Guest guest Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > Belief systems are subject to the same laws of evolution that apply to > physical organisms. evolutionary systems are are subject to the same laws of beliefs that physical organisms apply to them. and they are the subject of a lot of talk. > Religions emerge and evolve in direct relationship to their survival > enhancement of organism that holds them. > > > toombaru surviving evolves as an emerging relationship of organisms surviving through enhancements of both holding and letting go. nothing really works. all is doomed to failure. but everything is ultimately a big success as a nonstarter. ..b bobji baba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 > > Belief systems are subject to the same laws of evolution that apply to > > physical organisms. evolutionary systems are are subject to the same laws of beliefs that physical organisms apply to them. and they are the subject of a lot of talk ************this much is OK**************** > Religions emerge and evolve in direct relationship to their survival > > enhancement of organism that holds them. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > surviving evolves as an emerging relationship of organisms surviving > through enhancements of both holding and letting go. *****BIG CORRECTION**** surviving evolves as an emerging relationship of organisms ENHANCED through DIRECTIONS of both holding and letting go. *****and here we have a reprise**** nothing really works. all is doomed to failure. but everything is ultimately a big success as a nonstarter. ..b bobji baba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 > > > > nothing really works. > > all is doomed to failure. > > but everything is ultimately a big success as a nonstarter. > > > .b bobji baba > Within the flux........no separate things exist to be judged as a success of a failure. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > nothing really works. > > > > all is doomed to failure. > > > > but everything is ultimately a big success as a nonstarter. > > > > > > .b bobji baba > > > > > Within the flux........no separate things exist to be judged as a > success of a failure. > > > toombaru no flux? well there is Noflux, but no flux. no within, but there is a Nowithin without a without... but 'you may still doubt... well... Nowithout without a without no? who's judging? nothing started that's what has not happened and it's a successful non-happening despite no one saying otherwise otherwise 'it' couldn't be and isn't if that isn't something than nothing is and that's what this no one keeps on saying right or wrong successful or not actuality says both... and all.. which isn't. om tat sat. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > nothing really works. > > > > all is doomed to failure. > > > > but everything is ultimately a big success as a nonstarter. > > > > > > .b bobji baba > > > > > Within the flux........no separate things exist to be judged as a > success of a failure. > > > toombaru Because what is fluxing and the background against which it fluxes are not divided, there is no movement. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing really works. > > > > > > all is doomed to failure. > > > > > > but everything is ultimately a big success as a nonstarter. > > > > > > > > > .b bobji baba > > > > > > > > > Within the flux........no separate things exist to be judged as a > > success of a failure. > > > > > > toombaru > > Because what is fluxing and the background against which it fluxes are > not divided, there is no movement. > > -- D. right on D.! the perfect nonstarter. storming........ ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing really works. > > > > > > all is doomed to failure. > > > > > > but everything is ultimately a big success as a nonstarter. > > > > > > > > > .b bobji baba > > > > > > > > > Within the flux........no separate things exist to be judged as a > > success of a failure. > > > > > > toombaru > > > no flux? > > well there is Noflux, > > but no flux. > > no within, > > but there is a Nowithin > > without a without... > > but 'you may still doubt... > > well... > > Nowithout without a without no? > > who's judging? > > nothing started > > that's what has not happened > > and it's a successful non-happening > > despite no one saying otherwise > > otherwise 'it' couldn't be > > and isn't > > if that isn't something > > than nothing is > > and that's what this no one keeps on saying > > right or wrong > > successful or not > > actuality says both... > > and all.. > > which isn't. > > om tat sat. > > .b b.b. > All the above and then to finish with Om Tat Sat. Bobbert.....you got it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing really works. > > > > > > all is doomed to failure. > > > > > > but everything is ultimately a big success as a nonstarter. > > > > > > > > > .b bobji baba > > > > > > > > > Within the flux........no separate things exist to be judged as a > > success or a failure. > > > > > > toombaru > > Because what is fluxing and the background against which it fluxes are > not divided, there is no movement. > > -- D. > Dan, Was this an understanding prior to this discussion or something new that surfaced? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing really works. > > > > > > > > all is doomed to failure. > > > > > > > > but everything is ultimately a big success as a nonstarter. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b bobji baba > > > > > > > > > > > > > Within the flux........no separate things exist to be judged as a > > > success of a failure. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > no flux? > > > > well there is Noflux, > > > > but no flux. > > > > no within, > > > > but there is a Nowithin > > > > without a without... > > > > but 'you may still doubt... > > > > well... > > > > Nowithout without a without no? > > > > who's judging? > > > > nothing started > > > > that's what has not happened > > > > and it's a successful non-happening > > > > despite no one saying otherwise > > > > otherwise 'it' couldn't be > > > > and isn't > > > > if that isn't something > > > > than nothing is > > > > and that's what this no one keeps on saying > > > > right or wrong > > > > successful or not > > > > actuality says both... > > > > and all.. > > > > which isn't. > > > > om tat sat. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > All the above and then to finish with Om Tat Sat. Bobbert.....you > got it! oh melvin! are you a sibling of your parents? are they abusing our little mel? you probably don't know if they are. mercifully you are free of the ravages of intelligence. just like your brother and sister. good 'ol mom and dad. hey! do you live in the smokies melvin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing really works. > > > > > > > > all is doomed to failure. > > > > > > > > but everything is ultimately a big success as a nonstarter. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b bobji baba > > > > > > > > > > > > > Within the flux........no separate things exist to be judged as a > > > success or a failure. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Because what is fluxing and the background against which it fluxes are > > not divided, there is no movement. > > > > -- D. > > > > > > Dan, > > > Was this an understanding prior to this discussion or something new > that surfaced? > > > > toombaru toom, if you hold this question now, someday you will realize you have lived into the answer. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing really works. > > > > > > > > > > all is doomed to failure. > > > > > > > > > > but everything is ultimately a big success as a nonstarter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b bobji baba > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Within the flux........no separate things exist to be judged as a > > > > success or a failure. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Because what is fluxing and the background against which it fluxes are > > > not divided, there is no movement. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > Was this an understanding prior to this discussion or something new > > that surfaced? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > toom, > > if you hold this question now, someday you will realize you have lived > into the answer. > > .b b.b. of course 'you' don't hold anything. you are the questioning. and the question. you are the answering. and the answer. these are not different. they are all and as one.. nothing. that's a lot! ..b bobji baba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Dan, > > > Was this an understanding prior to this discussion or something new > that surfaced? > > > > toombaru T. -- How can an understanding that doesn't move, surface? If not moving, how can there be a before or after to it? -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > Was this an understanding prior to this discussion or something new > > that surfaced? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > T. -- > > How can an understanding that doesn't move, surface? > > If not moving, how can there be a before or after to it? > > -- D. > Perhaps there should be a new word in the lexicon. Something to indicate that as language gets closer to the edge....it begins to break up. Hummmmmmmmmmm How about.....statique...or.......hustonwehaveaproblem.....or....helpme....... or......i'vefallen............or.... ican'tgetup. t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > Was this an understanding prior to this discussion or something new > > that surfaced? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > T. -- > > How can an understanding that doesn't move, surface? > > If not moving, how can there be a before or after to it? > > -- D. separation is 'moved' to think so. apparent to 'it' is 'movement'. the belief 'it' holds: " 'i' am the prime mover of 'myself'... all 'things 'move' around 'me'.... yet the 'me' in 'myself' is 'unmoved' as the 'mover'. this delusion is the creation of 'time'.. the hypostasis that believes... and the illusion itself. Jumping Jehovah! ..b bobji baba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > > Was this an understanding prior to this discussion or something new > > > that surfaced? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > T. -- > > > > How can an understanding that doesn't move, surface? > > > > If not moving, how can there be a before or after to it? > > > > -- D. > > > > > > Perhaps there should be a new word in the lexicon. > > Something to indicate that as language gets closer to the edge....it > begins to break up. > > Hummmmmmmmmmm > > How > about.....statique...or.......hustonwehaveaproblem.....or....helpme....... > > > > or......i'vefallen............or.... ican'tgetup. > > > > t. Yes, good. Like what they say on cell phones: " I can't hear you, you're breaking up. " Or, from a different angle, maybe what the Virginian said: " Smile when you say that. " Or, if you have a little more time, go with this (someone translating what the Virginian said): " You must be joking or a simpleton to say something like that to me, knowing perfectly well that it gives me grounds to blow your head off. So I'm hip to the fact that it's all a big joke, but you should be more careful and smile when you make such a big joke. Someone less serene and centered than myself might shoot you between the eyes, you son of a bitch. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > > Was this an understanding prior to this discussion or something new > > > that surfaced? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > T. -- > > > > How can an understanding that doesn't move, surface? > > > > If not moving, how can there be a before or after to it? > > > > -- D. > > > separation is 'moved' to think so. > > apparent to 'it' is 'movement'. > > the belief 'it' holds: > > " 'i' am the prime mover of 'myself'... > > all 'things 'move' around 'me'.... > > yet the 'me' in 'myself' is 'unmoved' as the 'mover'. > > this delusion is the creation of 'time'.. > > the hypostasis that believes... > > and the illusion itself. > > Jumping Jehovah! > > .b bobji baba That's right. It's a construction based on " difference, " including the difference between what moves and what doesn't. Even the difference between what has a difference and what doesn't. One can come up to the edge of difference/no difference, but then what one is saying breaks up, like you pointed out. Breaking up and return to one - same, same. As well as what one is perceiving and the one perceiving. The breaking up breaks up, the returning returns. And now, one is back in the market place. Just like the Zen guy who went looking for the ox. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > Was this an understanding prior to this discussion or something new > > > > that surfaced? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > T. -- > > > > > > How can an understanding that doesn't move, surface? > > > > > > If not moving, how can there be a before or after to it? > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > separation is 'moved' to think so. > > > > apparent to 'it' is 'movement'. > > > > the belief 'it' holds: > > > > " 'i' am the prime mover of 'myself'... > > > > all 'things 'move' around 'me'.... > > > > yet the 'me' in 'myself' is 'unmoved' as the 'mover'. > > > > this delusion is the creation of 'time'.. > > > > the hypostasis that believes... > > > > and the illusion itself. > > > > Jumping Jehovah! > > > > .b bobji baba > > That's right. > > It's a construction based on " difference, " including the difference > between what moves and what doesn't. > > Even the difference between what has a difference and what doesn't. > > One can come up to the edge of difference/no difference, but then what > one is saying breaks up, like you pointed out. > > Breaking up and return to one - same, same. > > As well as what one is perceiving and the one perceiving. > > The breaking up breaks up, the returning returns. > > And now, one is back in the market place. > > Just like the Zen guy who went looking for the ox. > > -- D. yes...and like Bernadette Roberts..... reaching.... from and towards where it all begins... and ends... and never starts... but goes on till it ends.. before it was a 'matter for thought'. which is that 'which' for which 'we' have no name nor number... which is without second... or even 'first'. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > > Was this an understanding prior to this discussion or something new > > > that surfaced? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > T. -- > > > > How can an understanding that doesn't move, surface? > > > > If not moving, how can there be a before or after to it? > > > > -- D. > > > > > > Perhaps there should be a new word in the lexicon. > > Something to indicate that as language gets closer to the edge....it > begins to break up. > > Hummmmmmmmmmm > > How > about.....statique...or.......hustonwehaveaproblem.....or....helpme....... > > > > or......i'vefallen............or.... ican'tgetup. > > > > t. toombaru... to whom do you speak? who is the 'we' in 'helpme'? the 'i' in 'ivefallen'? in 'ican'tgetup'? what's 'up'? what's 'down'? who's the 'we' in 'houstonwehaveaproblem' where's texas..north america...the globe...the sun..the planetary system...the galactic thing...the space quadrant...the universe itself???? if it's anywhere... it's nowhere. and if there are 'me's or 'we's they are no ones. if 'it's' one thing 'it's' the other. no way out.. no way in... 'birthing' and 'dying' are the strangest illusions... and nobody really knows who it is that believes in either one. nobody 'knows' themselves... for one very good reason. ..b bobji b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > Perhaps there should be a new word in the lexicon. > > Something to indicate that as language gets closer to the edge....it > begins to break up. > > Hummmmmmmmmmm > > How > about.....statique...or.......hustonwehaveaproblem.....or....helpme....... > > > > or......i'vefallen............or.... ican'tgetup. > > > > t. here's a few more -- when a word can't slip past the edge and out: blackholealert or, when it's too one for any one to comment: waytooone or, if nothing has begun and can't even be conceived: murphgle (this refers to an application of murphy's law, which is that if someone can fuck it up by saying something, someone will ...) -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > Perhaps there should be a new word in the lexicon. > > > > Something to indicate that as language gets closer to the edge....it > > begins to break up. > > > > Hummmmmmmmmmm > > > > How > > > about.....statique...or.......hustonwehaveaproblem.....or....helpme....... > > > > > > > > or......i'vefallen............or.... ican'tgetup. > > > > > > > > t. > > here's a few more -- > > when a word can't slip past the edge and out: > > blackholealert > > or, when it's too one for any one to comment: > > waytooone > > or, if nothing has begun and can't even be conceived: > > murphgle > > (this refers to an application of murphy's law, which is that if > someone can fuck it up by saying something, someone will ...) > > -- D. remember Mister Mxyzptlk in the superman comic books? what a dude! there was deep meaning in that man's name.... and nobody ever knew why. Kryptonlings did though. even before Kal-El was born. way before he became Clark Kent.. or the Man of Wonder (a role that has been filled and refilled by baba) and buddhists.... they know the deep meaning too. they just won't tell you. and baba just can't tell you. unless you buy a decoder ring. ..b bobji baba 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.