Guest guest Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 > My own experience of " Oneness " revealed NOTHING WAS TRULY HAPPENING. Sure, and, is that how you live your life??? > There is really no way for me to further explain that. . . I saw > movement, but I knew that all was pure silence. At any time, you STOP 'listening', there is bound to be Silence - Isn't it??? Is that some kind of special " mystery " ??? >What remembers > this. . . I guess the ego, but does it matter? Yes. It does. It will then imply that the 'ego' is more permanent and lasting than the " ONENESS " that you feel comes and goes! > > You ask - why scientific discoveries happened to scientists and, > musical discoveries to musicians? > > Who knows and who cares?! I do. I am questioning if a particular " thought preparation " makes particular kind of 'opening' into 'no thought' 'revelation' zone possible! If an 'Einstein' by his particular brand of thinking, 'sub conscious suggestion' and apparent surrender into sub-conscious mode has " prepared " himself to receive those scientific revelations from sub-conscious that people like you and I haven't? I read that Greenspan received many of his 'financial' ideas in shower and Edison his 'scientific' ideas in 'half sleep'. I am asking if there is " pattern " , here! I am asking if it is like, you heat the water - vapor " automatically " appears! Just like you forget something and can't remember it no matter how hard you try. Then, you stop trying, go into your garden, start watering your plants [ or ride a train] and the answer 'suddenly' appears! But, maybe, it appears only because, " you " had put it there! Like answer to 'where you had put your keys last' is unlikely to appear to me - no matter, how many plants I water! I am asking if scientists, musicians, painters and other 'masters' too have trained their intellect, brain, conscious, sub-conscious same way that makes revelations of a particular kind appear to them! IOW… I am questioning if there is really anything extravagantly " mysterious " in 'no thought' revelations? It is mysterious for sure, and, in reality, what is really not " mysterious " , 'wondrous " but, is it really so widely different than all other mysteries appearing every day [my son's smile for example]??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 Hi AC, I am answering your last postings in one go. There is not much left for me to say, anyway. Everything depends on the perspective. We both agree that behind a thought is nothing but another thought. In spite of this, you insist that it is possible to actively control and change thinking. If this is the case you must be able to name an instance outside of and independent from thoughts. A mysterious thought-controller. But you cannot do this. And this is so beautiful! This is the boat we are all sitting in! Above us the unlimited sky. And underneath: beliefs... theories... concepts... They come and they will leave again! Even enlightenment. So, lets not impose all this on others! What do you know about someones " depression " ? How can you be sure that he wants the medicine you are trying to sell? Everybody is struggling the best he can. Rather lets look at the unlimited sky That we are all sharing. Underneath the sky: I am able to take my decisions very well just like everybody else. Yesterday I came across a speech by Nisargadatta, that struck me because of its simplicity: " Every situation is a challenge which demands the right response. When the response is right, the challenge is met and the problem ceases. If the response is wrong, the challenge is not met and the problem remains unsolved. Your unsolved problems - that is what constitutes your karma. Solve them rightly and be free. " " Response " ... I have to remember this word. Stefan P.S.: I am not interested in spiritual circles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hi AC, > > I am answering your last postings in one go. > There is not much left for me to say, anyway. > Everything depends on the perspective. > > We both agree that behind a thought > is nothing but another thought. > In spite of this, you insist that it is possible > to actively control and change thinking. Yes, as it is possible to " cultivate " particular crop - eve though, behind every plant there is seed [or plant] and behind every seed there is a plant! If you look little closely, this property of 'seed and plant cycle' doesn't prevent 'conscious cultivation'; in fact, this is what makes it possible! > If this is the case you must be able to name an instance > outside of and independent from thoughts. > A mysterious thought-controller. Yes. The THINKER > > But you cannot do this. Read Above […] > > So, lets not impose all this on others! Is there any such possibility? I/you can present ideas but do you/I have power to " impose " them? > What do you know about someones " depression " ? What do you know about what I know [or not know] of someone else's depression? > How can you be sure that he wants > the medicine you are trying to sell? I don't see myself 'forcing' it to him/she. I present my ideas. If he/she finds them 'worth a try', he/she will try. If not, he/she will not, no matter how many times I repeat them. Do you see it any other way? > > Everybody is struggling the best he can. What do you know about 'everybody's struggle' ??? [Your question… ] […] > > Yesterday I came across a speech by Nisargadatta, > that struck me because of its simplicity: > > " Every situation is a challenge which demands the right response. Situation demand nothing. Both the concept of " situation " , " challenge " and " response " is the product of mind [ego]. > When the response is right, the challenge is met and the problem > ceases. There is no 'problem'… other than 'in thinking'! There is no 'solution'… other than 'in thinking'! > If the response is wrong, the challenge is not met and the > problem remains unsolved. Your unsolved problems - that is what > constitutes your karma. Solve them rightly and be free. " Any time you drop the concept of 'problem' - you are Free! > > " Response " ... I have to remember this word. > Stefan > > P.S.: > I am not interested in spiritual circles PS: Are you interested in winning arguments??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: >PS: Are you interested in winning arguments??? Yes! And I have already won the argument. You claim the existence of a THINKER although you have already admitted that behind thoughts there is NOTHING. The THINKER must therefor be a mere belief, a concept, a thought made up by other thoughts. It has no existence. Now I have won. What is the trophy? I am telling you what the trophy is. Now I can see the fear which is associated with looking at " NOTHING " . I can see the complete helplessness of this very existence. And so I share how much I am tired of " changing " and " being changed " . How much I feel that I am in fact the one being " THOUGHT " ! And how sweet the surrender into the unavoidable can be, once it has happened. It is up to you if you answer my postings with arguments, or with a joke or a lament. Your response... is yours. But we are still sharing the same sky. Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > >PS: Are you interested in winning arguments??? > > Yes! I don't think, I am. I will gladly lose an argument, if presented facts warrant it; this way I get to learn something way. Other way, I am simply stuck with the same knowledge that I had before. On these forums, one of my main purpose is to " educate " me and others and not winning debates. I present what makes sense to me and if I am proven wrong - both me and other readers have laerned something new. I generally don't like to discuss from the point of winning and losing. In my perspective, in the search of 'true[r]' answers - only [relative] truth wins and truth is never mine or others. I know 'winning arguments' is a big part of the legal and political system - but, I have known that " truth " gets sacrificed quite a bit in both cases. That is not my intention here! IOW... don't pretend to be interested in " learning " or 'finding truth' if your main interest lies in winning arguments! > > And I have already won the argument. In your mind ?? > You claim the existence of a > THINKER although you have already admitted that behind thoughts there > is NOTHING. When did say that behind thoughts there is NOTHING??? > The THINKER must therefor be a mere belief, a concept, a > thought made up by other thoughts. It has no existence. On the contrary, I had said: Thinker is ALWAYS Real! I will post the link to that post again to refresh your 'failing' memory > > Now I have won. In your mind ?;) > What is the trophy? That too must exist in your mind only > > I am telling you what the trophy is. Ok, I am all ears > Now I can see the fear which is > associated with looking at " NOTHING " . I don't see any fear in looking at " NOTHING " . It is still Same " ME " which is looking at " nothing " ! > I can see the complete > helplessness of this very existence. I don't see any helplessness in it. Sometimes I look at things, sometimes at nothing. It is still just Me. > And so I share how much I am > tired of " changing " and " being changed " . I am not 'tired' of that. I call it 'living' and my son tries and fails, tries and fails, tries and fails - and, then, he succeeds! And, I have seen that many other things in life are like that too! > How much I feel that I am in > fact the one being " THOUGHT " ! I don't delude myself in thinking that. I think... > And how sweet the surrender into the > unavoidable can be, once it has happened. Yes, many things can be Very Sweet including talking to you! > > It is up to you if you answer my postings with arguments, or with a > joke or a lament. I rarely plan my response. Most of them are just " spontaneously " occurring - and, most of the times, I don't put any 'filters' or 'reviews'! > Your response... is yours. > But we are still sharing > the same sky. Don't you know that in reality, there is no such thing SKY ?;) > > Greetings > Stefan Regards, ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 [...] > > IOW... don't pretend to be interested in > " learning " or 'finding truth' if your main > interest lies in winning arguments! > > > > > > > > And I have already won the argument. > > In your mind ?? > > > > You claim the existence of a > > THINKER although you have already admitted that behind thoughts > there > > is NOTHING. > > When did say that behind thoughts there is NOTHING??? > > > > The THINKER must therefor be a mere belief, a concept, a > > thought made up by other thoughts. It has no existence. > > On the contrary, > I had said: Thinker is ALWAYS Real! > > I will post the link to that post again to > refresh your 'failing' memory Read: Nisargadatta/message/51504 excerpts: Stefan: > in my understanding... > thinking cannot be used > the " user " is a conglomerate of thoughts The 'concept' of user is a " conglomerate of thoughts " but, not the 'user' itself! You, Stefan are not a " conglomerate of thoughts', Stefan! But, what you might " think " 'yourself to be'... is! Similarly, what I think of you to be; is again a " conglomerate of thoughts " - a " conglomerate of thoughts " possibly quite different that yours! Yet, you are ALWAYS Real... What I think of you is… just a concept; but, that 'concept' is NEVER the real user! Stefan: > therefore thinking using thinking > is like a cat biting its tail It is not really possible for " thinking " to " use " thinking but, yes it is possible for the THINKER to think that " thinking is using thinking " - but, then, that is just " confused " thinking! And, every THINKER does have the ability to have confused thinking! Yet, the THINKER is Always Real! > > > > > > Now I have won. > > In your mind ?;) > > > > What is the trophy? > > That too must exist in your mind only > [...] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Arvind, you have quoted the wrong posting! Are you trying to win an argument? ;-) We can all be winners, Arvind. We are under the same, open sky. All the best Stefan Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > IOW... don't pretend to be interested in > > " learning " or 'finding truth' if your main > > interest lies in winning arguments! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I have already won the argument. > > > > In your mind ?? > > > > > > > You claim the existence of a > > > THINKER although you have already admitted that behind thoughts > > there > > > is NOTHING. > > > > When did say that behind thoughts there is NOTHING??? > > > > > > > The THINKER must therefor be a mere belief, a concept, a > > > thought made up by other thoughts. It has no existence. > > > > On the contrary, > > I had said: Thinker is ALWAYS Real! > > > > I will post the link to that post again to > > refresh your 'failing' memory > > Read: > > Nisargadatta/message/51504 > > excerpts: > > Stefan: > > in my understanding... > > thinking cannot be used > > the " user " is a conglomerate of thoughts > > > > The 'concept' of user is a > " conglomerate of thoughts " but, > not the 'user' itself! > > > You, Stefan are not a " conglomerate of > thoughts', Stefan! But, what you might > " think " 'yourself to be'... is! > > Similarly, what I think of you to be; > is again a " conglomerate of thoughts " - > a " conglomerate of thoughts " possibly > quite different that yours! > > > Yet, you are ALWAYS Real... > > What I think of you is… just a concept; > but, that 'concept' is NEVER the real > user! > > > Stefan: > > therefore thinking using thinking > > is like a cat biting its tail > > It is not really possible for > " thinking " to " use " thinking but, > > yes it is possible for the THINKER to > think that " thinking is using thinking " - > but, then, that is just " confused " thinking! > > And, every THINKER does have the ability to > have confused thinking! > > > Yet, the THINKER is Always Real! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I have won. > > > > In your mind ?;) > > > > > > > What is the trophy? > > > > That too must exist in your mind only > > > > [...] > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Arvind, > > you have quoted the wrong posting! Why do you think so? > Are you trying to win an argument? No > > ;-) > > We can all be winners, Winning and losing go togethor... always! > Arvind. > We are under the same, open sky. Ok > > All the best > Stefan Best to you, Stefan! ac > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > IOW... don't pretend to be interested in > > > " learning " or 'finding truth' if your main > > > interest lies in winning arguments! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I have already won the argument. > > > > > > In your mind ?? > > > > > > > > > > You claim the existence of a > > > > THINKER although you have already admitted that behind thoughts > > > there > > > > is NOTHING. > > > > > > When did say that behind thoughts there is NOTHING??? > > > > > > > > > > The THINKER must therefor be a mere belief, a concept, a > > > > thought made up by other thoughts. It has no existence. > > > > > > On the contrary, > > > I had said: Thinker is ALWAYS Real! > > > > > > I will post the link to that post again to > > > refresh your 'failing' memory > > > > Read: > > > > Nisargadatta/message/51504 > > > > excerpts: > > > > Stefan: > > > in my understanding... > > > thinking cannot be used > > > the " user " is a conglomerate of thoughts > > > > > > > > The 'concept' of user is a > > " conglomerate of thoughts " but, > > not the 'user' itself! > > > > > > You, Stefan are not a " conglomerate of > > thoughts', Stefan! But, what you might > > " think " 'yourself to be'... is! > > > > Similarly, what I think of you to be; > > is again a " conglomerate of thoughts " - > > a " conglomerate of thoughts " possibly > > quite different that yours! > > > > > > Yet, you are ALWAYS Real... > > > > What I think of you is… just a concept; > > but, that 'concept' is NEVER the real > > user! > > > > > > Stefan: > > > therefore thinking using thinking > > > is like a cat biting its tail > > > > It is not really possible for > > " thinking " to " use " thinking but, > > > > yes it is possible for the THINKER to > > think that " thinking is using thinking " - > > but, then, that is just " confused " thinking! > > > > And, every THINKER does have the ability to > > have confused thinking! > > > > > > Yet, the THINKER is Always Real! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I have won. > > > > > > In your mind ?;) > > > > > > > > > > What is the trophy? > > > > > > That too must exist in your mind only > > > > > > > [...] > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: >>you have quoted the wrong posting! > >Why do you think so? Because it was not the one I was referring to. BTW, most of your postings appear to me as if you are trying to win arguments. What am I getting wrong? Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > >>you have quoted the wrong posting! > > > >Why do you think so? > > Because it was not the one I was referring to. I posted link to the post, 'I was referring to'. I was not trying to post the link to the post 'you were referring to'. If you are aware of the post that you were referring to, then, please post it. I am not aware of such a post in which I said " root of thoughts is " NOTHING " " . > > BTW, most of your postings appear to me as if you are trying to win > arguments. It doesn't appaer that way to me. > What am I getting wrong? Yes, one of us is wrong. Or, maybe, we just have different perspective and comprehension. Regards, ac > > Greetings > Stefan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: >I am >not aware of such a post in >which I said " root of thoughts >is " NOTHING " " . /message/51615 The root of a thought is another thought. The " thinker " is also nothing but such a thought. How beautiful! No more need to change, to control... Just the right " responses " . >Yes, one of us is wrong. How could that ever be? Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: >Or, maybe, we just have different perspective We do not have only different perspectives, in fact we have countless different perspectives. My perspective is never the same, it changes every millisecond. I am trying to share my experiences. I take a certain perspective just to be able to communicate. You look at it from another perspective. That is how it goes. If this is not admitted the conversation becomes heavily argumentative. It becomes a serious competition, a fight. If it stays transparent it remains playful. Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > >Or, maybe, we just have different perspective > > We do not have only different perspectives, in fact we have countless > different perspectives. My perspective is never the same, it changes > every millisecond. I am trying to share my experiences. I take a > certain perspective just to be able to communicate. You look at it > from another perspective. That is how it goes. If this is not admitted > the conversation becomes heavily argumentative. It becomes a serious > competition, a fight. If it stays transparent it remains playful. > > Stefan > You do not HAVE a perspective........You ARE a perspective. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > You do not HAVE a perspective........You ARE a perspective. yep... thats even better! Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > >I am > >not aware of such a post in > >which I said " root of thoughts > >is " NOTHING " " . > > /message/51615 This is the complete post: ========================= Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > >>>Who " Decides " which thoughts to choose? > > > >You do. > > AC, did you ever try to follow a thought > to its origin? Yes > > Supposed you have been able: > what did you find? A thought > > Supposed you have not been able: > How can you claim that it is possible > to " do " something to a thought? Because, I have found that it is really possible to do so. > > In my experience > any conscious thinking > is influencing a thought > through another thought Sure... > which itself springs from another thought > and so on... and, why that is a problem for you? > > I am not able to reach any kind of " root " > which has " chosen " a thought > and is itself not a thought. and, why that is a problem for you? > > I cant help it, thats how it is for me. and, so??? > > Stefan > [...] ========================= > > The root of a thought is another thought. > The " thinker " is also nothing but such a thought. That is not what I said. > > How beautiful! I don't know. To me, it is just a false statement. > No more need to change, to control... > Just the right " responses " . > > >Yes, one of us is wrong. > > How could that ever be? Like this. > > Stefan > Bye, ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > >Or, maybe, we just have different perspective > > > > We do not have only different perspectives, in fact we have countless > > different perspectives. My perspective is never the same, it changes > > every millisecond. I am trying to share my experiences. I take a > > certain perspective just to be able to communicate. You look at it > > from another perspective. That is how it goes. If this is not admitted > > the conversation becomes heavily argumentative. It becomes a serious > > competition, a fight. If it stays transparent it remains playful. > > > > Stefan > > > > > > You do not HAVE a perspective........You ARE a perspective. > > > toombaru you are you. perspectives are perspectives. neither one is one and the same as the other. this not only mixes metaphors, it mixes up new age puffery with actuality. but hey, it does comfort one to think they 'have something' or are 'onto something'. would you care for some warm milk and another bedtime story? ..b bobji baba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Hi Arvind, >>The root of a thought is another thought. >>The " thinker " is also nothing but such a thought. Yes, this is what I have said. All I can do, Arvind is to share what I have found. I do not expect that you agree. I do not expect that you bow down and touch my feet. But... you call it " a false statement " . Do you possess the absolute truth? Greetings Stefan P.S. maybe, you can see now, how hard you are trying to win arguments? And this is completely o.k., nothing wrong with that! We are humans after all, arent we? Or do you think we should become super-humans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hi Arvind, > > >>The root of a thought is another thought. > >>The " thinker " is also nothing but such a thought. > > Yes, this is what I have said. > All I can do, Arvind > is to share what I have found. Sure. This is what I do too. And, if possible, I do it without trying to win arguments. This way, I can be more open to learn - and, learning is among the best thing that I can get out of a discussion. > > I do not expect that you agree. I do expect you to agree or to tell me a good reason and I might agree with you. Yet, I know that my expectations are not met every time. > I do not expect that you bow down > and touch my feet. I would indeed bow down; when you teach me something that I find valuable. I have done that on number of occasions with a number of people. > > But... you call it " a false statement " . To me, 'thinker is a thought' is a false statement and to not say so would be a lie. > Do you possess the absolute truth? I don't know. But, I can not deny that… I AM Doing so would be a lie. > > Greetings > Stefan > > P.S. > maybe, you can see now, how hard you are trying to win arguments? I can't but, I can understand if you see it that way. > And this is completely o.k., nothing wrong with that! If you insist But, that is not my intention. > We are humans > after all, arent we? Yes, but, " humans " are not necessarily interested in winning arguments al the time. > Or do you think we should become super-humans? Sure, if we " can " become " super-human " , then why not! But, in the end, I don't think our discussion is going where I want it to go, Stefan! My purpose is learning - either for myself or for others. I don't see that happening in this thread. In general, I don't like to discuss/argue/debate with anybody who claim to 'not exist' or who tries me or others that they don't exist or that thinker doesn't exist. Because, this kind of arguments sound only philosophical and rather useless to me at best… and fake and downright deluded at its worst. No matter how hard I try, I can not talk yet deny my own existence, think and yet deny the existence of thinker. Doing so would be a lie. I don't think any " learning " [for me] is a possible for me by discussing with such a person who believes he doesn't exist. And, I can't expect such a 'non existing' person to learn anything either! Discussion then simply becomes an exercise in futility. To believe that one doesn't exist yet, to go on talking, thinking - to me would point to either dishonesty or delusion or both. And, if you have such believe then, well I better be more careful when starting any discussion with you. Do you think, you don't exist? Regards, ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: Dear Arvind, so, obviously you still want more arguments! Why not? It is a sunny day, the birds are singing, I have still some free time, and a fresh breeze is coming from the east. >I do expect you to agree or to tell >me a good reason and I might agree >with you. Well, this is a clear statement. But we radically differ in this point. I honestly do not expect that you agree. And I sincerely ask you to allow me to disagree. Otherwise there is no point In communicating any further. >To me, 'thinker is a thought' is >a false statement and to not say >so would be a lie. You are saying, the " Thinker " is not a thought. Just stop for a moment, Arvind, and contemplate: Where did " the Thinker " come from, when you wrote it down? Did it come from your legs or out of your shoulder? Did it sail down from the sky to your keyboard? No, I assume you are a human being like me, So it must have come from your brain cells, And this is commonly called a " thought " . The " thinker " is a thought. Of course it is your right To believe in a " thinker " , Which exists independently from your thoughts. But then this is merely a belief. It is not appropriate to claim Absolute truth for a personal belief. Moreover, it does not change a iota of the hard facts: Because a belief is also a thought. >>Do you possess the absolute truth? > >I don't know. >But, I can not deny that… I AM >Doing so would be a lie. It is good to see that we agree at least in one essential point. But I hope by now it has become clear that " I am " is a thought as well. Stefan P.S. Just a question out of curiosity. Are you interested in Nisargadatta? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2007 Report Share Posted March 2, 2007 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > Do you think, you don't exist? Not a thought one way or the other. Not a thought. Awfully quiet here, right now. ;-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2007 Report Share Posted March 2, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > Do you think, you don't exist? > > Not a thought one way or the other. > > Not a thought. > > Awfully quiet here, right now. > > ;-) > > -- Dan that should tell you all you need to know. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > Do you think, you don't exist? > > Not a thought one way or the other. > > Not a thought. > > Awfully quiet here, right now. > > ;-) > > -- Dan > P; Awfully quiet everywhere. Say, is a smile a word? Does sign language break the silence? Is an unspoken thought like the shadow of a cloud? Is singing, thunder? Truth, electricity? I hear it coming- The smell of rain riding summer's wind. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > Do you think, you don't exist? > > > > Not a thought one way or the other. > > > > Not a thought. > > > > Awfully quiet here, right now. > > > > ;-) > > > > -- Dan > > > > > P; Awfully quiet everywhere. > > Say, is a smile a word? > Does sign language break the silence? > Is an unspoken thought like the shadow of a cloud? > Is singing, thunder? Truth, electricity? I hear it coming- > The smell of rain riding summer's wind. > > Pete Glorious! Stunning! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > Do you think, you don't exist? > > > > Not a thought one way or the other. > > > > Not a thought. > > > > Awfully quiet here, right now. > > > > ;-) > > > > -- Dan > > > > > P; Awfully quiet everywhere. > > Say, is a smile a word? > Does sign language break the silence? > Is an unspoken thought like the shadow of a cloud? > Is singing, thunder? Truth, electricity? I hear it coming- > The smell of rain riding summer's wind. > > Pete > say, did you hear the mountain sing in rainbows when the clouds burst free? did you see the pattern of fire on the throat of a ruby hummingbird? say, did you know the whistle of the night train as it passes through deafened ears? did the aum of silence bring you to your knees? and is it hard to hold the stillness in when you weep with joy? Hi Pete, I think this is where we met. Love, Anna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > Do you think, you don't exist? > > > > > > Not a thought one way or the other. > > > > > > Not a thought. > > > > > > Awfully quiet here, right now. > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > P; Awfully quiet everywhere. > > > > Say, is a smile a word? > > Does sign language break the silence? > > Is an unspoken thought like the shadow of a cloud? > > Is singing, thunder? Truth, electricity? I hear it coming- > > The smell of rain riding summer's wind. > > > > Pete > > > > > > say, did you hear the mountain sing > in rainbows when the clouds burst free? > > did you see the pattern of fire > on the throat of a ruby hummingbird? > > say, did you know the whistle of the night train > as it passes through deafened ears? > > did the aum of silence bring you to your knees? > > and is it hard to hold the stillness in when you weep with joy? > > > Hi Pete, > I think this is where we met. > > Love, > Anna Seven crows met on a dead tree, and with sandy caws of glee hailed the dawn. At least, I think that's what they meant, the crows may differ. And you, garbling from another perch, my meaning never heard. Pete 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.