Guest guest Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 Advaita means--as is well known by now--not-two. So if I say " I see a tree. " , I am wrong from the get-go.It is the old subject-object duality. I and the tree.As two as two can be.Maybe this problem can be resolved this way: Attention is never on two things simultaneously.It is flickering with very great rapidity from I to tree and back [of course it is also flickering on a great many other things as well during this encounter but all that is irrelevant to the matter at hand.But it is wonderful to think with what speed attention goes about its' work ] so that at any given NOW it is wholly either being I or being tree and thus it is always only one and non dual. I say " being I " or " being tree " because consciousness attends to something by being that something.It knows by being. I don't know, but I like this line of thought.If I had the noodle for it I would carry it further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 So are you a tree now? Lu Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Advaita means--as is well known by now--not-two. So if I say " I see a > tree. " , I am wrong from the get-go.It is the old subject-object > duality. I and the tree.As two as two can be.Maybe this problem can be > resolved this way: Attention is never on two things simultaneously.It > is flickering with very great rapidity from I to tree and back [of > course it is also flickering on a great many other things as well > during this encounter but all that is irrelevant to the matter at > hand.But it is wonderful to think with what speed attention goes about > its' work ] so that at any given NOW it is wholly either being I or > being tree and thus it is always only one and non dual. I say " being > I " or " being tree " because consciousness attends to something by being > that something.It knows by being. I don't know, but I like this line > of thought.If I had the noodle for it I would carry it further. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " lulu.dong " <lulu.dong wrote: > > > > > So are you a tree now? > > Lu no that 'one' is not a tree...that one's up a tree. scary stuff! ..b b.b. .........................absolutely NNB................................ > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Advaita means--as is well known by now--not-two. So if I say " I > see a > > tree. " , I am wrong from the get-go.It is the old subject-object > > duality. I and the tree.As two as two can be.Maybe this problem > can be > > resolved this way: Attention is never on two things > simultaneously.It > > is flickering with very great rapidity from I to tree and back [of > > course it is also flickering on a great many other things as well > > during this encounter but all that is irrelevant to the matter at > > hand.But it is wonderful to think with what speed attention goes > about > > its' work ] so that at any given NOW it is wholly either being I > or > > being tree and thus it is always only one and non dual. I say " > being > > I " or " being tree " because consciousness attends to something by > being > > that something.It knows by being. I don't know, but I like this > line > > of thought.If I had the noodle for it I would carry it further. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " lulu.dong " <lulu.dong wrote: > > > > > So are you a tree now? > > Lu > Yes, I am THAT tree--or I was THAT tree--every limb and leaf of it that was poe;rceived. But I was not the zyloplasts and the chloroplasts and the tap root etc cuz all that in this case is just imagination.It is, if you will, the " ego " of the tree. > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Advaita means--as is well known by now--not-two. So if I say " I > see a > > tree. " , I am wrong from the get-go.It is the old subject-object > > duality. I and the tree.As two as two can be.Maybe this problem > can be > > resolved this way: Attention is never on two things > simultaneously.It > > is flickering with very great rapidity from I to tree and back [of > > course it is also flickering on a great many other things as well > > during this encounter but all that is irrelevant to the matter at > > hand.But it is wonderful to think with what speed attention goes > about > > its' work ] so that at any given NOW it is wholly either being I > or > > being tree and thus it is always only one and non dual. I say " > being > > I " or " being tree " because consciousness attends to something by > being > > that something.It knows by being. I don't know, but I like this > line > > of thought.If I had the noodle for it I would carry it further. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Why do you seperate between ego and tree? What's wrong with the ego of a tree? Does it not belong to the tree? Lu Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lulu.dong " <lulu.dong@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So are you a tree now? > > > > Lu > > Yes, I am THAT tree--or I was THAT tree--every limb and leaf of it > that was poe;rceived. But I was not the zyloplasts and the > chloroplasts and the tap root etc cuz all that in this case is just > imagination.It is, if you will, the " ego " of the tree. > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > Advaita means--as is well known by now--not-two. So if I say " I > > see a > > > tree. " , I am wrong from the get-go.It is the old subject-object > > > duality. I and the tree.As two as two can be.Maybe this problem > > can be > > > resolved this way: Attention is never on two things > > simultaneously.It > > > is flickering with very great rapidity from I to tree and back > [of > > > course it is also flickering on a great many other things as > well > > > during this encounter but all that is irrelevant to the matter > at > > > hand.But it is wonderful to think with what speed attention goes > > about > > > its' work ] so that at any given NOW it is wholly either being I > > or > > > being tree and thus it is always only one and non dual. I say " > > being > > > I " or " being tree " because consciousness attends to something by > > being > > > that something.It knows by being. I don't know, but I like this > > line > > > of thought.If I had the noodle for it I would carry it further. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Nisargadatta , " lulu.dong " <lulu.dong wrote: > > Why do you seperate between ego and tree? > > What's wrong with the ego of a tree? > > Does it not belong to the tree? > > > Lu quit being so dizzy! ..b b.b. ...............................NNB..................................... .... > In Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lulu.dong " <lulu.dong@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So are you a tree now? > > > > > > Lu > > > Yes, I am THAT tree--or I was THAT tree--every limb and leaf of > it > > that was poe;rceived. But I was not the zyloplasts and the > > chloroplasts and the tap root etc cuz all that in this case is just > > imagination.It is, if you will, the " ego " of the tree. > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Advaita means--as is well known by now--not-two. So if I say " I > > > see a > > > > tree. " , I am wrong from the get-go.It is the old subject-object > > > > duality. I and the tree.As two as two can be.Maybe this problem > > > can be > > > > resolved this way: Attention is never on two things > > > simultaneously.It > > > > is flickering with very great rapidity from I to tree and back > > [of > > > > course it is also flickering on a great many other things as > > well > > > > during this encounter but all that is irrelevant to the matter > > at > > > > hand.But it is wonderful to think with what speed attention > goes > > > about > > > > its' work ] so that at any given NOW it is wholly either being > I > > > or > > > > being tree and thus it is always only one and non dual. I say " > > > being > > > > I " or " being tree " because consciousness attends to something > by > > > being > > > > that something.It knows by being. I don't know, but I like this > > > line > > > > of thought.If I had the noodle for it I would carry it further. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 What's dizzy about the ego of a tree? What need is there to abandon the ego? Is not the ego a part of the nondual world too? lulu Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lulu.dong " <lulu.dong@> wrote: > > > > Why do you seperate between ego and tree? > > > > What's wrong with the ego of a tree? > > > > Does it not belong to the tree? > > > > > > Lu > > > > quit being so dizzy! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > ..............................NNB.................................. .... > ... > > > In Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lulu.dong " <lulu.dong@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So are you a tree now? > > > > > > > > Lu > > > > Yes, I am THAT tree--or I was THAT tree--every limb and leaf of > > it > > > that was poe;rceived. But I was not the zyloplasts and the > > > chloroplasts and the tap root etc cuz all that in this case is just > > > imagination.It is, if you will, the " ego " of the tree. > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Advaita means--as is well known by now--not-two. So if I say " I > > > > see a > > > > > tree. " , I am wrong from the get-go.It is the old subject- object > > > > > duality. I and the tree.As two as two can be.Maybe this problem > > > > can be > > > > > resolved this way: Attention is never on two things > > > > simultaneously.It > > > > > is flickering with very great rapidity from I to tree and back > > > [of > > > > > course it is also flickering on a great many other things as > > > well > > > > > during this encounter but all that is irrelevant to the matter > > > at > > > > > hand.But it is wonderful to think with what speed attention > > goes > > > > about > > > > > its' work ] so that at any given NOW it is wholly either being > > I > > > > or > > > > > being tree and thus it is always only one and non dual. I say " > > > > being > > > > > I " or " being tree " because consciousness attends to something > > by > > > > being > > > > > that something.It knows by being. I don't know, but I like this > > > > line > > > > > of thought.If I had the noodle for it I would carry it further. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Nisargadatta , " lulu.dong " <lulu.dong wrote: > > What's dizzy about the ego of a tree? > > What need is there to abandon the ego? > > Is not the ego a part of the nondual world too? > > lulu what nondual world? it's all one not 'too'. ..b b.baba ******************************nnb************************************* > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lulu.dong " <lulu.dong@> > wrote: > > > > > > Why do you seperate between ego and tree? > > > > > > What's wrong with the ego of a tree? > > > > > > Does it not belong to the tree? > > > > > > > > > Lu > > > > > > > > quit being so dizzy! > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > ..............................NNB.................................. > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > In Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lulu.dong " <lulu.dong@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So are you a tree now? > > > > > > > > > > Lu > > > > > Yes, I am THAT tree--or I was THAT tree--every limb and leaf > of > > > it > > > > that was poe;rceived. But I was not the zyloplasts and the > > > > chloroplasts and the tap root etc cuz all that in this case is > just > > > > imagination.It is, if you will, the " ego " of the tree. > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Advaita means--as is well known by now--not-two. So if I > say " I > > > > > see a > > > > > > tree. " , I am wrong from the get-go.It is the old subject- > object > > > > > > duality. I and the tree.As two as two can be.Maybe this > problem > > > > > can be > > > > > > resolved this way: Attention is never on two things > > > > > simultaneously.It > > > > > > is flickering with very great rapidity from I to tree and > back > > > > [of > > > > > > course it is also flickering on a great many other things > as > > > > well > > > > > > during this encounter but all that is irrelevant to the > matter > > > > at > > > > > > hand.But it is wonderful to think with what speed > attention > > > goes > > > > > about > > > > > > its' work ] so that at any given NOW it is wholly either > being > > > I > > > > > or > > > > > > being tree and thus it is always only one and non dual. I > say " > > > > > being > > > > > > I " or " being tree " because consciousness attends to > something > > > by > > > > > being > > > > > > that something.It knows by being. I don't know, but I like > this > > > > > line > > > > > > of thought.If I had the noodle for it I would carry it > further. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.