Guest guest Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 I now think that: 1) Universe without mind to observe it is absolute, 2) Consciousness is awareness modulated by mind, 3) Mind is relative, and relativity allow measure of time and space, and give objectivity. From this concluding objectivity is mind way of seeing absolute. So no difference. Although some puzzle left, I think this correct, and seem like final link in most elegant concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " <tigerlily_du_lac wrote: > > I now think that: > > 1) Universe without mind to observe it is absolute, > > 2) Consciousness is awareness modulated by mind, > > 3) Mind is relative, and relativity allow measure of time and space, > and give objectivity. > > From this concluding objectivity is mind way of seeing absolute. So no > difference. Although some puzzle left, I think this correct, and seem > like final link in most elegant concept. > This is all very good but in the end it is just more conjecture. As has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is that YOU EXIST. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " <tigerlily_du_lac wrote: > > I now think that: > > 1) Universe without mind to observe it is absolute, > > 2) Consciousness is awareness modulated by mind, > > 3) Mind is relative, and relativity allow measure of time and space, > and give objectivity. > > From this concluding objectivity is mind way of seeing absolute. So no > difference. Although some puzzle left, I think this correct, and seem > like final link in most elegant concept. *** Oui, monsieur! And in this moment relative-and-absolute...ended. ;-) > Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > I now think that: > > > > 1) Universe without mind to observe it is absolute, > > > > 2) Consciousness is awareness modulated by mind, > > > > 3) Mind is relative, and relativity allow measure of time and > space, > > and give objectivity. > > > > From this concluding objectivity is mind way of seeing absolute. > So no > > difference. Although some puzzle left, I think this correct, and > seem > > like final link in most elegant concept. > > > This is all very good but in the end it is just more conjecture. As > has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is that YOU > EXIST. *** Right, anything learned, remembered, posited....notwithstanding. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 > This is all very good but in the end it is just more conjecture. As > has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is that YOU > EXIST. This is true. I know. But, when talking about this, if I say to scientist that world is in consciousness, he will say that this not correct, and think I am deluded person. He will say " don't be silly, the world exist objectively and you were born into it " . And he can put doubt in me, and make all nisargadatta look silly. So I must have answer to scientist. Nisargadatta had answer foe everything, and it was all words, concept. He say " words are all there is " So now, if this correct, when scientist saying consciousness is in World, I saying, what is world? World is abolute? And he will agree. He knwos that the 10,000 minds see same thing, so he think thing is there, and call it absolute. This 10,000 minds are really same - one mind, so see same thing but thing only in mind. When mind not there only " undifferentiated " is there, nothing there, no limit. The only thing that seem strange is that it is aware. For scienstits, this is like saying there is God, but he can't say it is silly, because he cannot prove there is not God. And he aware of that. So, yes, this all conjecture, all concept, so when scientist coming to make doubt, and use concept, must fight him also with concept. It is all he knows. What opinion of this Toombaru and Bobja Bob``? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > I now think that: > > > > 1) Universe without mind to observe it is absolute, > > > > 2) Consciousness is awareness modulated by mind, > > > > 3) Mind is relative, and relativity allow measure of time and space, > > and give objectivity. > > > > From this concluding objectivity is mind way of seeing absolute. So no > > difference. Although some puzzle left, I think this correct, and seem > > like final link in most elegant concept. > > *** Oui, monsieur! > > And in this moment relative-and-absolute...ended. ;-) > > > Ken > Mais oui, Ken It all begins and ends this one moment: the seer and what is seen, the knower and what is known. It's simultaneous, eternal and paradoxical. It's the stuff of life, 101. 102, is a bit more intresting. Anna Anna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " <tigerlily_du_lac wrote: > > > This is all very good but in the end it is just more conjecture. As > > has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is that YOU > > EXIST. > > This is true. I know. But, when talking about this, if I say to > scientist that world is in consciousness, he will say that this not > correct, and think I am deluded person. He will say " don't be silly, > the world exist objectively and you were born into it " . And he can put > doubt in me, and make all nisargadatta look silly. > > So I must have answer to scientist. Nisargadatta had answer foe > everything, and it was all words, concept. He say " words are all there > is " > > So now, if this correct, when scientist saying consciousness is in > World, I saying, what is world? World is abolute? And he will agree. > He knwos that the 10,000 minds see same thing, so he think thing is > there, and call it absolute. This 10,000 minds are really same - one > mind, so see same thing but thing only in mind. When mind not there > only " undifferentiated " is there, nothing there, no limit. The only > thing that seem strange is that it is aware. For scienstits, this is > like saying there is God, but he can't say it is silly, because he > cannot prove there is not God. And he aware of that. > > So, yes, this all conjecture, all concept, so when scientist coming to > make doubt, and use concept, must fight him also with concept. It is > all he knows. > > What opinion of this Toombaru and Bobja Bob``? > You assume that there is a world and then attempt to explain it. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > > I now think that: > > > > > > 1) Universe without mind to observe it is absolute, > > > > > > 2) Consciousness is awareness modulated by mind, > > > > > > 3) Mind is relative, and relativity allow measure of time and > space, > > > and give objectivity. > > > > > > From this concluding objectivity is mind way of seeing absolute. > So no > > > difference. Although some puzzle left, I think this correct, and > seem > > > like final link in most elegant concept. > > > > *** Oui, monsieur! > > > > And in this moment relative-and-absolute...ended. ;-) > > > > > Ken > > > You are the content of consciousness.....searching within the content of consciousness for consciousness itself. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > This is all very good but in the end it is just more conjecture. As > > > has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is that YOU > > > EXIST. > > > > This is true. I know. But, when talking about this, if I say to > > scientist that world is in consciousness, he will say that this not > > correct, and think I am deluded person. He will say " don't be silly, > > the world exist objectively and you were born into it " . And he can put > > doubt in me, and make all nisargadatta look silly. > > > > So I must have answer to scientist. Nisargadatta had answer foe > > everything, and it was all words, concept. He say " words are all there > > is " > > > > So now, if this correct, when scientist saying consciousness is in > > World, I saying, what is world? World is abolute? And he will agree. > > He knwos that the 10,000 minds see same thing, so he think thing is > > there, and call it absolute. This 10,000 minds are really same - one > > mind, so see same thing but thing only in mind. When mind not there > > only " undifferentiated " is there, nothing there, no limit. The only > > thing that seem strange is that it is aware. For scienstits, this is > > like saying there is God, but he can't say it is silly, because he > > cannot prove there is not God. And he aware of that. > > > > So, yes, this all conjecture, all concept, so when scientist coming to > > make doubt, and use concept, must fight him also with concept. It is > > all he knows. > > > > What opinion of this Toombaru and Bobja Bob``? > > > > > > > You assume that there is a world and then attempt to explain it. > > > > > toombaru you both assume too much.. no matter how little you 'think' that you assume. one assumes a 'world.. and one assumes to tell the 'other' to not 'explain. you are both wrong. and you (both) are not two. and i'm not 'right' in telling you this truth. truth is truth though. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > > > This is all very good but in the end it is just more conjecture. As > > > > has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is that YOU > > > > EXIST. > > > > > > This is true. I know. But, when talking about this, if I say to > > > scientist that world is in consciousness, he will say that this not > > > correct, and think I am deluded person. He will say " don't be silly, > > > the world exist objectively and you were born into it " . And he can > put > > > doubt in me, and make all nisargadatta look silly. > > > > > > So I must have answer to scientist. Nisargadatta had answer foe > > > everything, and it was all words, concept. He say " words are all > there > > > is " > > > > > > So now, if this correct, when scientist saying consciousness is in > > > World, I saying, what is world? World is abolute? And he will agree. > > > He knwos that the 10,000 minds see same thing, so he think thing is > > > there, and call it absolute. This 10,000 minds are really same - one > > > mind, so see same thing but thing only in mind. When mind not there > > > only " undifferentiated " is there, nothing there, no limit. The only > > > thing that seem strange is that it is aware. For scienstits, this is > > > like saying there is God, but he can't say it is silly, because he > > > cannot prove there is not God. And he aware of that. > > > > > > So, yes, this all conjecture, all concept, so when scientist > coming to > > > make doubt, and use concept, must fight him also with concept. It is > > > all he knows. > > > > > > What opinion of this Toombaru and Bobja Bob``? > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume that there is a world and then attempt to explain it. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > you both assume too much.. > > no matter how little you 'think' that you assume. > > one assumes a 'world.. > > and one assumes to tell the 'other' to not 'explain. > > you are both wrong. > > and you (both) are not two. > > and i'm not 'right' in telling you this truth. > > truth is truth though. > > .b b.b. > Truth is relative.........and that's the truth. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > > > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is all very good but in the end it is just more > conjecture. As > > > > > has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is that YOU > > > > > EXIST. > > > > > > > > This is true. I know. But, when talking about this, if I say to > > > > scientist that world is in consciousness, he will say that this not > > > > correct, and think I am deluded person. He will say " don't be > silly, > > > > the world exist objectively and you were born into it " . And he can > > put > > > > doubt in me, and make all nisargadatta look silly. > > > > > > > > So I must have answer to scientist. Nisargadatta had answer foe > > > > everything, and it was all words, concept. He say " words are all > > there > > > > is " > > > > > > > > So now, if this correct, when scientist saying consciousness is in > > > > World, I saying, what is world? World is abolute? And he will > agree. > > > > He knwos that the 10,000 minds see same thing, so he think thing is > > > > there, and call it absolute. This 10,000 minds are really same - > one > > > > mind, so see same thing but thing only in mind. When mind not there > > > > only " undifferentiated " is there, nothing there, no limit. The only > > > > thing that seem strange is that it is aware. For scienstits, > this is > > > > like saying there is God, but he can't say it is silly, because he > > > > cannot prove there is not God. And he aware of that. > > > > > > > > So, yes, this all conjecture, all concept, so when scientist > > coming to > > > > make doubt, and use concept, must fight him also with concept. > It is > > > > all he knows. > > > > > > > > What opinion of this Toombaru and Bobja Bob``? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume that there is a world and then attempt to explain it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > you both assume too much.. > > > > no matter how little you 'think' that you assume. > > > > one assumes a 'world.. > > > > and one assumes to tell the 'other' to not 'explain. > > > > you are both wrong. > > > > and you (both) are not two. > > > > and i'm not 'right' in telling you this truth. > > > > truth is truth though. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > Truth is relative.........and that's the truth. > > > toombaru well...that's a relative statement too. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > > > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is all very good but in the end it is just more > conjecture. As > > > > > has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is that YOU > > > > > EXIST. > > > > > > > > This is true. I know. But, when talking about this, if I say to > > > > scientist that world is in consciousness, he will say that this not > > > > correct, and think I am deluded person. He will say " don't be > silly, > > > > the world exist objectively and you were born into it " . And he can > > put > > > > doubt in me, and make all nisargadatta look silly. > > > > > > > > So I must have answer to scientist. Nisargadatta had answer foe > > > > everything, and it was all words, concept. He say " words are all > > there > > > > is " > > > > > > > > So now, if this correct, when scientist saying consciousness is in > > > > World, I saying, what is world? World is abolute? And he will > agree. > > > > He knwos that the 10,000 minds see same thing, so he think thing is > > > > there, and call it absolute. This 10,000 minds are really same - > one > > > > mind, so see same thing but thing only in mind. When mind not there > > > > only " undifferentiated " is there, nothing there, no limit. The only > > > > thing that seem strange is that it is aware. For scienstits, > this is > > > > like saying there is God, but he can't say it is silly, because he > > > > cannot prove there is not God. And he aware of that. > > > > > > > > So, yes, this all conjecture, all concept, so when scientist > > coming to > > > > make doubt, and use concept, must fight him also with concept. > It is > > > > all he knows. > > > > > > > > What opinion of this Toombaru and Bobja Bob``? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume that there is a world and then attempt to explain it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > you both assume too much.. > > > > no matter how little you 'think' that you assume. > > > > one assumes a 'world.. > > > > and one assumes to tell the 'other' to not 'explain. > > > > you are both wrong. > > > > and you (both) are not two. > > > > and i'm not 'right' in telling you this truth. > > > > truth is truth though. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > Truth is relative.........and that's the truth. > > > toombaru >I haven't any idea what you mean when you say truth is relative.If someone throws a rock and hits you in the face with it, truth is a terrific sudden sharp pain.If you turn the corner and see a very beautiful woman coming toward you amd you take a sudden deep breath, truth is that aching desire you feel--depending on your gender and persuasion of course.I mean truth is what's HERE NOW. No? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > This is all very good but in the end it is just more conjecture. As > > > has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is that YOU > > > EXIST. > > > > This is true. I know. But, when talking about this, if I say to > > scientist that world is in consciousness, he will say that this not > > correct, and think I am deluded person. He will say " don't be silly, > > the world exist objectively and you were born into it " . And he can put > > doubt in me, and make all nisargadatta look silly. > > > > So I must have answer to scientist. Nisargadatta had answer foe > > everything, and it was all words, concept. He say " words are all there > > is " > > > > So now, if this correct, when scientist saying consciousness is in > > World, I saying, what is world? World is abolute? And he will agree. > > He knwos that the 10,000 minds see same thing, so he think thing is > > there, and call it absolute. This 10,000 minds are really same - one > > mind, so see same thing but thing only in mind. When mind not there > > only " undifferentiated " is there, nothing there, no limit. The only > > thing that seem strange is that it is aware. For scienstits, this is > > like saying there is God, but he can't say it is silly, because he > > cannot prove there is not God. And he aware of that. > > > > So, yes, this all conjecture, all concept, so when scientist coming to > > make doubt, and use concept, must fight him also with concept. It is > > all he knows. > > > > What opinion of this Toombaru and Bobja Bob``? > > > > > > > You assume that there is a world and then attempt to explain it. > > > > > toombaru > No Toombaru. The scientist assume this. I know it does not exist. But it appears to exist, from a relative point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > > > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I now think that: > > > > > > > > 1) Universe without mind to observe it is absolute, > > > > > > > > 2) Consciousness is awareness modulated by mind, > > > > > > > > 3) Mind is relative, and relativity allow measure of time and > > space, > > > > and give objectivity. > > > > > > > > From this concluding objectivity is mind way of seeing absolute. > > So no > > > > difference. Although some puzzle left, I think this correct, and > > seem > > > > like final link in most elegant concept. > > > > > > *** Oui, monsieur! > > > > > > And in this moment relative-and-absolute...ended. ;-) > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > You are the content of consciousness.....searching within the content > of consciousness for consciousness itself. > > > > toombaru > Yes toombaru everything is appearing in consciousness as objects, like me, like I,a nd like this body, like this mind, and like these concept we discuss now. All I am doing is trying explain objectivity because he scientists is saying bad things about Nisargadatta and call us loonies. So I must argue with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > > > > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This is all very good but in the end it is just more > > conjecture. As > > > > > > has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is > that YOU > > > > > > EXIST. > > > > > > > > > > This is true. I know. But, when talking about this, if I say > to > > > > > scientist that world is in consciousness, he will say that > this not > > > > > correct, and think I am deluded person. He will say " don't be > > silly, > > > > > the world exist objectively and you were born into it " . And > he can > > > put > > > > > doubt in me, and make all nisargadatta look silly. > > > > > > > > > > So I must have answer to scientist. Nisargadatta had answer > foe > > > > > everything, and it was all words, concept. He say " words are > all > > > there > > > > > is " > > > > > > > > > > So now, if this correct, when scientist saying consciousness > is in > > > > > World, I saying, what is world? World is abolute? And he will > > agree. > > > > > He knwos that the 10,000 minds see same thing, so he think > thing is > > > > > there, and call it absolute. This 10,000 minds are really > same - > > one > > > > > mind, so see same thing but thing only in mind. When mind > not there > > > > > only " undifferentiated " is there, nothing there, no limit. > The only > > > > > thing that seem strange is that it is aware. For scienstits, > > this is > > > > > like saying there is God, but he can't say it is silly, > because he > > > > > cannot prove there is not God. And he aware of that. > > > > > > > > > > So, yes, this all conjecture, all concept, so when scientist > > > coming to > > > > > make doubt, and use concept, must fight him also with > concept. > > It is > > > > > all he knows. > > > > > > > > > > What opinion of this Toombaru and Bobja Bob``? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume that there is a world and then attempt to explain > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > you both assume too much.. > > > > > > no matter how little you 'think' that you assume. > > > > > > one assumes a 'world.. > > > > > > and one assumes to tell the 'other' to not 'explain. > > > > > > you are both wrong. > > > > > > and you (both) are not two. > > > > > > and i'm not 'right' in telling you this truth. > > > > > > truth is truth though. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > Truth is relative.........and that's the truth. > > > > > > toombaru > >I haven't any idea what you mean when you say truth is relative.If > someone throws a rock and hits you in the face with it, truth is a > terrific sudden sharp pain.If you turn the corner and see a very > beautiful woman coming toward you amd you take a sudden deep breath, > truth is that aching desire you feel--depending on your gender and > persuasion of course.I mean truth is what's HERE NOW. No? > Why does what is need a name? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " <tigerlily_du_lac wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > > > This is all very good but in the end it is just more > conjecture. As > > > > has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is that > YOU > > > > EXIST. > > > > > > This is true. I know. But, when talking about this, if I say to > > > scientist that world is in consciousness, he will say that this > not > > > correct, and think I am deluded person. He will say " don't be > silly, > > > the world exist objectively and you were born into it " . And he > can put > > > doubt in me, and make all nisargadatta look silly. > > > > > > So I must have answer to scientist. Nisargadatta had answer foe > > > everything, and it was all words, concept. He say " words are all > there > > > is " > > > > > > So now, if this correct, when scientist saying consciousness is > in > > > World, I saying, what is world? World is abolute? And he will > agree. > > > He knwos that the 10,000 minds see same thing, so he think thing > is > > > there, and call it absolute. This 10,000 minds are really same - > one > > > mind, so see same thing but thing only in mind. When mind not > there > > > only " undifferentiated " is there, nothing there, no limit. The > only > > > thing that seem strange is that it is aware. For scienstits, > this is > > > like saying there is God, but he can't say it is silly, because > he > > > cannot prove there is not God. And he aware of that. > > > > > > So, yes, this all conjecture, all concept, so when scientist > coming to > > > make doubt, and use concept, must fight him also with concept. > It is > > > all he knows. > > > > > > What opinion of this Toombaru and Bobja Bob``? > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume that there is a world and then attempt to explain it. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > No Toombaru. The scientist assume this. I know it does not exist. > But it appears to exist, from a relative point of view. > What about the " I " thing that claims to know that? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > > > > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This is all very good but in the end it is just more > > conjecture. As > > > > > > has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is > that YOU > > > > > > EXIST. > > > > > > > > > > This is true. I know. But, when talking about this, if I say > to > > > > > scientist that world is in consciousness, he will say that > this not > > > > > correct, and think I am deluded person. He will say " don't be > > silly, > > > > > the world exist objectively and you were born into it " . And > he can > > > put > > > > > doubt in me, and make all nisargadatta look silly. > > > > > > > > > > So I must have answer to scientist. Nisargadatta had answer > foe > > > > > everything, and it was all words, concept. He say " words are > all > > > there > > > > > is " > > > > > > > > > > So now, if this correct, when scientist saying consciousness > is in > > > > > World, I saying, what is world? World is abolute? And he will > > agree. > > > > > He knwos that the 10,000 minds see same thing, so he think > thing is > > > > > there, and call it absolute. This 10,000 minds are really > same - > > one > > > > > mind, so see same thing but thing only in mind. When mind > not there > > > > > only " undifferentiated " is there, nothing there, no limit. > The only > > > > > thing that seem strange is that it is aware. For scienstits, > > this is > > > > > like saying there is God, but he can't say it is silly, > because he > > > > > cannot prove there is not God. And he aware of that. > > > > > > > > > > So, yes, this all conjecture, all concept, so when scientist > > > coming to > > > > > make doubt, and use concept, must fight him also with > concept. > > It is > > > > > all he knows. > > > > > > > > > > What opinion of this Toombaru and Bobja Bob``? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume that there is a world and then attempt to explain > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > you both assume too much.. > > > > > > no matter how little you 'think' that you assume. > > > > > > one assumes a 'world.. > > > > > > and one assumes to tell the 'other' to not 'explain. > > > > > > you are both wrong. > > > > > > and you (both) are not two. > > > > > > and i'm not 'right' in telling you this truth. > > > > > > truth is truth though. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > Truth is relative.........and that's the truth. > > > > > > toombaru > >I haven't any idea what you mean when you say truth is relative.If > someone throws a rock and hits you in the face with it, truth is a > terrific sudden sharp pain.If you turn the corner and see a very > beautiful woman coming toward you amd you take a sudden deep breath, > truth is that aching desire you feel--depending on your gender and > persuasion of course.I mean truth is what's HERE NOW. No? Yes! it's All There Is let's let Peggy Lee take us to the Truth: IS THAT ALL THERE IS? Peggy Lee SPOKEN: I remember when I was a very little girl, our house caught on fire. I'll never forget the look on my father's face as he gathered me up in his arms and raced through the burning building out to the pavement. I stood there shivering in my pajamas and watched the whole world go up in flames. And when it was all over I said to myself, " Is that all there is to a fire " SUNG: Is that all there is, is that all there is If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing Let's break out the booze and have a ball If that's all there is SPOKEN: And when I was 12 years old, my father took me to a circus, the greatest show on earth. There were clowns and elephants and dancing bears. And a beautiful lady in pink tights flew high above our heads. And so I sat there watching the marvelous spectacle. I had the feeling that something was missing. I don't know what, but when it was over, I said to myself, " is that all there is to a circus? SUNG: Is that all there is, is that all there is If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing Let's break out the booze and have a ball If that's all there is SPOKEN: Then I fell in love, head over heels in love, with the most wonderful boy in the world. We would take long walks by the river or just sit for hours gazing into each other's eyes. We were so very much in love. Then one day he went away and I thought I'd die, but I didn't, and when I didn't I said to myself, " is that all there is to love? " SUNG: Is that all there is, is that all there is If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing SPOKEN: I know what you must be saying to yourselves, if that's the way she feels about it why doesn't she just end it all? Oh, no, not me. I'm in no hurry for that final disappointment, for I know just as well as I'm standing here talking to you, when that final moment comes and I'm breathing my lst breath, I'll be saying to myself SUNG: Is that all there is, is that all there is If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing Let's break out the booze and have a ball If that's all there is cool huh? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " <tigerlily_du_lac wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > > > > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I now think that: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Universe without mind to observe it is absolute, > > > > > > > > > > 2) Consciousness is awareness modulated by mind, > > > > > > > > > > 3) Mind is relative, and relativity allow measure of time > and > > > space, > > > > > and give objectivity. > > > > > > > > > > From this concluding objectivity is mind way of seeing > absolute. > > > So no > > > > > difference. Although some puzzle left, I think this correct, > and > > > seem > > > > > like final link in most elegant concept. > > > > > > > > *** Oui, monsieur! > > > > > > > > And in this moment relative-and-absolute...ended. ;-) > > > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are the content of consciousness.....searching within the > content > > of consciousness for consciousness itself. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Yes toombaru everything is appearing in consciousness as objects, > like me, like I,a nd like this body, like this mind, and like these > concept we discuss now. > > All I am doing is trying explain objectivity because he scientists > is saying bad things about Nisargadatta and call us loonies. So I > must argue with him. > You are combating concepts about things with concepts about things. See that.....and watch what happens. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 > You are combating concepts about things with concepts about things. > > See that.....and watch what happens. Thank you Toombaru. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > > > > > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is all very good but in the end it is just more > > > conjecture. As > > > > > > > has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is > > that YOU > > > > > > > EXIST. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is true. I know. But, when talking about this, if I say > > to > > > > > > scientist that world is in consciousness, he will say that > > this not > > > > > > correct, and think I am deluded person. He will say " don't be > > > silly, > > > > > > the world exist objectively and you were born into it " . And > > he can > > > > put > > > > > > doubt in me, and make all nisargadatta look silly. > > > > > > > > > > > > So I must have answer to scientist. Nisargadatta had answer > > foe > > > > > > everything, and it was all words, concept. He say " words are > > all > > > > there > > > > > > is " > > > > > > > > > > > > So now, if this correct, when scientist saying consciousness > > is in > > > > > > World, I saying, what is world? World is abolute? And he will > > > agree. > > > > > > He knwos that the 10,000 minds see same thing, so he think > > thing is > > > > > > there, and call it absolute. This 10,000 minds are really > > same - > > > one > > > > > > mind, so see same thing but thing only in mind. When mind > > not there > > > > > > only " undifferentiated " is there, nothing there, no limit. > > The only > > > > > > thing that seem strange is that it is aware. For scienstits, > > > this is > > > > > > like saying there is God, but he can't say it is silly, > > because he > > > > > > cannot prove there is not God. And he aware of that. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, yes, this all conjecture, all concept, so when scientist > > > > coming to > > > > > > make doubt, and use concept, must fight him also with > > concept. > > > It is > > > > > > all he knows. > > > > > > > > > > > > What opinion of this Toombaru and Bobja Bob``? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume that there is a world and then attempt to explain > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > you both assume too much.. > > > > > > > > no matter how little you 'think' that you assume. > > > > > > > > one assumes a 'world.. > > > > > > > > and one assumes to tell the 'other' to not 'explain. > > > > > > > > you are both wrong. > > > > > > > > and you (both) are not two. > > > > > > > > and i'm not 'right' in telling you this truth. > > > > > > > > truth is truth though. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Truth is relative.........and that's the truth. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > >I haven't any idea what you mean when you say truth is relative.If > > someone throws a rock and hits you in the face with it, truth is a > > terrific sudden sharp pain.If you turn the corner and see a very > > beautiful woman coming toward you amd you take a sudden deep breath, > > truth is that aching desire you feel--depending on your gender and > > persuasion of course.I mean truth is what's HERE NOW. No? > > > > > Why does what is need a name? > > > toombaru well it's not an absolute must. it's just a nice thing to play around with. don't 'you' like having fun? or is all this stuff 'serious' business with 'you'? that's a drag man! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > > > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is all very good but in the end it is just more > > conjecture. As > > > > > has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is that > > YOU > > > > > EXIST. > > > > > > > > This is true. I know. But, when talking about this, if I say to > > > > scientist that world is in consciousness, he will say that this > > not > > > > correct, and think I am deluded person. He will say " don't be > > silly, > > > > the world exist objectively and you were born into it " . And he > > can put > > > > doubt in me, and make all nisargadatta look silly. > > > > > > > > So I must have answer to scientist. Nisargadatta had answer foe > > > > everything, and it was all words, concept. He say " words are all > > there > > > > is " > > > > > > > > So now, if this correct, when scientist saying consciousness is > > in > > > > World, I saying, what is world? World is abolute? And he will > > agree. > > > > He knwos that the 10,000 minds see same thing, so he think thing > > is > > > > there, and call it absolute. This 10,000 minds are really same - > > one > > > > mind, so see same thing but thing only in mind. When mind not > > there > > > > only " undifferentiated " is there, nothing there, no limit. The > > only > > > > thing that seem strange is that it is aware. For scienstits, > > this is > > > > like saying there is God, but he can't say it is silly, because > > he > > > > cannot prove there is not God. And he aware of that. > > > > > > > > So, yes, this all conjecture, all concept, so when scientist > > coming to > > > > make doubt, and use concept, must fight him also with concept. > > It is > > > > all he knows. > > > > > > > > What opinion of this Toombaru and Bobja Bob``? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume that there is a world and then attempt to explain it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > No Toombaru. The scientist assume this. I know it does not exist. > > But it appears to exist, from a relative point of view. > > > > > What about the " I " thing that claims to know that? > > toombaru there are no 'things'. absolutely. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " > > > > > <tigerlily_du_lac@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I now think that: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Universe without mind to observe it is absolute, > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Consciousness is awareness modulated by mind, > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Mind is relative, and relativity allow measure of time > > and > > > > space, > > > > > > and give objectivity. > > > > > > > > > > > > From this concluding objectivity is mind way of seeing > > absolute. > > > > So no > > > > > > difference. Although some puzzle left, I think this correct, > > and > > > > seem > > > > > > like final link in most elegant concept. > > > > > > > > > > *** Oui, monsieur! > > > > > > > > > > And in this moment relative-and-absolute...ended. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are the content of consciousness.....searching within the > > content > > > of consciousness for consciousness itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > Yes toombaru everything is appearing in consciousness as objects, > > like me, like I,a nd like this body, like this mind, and like these > > concept we discuss now. > > > > All I am doing is trying explain objectivity because he scientists > > is saying bad things about Nisargadatta and call us loonies. So I > > must argue with him. > > > > > You are combating concepts about things with concepts about things. > > See that.....and watch what happens. > > > toombaru how can 'that which IS NOT' " see " 'that which IS'? there is a prob. there toomie. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 > If > someone throws a rock and hits you in the face with it, truth is a > terrific sudden sharp pain.If you turn the corner and see a very > beautiful woman coming toward you amd you take a sudden deep breath, > truth is that aching desire you feel--depending on your gender and > persuasion of course.I mean truth is what's HERE NOW. No? > Ok, whats here now is truth, but that not helping one who suffer to hear that. Or one trapped in webcob. With concepts. He trapped in webcob and that is true, but he won't be happy. And if is all the fuss about? Why is Nisargadatta bother to say anything? So what is answer to this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 > well it's not an absolute must. > > it's just a nice thing to play around with. > > don't 'you' like having fun? > > or is all this stuff 'serious' business with 'you'? > > that's a drag man! > > .b b.b. > Also bbb that have concepts to fight concepts is fun, like entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tigerlily_du_lac " <tigerlily_du_lac wrote: > > > If > > someone throws a rock and hits you in the face with it, truth is a > > terrific sudden sharp pain.If you turn the corner and see a very > > beautiful woman coming toward you amd you take a sudden deep breath, > > truth is that aching desire you feel--depending on your gender and > > persuasion of course.I mean truth is what's HERE NOW. No? > > > > Ok, whats here now is truth, but that not helping one who suffer to > hear that. Or one trapped in webcob. With concepts. He trapped in > webcob and that is true, but he won't be happy. And if is all the fuss > about? Why is Nisargadatta bother to say anything? > > So what is answer to this? what Nis. talked about had relatively little to do with 'happiness'. but he did like to have fun. i'm funny that way myself. but only when i am aware of one (self). fortunately that's a rare event nowadays. funny that. ..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.