes the slightest bit of sense. -tim- This is crucial. Very few people know that they are. Allow me to divagate... This is one point I think is VERY difficult for Krishnamurti readers. K never talks about the "I am". He goes straight to the "no-me-at-all". What happens is that some folks understand quite clearly the absense of the entity but there is an imense difficulty when it comes to the next step: the ground. There is a tendency to either not get it at all or to project some objective ground - wich is almost the same. Without first being aware of the "I am all" seems almost impossible to realize the other "beyond". To me it was the other way around. I knew I was since a child and one day I found a book of K somwhere and the guy kept saying that there was no such thing as the "I". I felt that he knew something...so I kept reading him...trying to figure out how could such an itelligent clear sighted man deny the existence of the most obvious!! Then I understood. But in k circles this lack of "being" is a real barrier for without it everything is just theory. I know this is just another tale.... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > One must realize " there is only Me " (wordlessly), before " there is no me " makes the slightest bit of sense. > -tim- > > This is crucial. Very few people know that they are. Allow me to divagate... > This is one point I think is VERY difficult for Krishnamurti readers. K never talks about the " I am " . He goes straight to the " no-me-at-all " . What happens is that some folks understand quite clearly the absense of the entity but there is an imense difficulty when it comes to the next step: the ground. There is a tendency to either not get it at all or to project some objective ground - wich is almost the same. Without first being aware of the " I am all " seems almost impossible to realize the other " beyond " . > > To me it was the other way around. I knew I was since a child and one day I found a book of K somwhere and the guy kept saying that there was no such thing as the " I " . I felt that he knew something...so I kept reading him...trying to figure out how could such an itelligent clear sighted man deny the existence of the most obvious!! Then I understood. But in k circles this lack of " being " is a real barrier for without it everything is just theory. > > I know this is just another tale.... > -geo- for whom could the foregoing be " barrier " ? story for whom? crucial to no one. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:10 AM Re: I am Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > One must realize " there is only Me " (wordlessly), before " there is no me " > makes the slightest bit of sense. > -tim- > > This is crucial. Very few people know that they are. Allow me to > divagate... > This is one point I think is VERY difficult for Krishnamurti readers. K > never talks about the " I am " . He goes straight to the " no-me-at-all " . What > happens is that some folks understand quite clearly the absense of the > entity but there is an imense difficulty when it comes to the next step: > the ground. There is a tendency to either not get it at all or to project > some objective ground - wich is almost the same. Without first being aware > of the " I am all " seems almost impossible to realize the other " beyond " . > > To me it was the other way around. I knew I was since a child and one day > I found a book of K somwhere and the guy kept saying that there was no > such thing as the " I " . I felt that he knew something...so I kept reading > him...trying to figure out how could such an itelligent clear sighted man > deny the existence of the most obvious!! Then I understood. But in k > circles this lack of " being " is a real barrier for without it everything > is just theory. > > I know this is just another tale.... > -geo- for whom could the foregoing be " barrier " ? story for whom? crucial to no one. ..b b.b. I am reffering to those folks in my world that in my world happened to be interested in my world's krishnamurty :>) -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:10 AM > Re: I am > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > One must realize " there is only Me " (wordlessly), before " there is no me " > > makes the slightest bit of sense. > > -tim- > > > > This is crucial. Very few people know that they are. Allow me to > > divagate... > > This is one point I think is VERY difficult for Krishnamurti readers. K > > never talks about the " I am " . He goes straight to the " no-me-at-all " . What > > happens is that some folks understand quite clearly the absense of the > > entity but there is an imense difficulty when it comes to the next step: > > the ground. There is a tendency to either not get it at all or to project > > some objective ground - wich is almost the same. Without first being aware > > of the " I am all " seems almost impossible to realize the other " beyond " . > > > > To me it was the other way around. I knew I was since a child and one day > > I found a book of K somwhere and the guy kept saying that there was no > > such thing as the " I " . I felt that he knew something...so I kept reading > > him...trying to figure out how could such an itelligent clear sighted man > > deny the existence of the most obvious!! Then I understood. But in k > > circles this lack of " being " is a real barrier for without it everything > > is just theory. > > > > I know this is just another tale.... > > -geo- > > for whom could the foregoing be " barrier " ? > > story for whom? > > crucial to no one. > > .b b.b. > > I am reffering to those folks in my world that in my world happened to be > interested in my world's krishnamurty :>) > -geo- doesn't matter. ..b b.b. 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.