Guest guest Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 It is said that all separation is the result of conceptualization.I wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Everything is a concept. There is me and there are others, we are seperate, that is the concept of seperation. There is no me, and there are no others, that is the concept of bob. I am an illusion and there are other illusions, that is the concept of lulu. Everything you ever hear about, enlightenment, awakening, fear, ... all are concepts. Which concept you make to your reality, is up to you. I suggest you choose all of them. There is of course a concept which includes all other concepts, and there is one that excludes all others, the one which includes all others, includes even that one. LOL lulu Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > It is said that all separation is the result of conceptualization.I > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting terms. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Headbust. The concept which includes all others is called the M Concept or Mirror Concept. The Mirror stands for the all inclusive concept and has the potential to reflect every other concept, from nothingness to light, from seperation to oneness, ...tom <jeusisbuen wrote: It is said that all separation is the result of conceptualization.I wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting terms. Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > It is said that all separation is the result of conceptualization.I > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting terms. it look like..... that this statement....is of someone with a great heart.... mind tend to seperate things.... to divide things in many different ways... by many different concepts..... heart tend to " see " Oneness within all there is.... no concepts for heart necessary..... to " see " this.... .... Marc Ps: someone who is able to love...all there Is.... however....it appear to be.... is of great heart... and so....isn't trapped constantly in nice concepts... by a conceptual working (ego)mind.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , Black Eyes <loggin.again wrote: > > Headbust. > > The concept which includes all others is called the M Concept or Mirror Concept. > The Mirror stands for the all inclusive concept and has the potential to reflect every other concept, from nothingness to light, from seperation to oneness, ... > > tom <jeusisbuen wrote: > It is said that all separation is the result of conceptualization.I > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting terms. > > Thanks, Swamiji.Even in the throes of concussion I want to say:the mirror concept, useful though it is, is still a concept.As such it contributes to separation.It is good and useful but in the end has to be put down > > > > > > Luggage? GPS? Comic books? > Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " lulu.dong " <lulu.dong wrote: > > Everything is a concept. > > There is me and there are others, we are seperate, that is the concept > of seperation. > > There is no me, and there are no others, that is the concept of bob. > > I am an illusion and there are other illusions, that is the concept of > lulu. > > Everything you ever hear about, enlightenment, awakening, fear, ... all > are concepts. > > Which concept you make to your reality, is up to you. > > I suggest you choose all of them. > > There is of course a concept which includes all other concepts, and > there is one that excludes all others, the one which includes all > others, includes even that one. LOL > > lulu > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of conceptualization.I > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting terms. > > >Direct experience, is that a concept?Salt on the tongue--or the experience resulting from salt on the tongue? Cioncept is secondary, explanatory, imaginative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of conceptualization.I > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting terms. > > > it look like..... > that this statement....is of someone with a great heart.... > > mind tend to seperate things.... > to divide things in many different ways... > by many different concepts..... > > heart tend to " see " Oneness within all there is.... > no concepts for heart necessary..... > to " see " this.... > > > ... > > > Marc > > > Ps: someone who is able to love...all there Is.... > however....it appear to be.... > > is of great heart... > > and so....isn't trapped constantly in nice concepts... > by a conceptual working (ego)mind.... > So things are experienced by the heart and explained by the mind.And in getting explained they get pulled asunder.What is purely experience, is loved. What is explained, is merely made use of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of > conceptualization.I > > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting > terms. > > > > > > it look like..... > > that this statement....is of someone with a great heart.... > > > > mind tend to seperate things.... > > to divide things in many different ways... > > by many different concepts..... > > > > heart tend to " see " Oneness within all there is.... > > no concepts for heart necessary..... > > to " see " this.... > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Ps: someone who is able to love...all there Is.... > > however....it appear to be.... > > > > is of great heart... > > > > and so....isn't trapped constantly in nice concepts... > > by a conceptual working (ego)mind.... > > > So things are experienced by the heart and explained by the mind.And > in getting explained they get pulled asunder.What is purely > experience, is loved. What is explained, is merely made use of. things are experienced by the (ego) mind first..... the " connection/relation " to the appearing world.....with/in/by all the differences....and seperations..... ....is of mind (fictions) ..... heart don't make any experiences.... love is love oneness is oneness... always..... .... sometimes.... on the path to unification of mind, body and real Self (soul).... it happen that mind get closer to heart..... and then only..... some transformations are happening..... which lead to some more awareness.... this growing awareness....is sometimes called " experiences " .... but it's not about to collect as many experiences as one can get.... it's about to get full awareness..... ...... in full awareness.... there is nobody anymore.... " who " made experiences before.... just like when you wake up in the morning.... the dream of.... " many things " ....has gone ..... same with your imaginary little ego-mind.... one day... " you " will see.... it never existed for real..... .... then " you " know.... and are aware of... " who & what " you are.... for real... means... real Self .... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Salt on the tongue, direct experience, mirrors, truth, all their concepts. Even heart, love and hate are their concepts. Reality is their concept. Seperation is a direct experience for the seperated, you argue that it is like salt on the tongue, thus no concept for the seperated, true, a concept is only a concept for those outstanding, for everyone else it is a reality. In our example, those seperated from seperation, the enlightened and awakened call seperation a concept because they are seperated from that conceptual reality. While enlightenment and awakenness in turn is again a concept for the seperated. It all depends on your point of view, shift it into the concept experiencer, the concept disappears and makes room for a new reality. A concept is not necessarly secondary and imaginative, a concept can be absolutely primary and real. Take the concept of direct experience as an example. My direct experience is that I am a concept, according to you. lulu Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lulu.dong " <lulu.dong@> > wrote: > > > > Everything is a concept. > > > > There is me and there are others, we are seperate, that is the > concept > > of seperation. > > > > There is no me, and there are no others, that is the concept of > bob. > > > > I am an illusion and there are other illusions, that is the > concept of > > lulu. > > > > Everything you ever hear about, enlightenment, awakening, > fear, ... all > > are concepts. > > > > Which concept you make to your reality, is up to you. > > > > I suggest you choose all of them. > > > > There is of course a concept which includes all other concepts, > and > > there is one that excludes all others, the one which includes all > > others, includes even that one. LOL > > > > lulu > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of > conceptualization.I > > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting > terms. > > > > >Direct experience, is that a concept?Salt on the tongue--or the > experience resulting from salt on the tongue? Concept is secondary, > explanatory, imaginative. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of > > conceptualization.I > > > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting > > terms. > > > > > > > > > it look like..... > > > that this statement....is of someone with a great heart.... > > > > > > mind tend to seperate things.... > > > to divide things in many different ways... > > > by many different concepts..... > > > > > > heart tend to " see " Oneness within all there is.... > > > no concepts for heart necessary..... > > > to " see " this.... > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > Ps: someone who is able to love...all there Is.... > > > however....it appear to be.... > > > > > > is of great heart... > > > > > > and so....isn't trapped constantly in nice concepts... > > > by a conceptual working (ego)mind.... > > > > > So things are experienced by the heart and explained by the > mind.And > > in getting explained they get pulled asunder.What is purely > > experience, is loved. What is explained, is merely made use of. > > > things are experienced by the (ego) mind first..... > > the " connection/relation " to the appearing world.....with/in/by all > the differences....and seperations..... > > ...is of mind (fictions) > > > .... > > > heart don't make any experiences.... > > love is love > oneness is oneness... > > always..... > > > ... > > > sometimes.... > on the path to unification of mind, body and real Self (soul).... > > it happen that mind get closer to heart..... > > and then only..... > > some transformations are happening..... > > which lead to some more awareness.... > > this growing awareness....is sometimes called " experiences " .... > > but it's not about to collect as many experiences as one can get.... > > it's about to get full awareness..... > > ..... > > in full awareness.... > > there is nobody anymore.... > > " who " made experiences before.... > > just like when you wake up in the morning.... > > the dream of.... " many things " ....has gone > > > .... > > > same with your imaginary little ego-mind.... > > one day... > > " you " will see.... > > it never existed for real..... > > > ... > > > then " you " know.... > and are aware of... > " who & what " you are.... > for real... > means... > > real Self > > > ... > > > Marc >Egomind is imaginary in that it takes itself to be the experiencer rather than part of the experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of > > > conceptualization.I > > > > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non > headbusting > > > terms. > > > > > > > > > > > > it look like..... > > > > that this statement....is of someone with a great heart.... > > > > > > > > mind tend to seperate things.... > > > > to divide things in many different ways... > > > > by many different concepts..... > > > > > > > > heart tend to " see " Oneness within all there is.... > > > > no concepts for heart necessary..... > > > > to " see " this.... > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > Ps: someone who is able to love...all there Is.... > > > > however....it appear to be.... > > > > > > > > is of great heart... > > > > > > > > and so....isn't trapped constantly in nice concepts... > > > > by a conceptual working (ego)mind.... > > > > > > > So things are experienced by the heart and explained by the > > mind.And > > > in getting explained they get pulled asunder.What is purely > > > experience, is loved. What is explained, is merely made use of. > > > > > > things are experienced by the (ego) mind first..... > > > > the " connection/relation " to the appearing world.....with/in/by > all > > the differences....and seperations..... > > > > ...is of mind (fictions) > > > > > > .... > > > > > > heart don't make any experiences.... > > > > love is love > > oneness is oneness... > > > > always..... > > > > > > ... > > > > > > sometimes.... > > on the path to unification of mind, body and real Self (soul).... > > > > it happen that mind get closer to heart..... > > > > and then only..... > > > > some transformations are happening..... > > > > which lead to some more awareness.... > > > > this growing awareness....is sometimes called " experiences " .... > > > > but it's not about to collect as many experiences as one can > get.... > > > > it's about to get full awareness..... > > > > ..... > > > > in full awareness.... > > > > there is nobody anymore.... > > > > " who " made experiences before.... > > > > just like when you wake up in the morning.... > > > > the dream of.... " many things " ....has gone > > > > > > .... > > > > > > same with your imaginary little ego-mind.... > > > > one day... > > > > " you " will see.... > > > > it never existed for real..... > > > > > > ... > > > > > > then " you " know.... > > and are aware of... > > " who & what " you are.... > > for real... > > means... > > > > real Self > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Marc > >Egomind is imaginary in that it takes itself to be the experiencer > rather than part of the experience. yes....kind of Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > It is said that all separation is the result of conceptualization.I > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting terms. > In the Ark that is mind, everything is named in pairs. These pairs appear (separated) from the very process of naming. love e Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 Nisargadatta , " ericlonline " <ericlonline wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of conceptualization.I > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting > terms. > > > > In the Ark that is mind, everything is named > in pairs. These pairs appear (separated) from > the very process of naming. > > love > > e > the asking of the question and all the poor attempts at answering it ARE separation. it's an unrealistic question that owns no answer. live life and quit with the whats and whys and FREEDOM reigns. all imagined needs for gods or religions or spiritualities and philosophies evaporate into the meaningless mists of a sloughed off and 'self' created web of deceit and mystery. the only mystery is that there IS no mystery. most phantom sentients just can't stand that. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " ericlonline " <ericlonline@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of conceptualization.I > > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting > > terms. > > > > > > > In the Ark that is mind, everything is named > > in pairs. These pairs appear (separated) from > > the very process of naming. > > > > love > > > > e > > > > > the asking of the question and all the poor attempts at answering it > > ARE separation. > > it's an unrealistic question that owns no answer. > > live life and quit with the whats and whys and FREEDOM reigns. > > all imagined needs for gods or religions or spiritualities and > > philosophies evaporate into the meaningless mists of a sloughed off > > and 'self' created web of deceit and mystery. > > the only mystery is that there IS no mystery. > > most phantom sentients just can't stand that. > > > .b b.b. .....the Fishing & Friends Satsang is back?... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " ericlonline " <ericlonline@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of > conceptualization.I > > > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting > > > terms. > > > > > > > > > > In the Ark that is mind, everything is named > > > in pairs. These pairs appear (separated) from > > > the very process of naming. > > > > > > love > > > > > > e > > > > > > > > > the asking of the question and all the poor attempts at answering > it > > > > ARE separation. > > > > it's an unrealistic question that owns no answer. > > > > live life and quit with the whats and whys and FREEDOM reigns. > > > > all imagined needs for gods or religions or spiritualities and > > > > philosophies evaporate into the meaningless mists of a sloughed off > > > > and 'self' created web of deceit and mystery. > > > > the only mystery is that there IS no mystery. > > > > most phantom sentients just can't stand that. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > ....the Fishing & Friends Satsang is back?... > > Marc without conceptualization or separation...... but lots 'o fish! :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " ericlonline " <ericlonline@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of conceptualization.I > > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non headbusting > > terms. > > > > > > > In the Ark that is mind, everything is named > > in pairs. These pairs appear (separated) from > > the very process of naming. > > > > love > > > > e > > > > > the asking of the question and all the poor attempts at answering it > > ARE separation. > > it's an unrealistic question that owns no answer. > > live life and quit with the whats and whys and FREEDOM reigns. > > all imagined needs for gods or religions or spiritualities and > > philosophies evaporate into the meaningless mists of a sloughed off > > and 'self' created web of deceit and mystery. > > the only mystery is that there IS no mystery. > > most phantom sentients just can't stand that. > > > .b b.b. > There is no mystery.So that when Buddha held up the flower and Mahakassapa smiled while all the other guys were furiously trying to figure out what the hell he meant by the flower shtick it just meant that each and every one of them was perceiving exactly the only thing that was to each of them perceivable at that maoment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " ericlonline " <ericlonline@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of > conceptualization.I > > > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non > headbusting > > > terms. > > > > > > > > > > In the Ark that is mind, everything is named > > > in pairs. These pairs appear (separated) from > > > the very process of naming. > > > > > > love > > > > > > e > > > > > > > > > the asking of the question and all the poor attempts at answering > it > > > > ARE separation. > > > > it's an unrealistic question that owns no answer. > > > > live life and quit with the whats and whys and FREEDOM reigns. > > > > all imagined needs for gods or religions or spiritualities and > > > > philosophies evaporate into the meaningless mists of a sloughed > off > > > > and 'self' created web of deceit and mystery. > > > > the only mystery is that there IS no mystery. > > > > most phantom sentients just can't stand that. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > There is no mystery.So that when Buddha held up the flower and > Mahakassapa smiled while all the other guys were furiously trying to > figure out what the hell he meant by the flower shtick it just meant > that each and every one of them was perceiving exactly the only > thing that was to each of them perceivable at that maoment. buddy buddha enjoyed a great looking flower, a good joke and besides he knew there was nothing to say about nothing anyway. maha-ha-kassapa 'got' the joke and quite 'naturally' smiled. the rest of the crowd, though not hecklers, took everything that poor guy did seriously. that's the sum total of the mystery of buddha's action, mahakassapa's smile...and the weird and funny Truth of the Great Mystery Search. the only thing mysterious about all of it is that in the face of the fact that 'we' know 'we' are alive and who 'we' are without definition or question...'we keep wanting it all to be a mystery that needs solving. there are more interesting mysteries on TV. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2007 Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ericlonline " <ericlonline@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of > > conceptualization.I > > > > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non > > headbusting > > > > terms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the Ark that is mind, everything is named > > > > in pairs. These pairs appear (separated) from > > > > the very process of naming. > > > > > > > > love > > > > > > > > e > > > > > > > > > > > > > the asking of the question and all the poor attempts at answering > > it > > > > > > ARE separation. > > > > > > it's an unrealistic question that owns no answer. > > > > > > live life and quit with the whats and whys and FREEDOM reigns. > > > > > > all imagined needs for gods or religions or spiritualities and > > > > > > philosophies evaporate into the meaningless mists of a sloughed > > off > > > > > > and 'self' created web of deceit and mystery. > > > > > > the only mystery is that there IS no mystery. > > > > > > most phantom sentients just can't stand that. > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > There is no mystery.So that when Buddha held up the flower and > > Mahakassapa smiled while all the other guys were furiously trying to > > figure out what the hell he meant by the flower shtick it just meant > > that each and every one of them was perceiving exactly the only > > thing that was to each of them perceivable at that maoment. > > > > buddy buddha enjoyed a great looking flower, a good joke and besides > he knew there was nothing to say about nothing anyway. > > maha-ha-kassapa 'got' the joke and quite 'naturally' smiled. > > the rest of the crowd, though not hecklers, took everything that poor > guy did seriously. > > that's the sum total of the mystery of buddha's action, mahakassapa's > smile...and the weird and funny Truth of the Great Mystery Search. > > the only thing mysterious about all of it is that in the face of the > fact that 'we' know 'we' are alive and who 'we' are without definition > or question...'we keep wanting it all to be a mystery that needs solving. > > there are more interesting mysteries on TV. > > .b b.b. >We know who we are? If someone asks Joe Blow his name suddenly, Joe does not say: " THAT! " He says: " Joe Blow! " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2007 Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ericlonline " > <ericlonline@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of > > > conceptualization.I > > > > > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non > > > headbusting > > > > > terms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the Ark that is mind, everything is named > > > > > in pairs. These pairs appear (separated) from > > > > > the very process of naming. > > > > > > > > > > love > > > > > > > > > > e > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the asking of the question and all the poor attempts at > answering > > > it > > > > > > > > ARE separation. > > > > > > > > it's an unrealistic question that owns no answer. > > > > > > > > live life and quit with the whats and whys and FREEDOM reigns. > > > > > > > > all imagined needs for gods or religions or spiritualities and > > > > > > > > philosophies evaporate into the meaningless mists of a > sloughed > > > off > > > > > > > > and 'self' created web of deceit and mystery. > > > > > > > > the only mystery is that there IS no mystery. > > > > > > > > most phantom sentients just can't stand that. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > There is no mystery.So that when Buddha held up the flower and > > > Mahakassapa smiled while all the other guys were furiously > trying to > > > figure out what the hell he meant by the flower shtick it just > meant > > > that each and every one of them was perceiving exactly the only > > > thing that was to each of them perceivable at that maoment. > > > > > > > > buddy buddha enjoyed a great looking flower, a good joke and > besides > > he knew there was nothing to say about nothing anyway. > > > > maha-ha-kassapa 'got' the joke and quite 'naturally' smiled. > > > > the rest of the crowd, though not hecklers, took everything that > poor > > guy did seriously. > > > > that's the sum total of the mystery of buddha's action, > mahakassapa's > > smile...and the weird and funny Truth of the Great Mystery Search. > > > > the only thing mysterious about all of it is that in the face of > the > > fact that 'we' know 'we' are alive and who 'we' are without > definition > > or question...'we keep wanting it all to be a mystery that needs > solving. > > > > there are more interesting mysteries on TV. > > > > .b b.b. > >We know who we are? If someone asks Joe Blow his name suddenly, Joe > does not say: " THAT! " He says: " Joe Blow! " or joe might say he is the dad of joe blow jr. or: the son of joe and clara blow. a graduate of notre dame university. a republican with some liberal leanings. a failed medical doctor. a resident of montana. a catholic of the roman type that's into buddha.. or.. he could say what he secretly believes about 'himself': knows more or better than 'you' regarding what's what. that he's handsome but feels inadequate. that only he knows what he feels and not you or anyone else that he ,,etc. etc etc. joe doesn't really buy any of that shit. and for good reason. they're all relaively true but absolutely false. all of the above..including the initial " i'm joe blow " are just labels of separation and definition that conceptually create a 'world' for 'him' and a 'place' for 'him' to be..... just like 'you' and 'me' an the imagined 'many many'. but joe..you...me..everyone have known since the first glimmerings of contained thought in the infantile arising that none of this story or any other stories are in fact the case. joe knows he did not come to be and will not cease to be. change reigns supreme. birth and death are but shades of changing colors of THAT which IS. but without playing the game together..thre is no game. so..if it pleases you to continue in play.. you are tom.. i'm .b bobji baba. and we are separate in thought and concept. and in fact...it doesn't matter which way is believed or followed. when we lose the vortexing spin of 'our' identities.. we disolve as do the planets and stars and sun and moon and wars and tragedies and peace and relaxation and love for 'other'... they are no more and have never been.. but the unknowable band plays on.. an unimaginable tune of time and tunnels and trippy traps. to be continued... :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2007 Report Share Posted August 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ericlonline " > > <ericlonline@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of > > > > conceptualization.I > > > > > > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non > > > > headbusting > > > > > > terms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the Ark that is mind, everything is named > > > > > > in pairs. These pairs appear (separated) from > > > > > > the very process of naming. > > > > > > > > > > > > love > > > > > > > > > > > > e > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the asking of the question and all the poor attempts at > > answering > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > ARE separation. > > > > > > > > > > it's an unrealistic question that owns no answer. > > > > > > > > > > live life and quit with the whats and whys and FREEDOM reigns. > > > > > > > > > > all imagined needs for gods or religions or spiritualities and > > > > > > > > > > philosophies evaporate into the meaningless mists of a > > sloughed > > > > off > > > > > > > > > > and 'self' created web of deceit and mystery. > > > > > > > > > > the only mystery is that there IS no mystery. > > > > > > > > > > most phantom sentients just can't stand that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > There is no mystery.So that when Buddha held up the flower and > > > > Mahakassapa smiled while all the other guys were furiously > > trying to > > > > figure out what the hell he meant by the flower shtick it just > > meant > > > > that each and every one of them was perceiving exactly the only > > > > thing that was to each of them perceivable at that maoment. > > > > > > > > > > > > buddy buddha enjoyed a great looking flower, a good joke and > > besides > > > he knew there was nothing to say about nothing anyway. > > > > > > maha-ha-kassapa 'got' the joke and quite 'naturally' smiled. > > > > > > the rest of the crowd, though not hecklers, took everything that > > poor > > > guy did seriously. > > > > > > that's the sum total of the mystery of buddha's action, > > mahakassapa's > > > smile...and the weird and funny Truth of the Great Mystery Search. > > > > > > the only thing mysterious about all of it is that in the face of > > the > > > fact that 'we' know 'we' are alive and who 'we' are without > > definition > > > or question...'we keep wanting it all to be a mystery that needs > > solving. > > > > > > there are more interesting mysteries on TV. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > >We know who we are? If someone asks Joe Blow his name suddenly, Joe > > does not say: " THAT! " He says: " Joe Blow! " > > > > > or joe might say he is the dad of joe blow jr. > > or: > > the son of joe and clara blow. > > a graduate of notre dame university. > > a republican with some liberal leanings. > > a failed medical doctor. > > a resident of montana. > > a catholic of the roman type that's into buddha.. > > or.. > > he could say what he secretly believes about 'himself': > > knows more or better than 'you' regarding what's what. > > that he's handsome but feels inadequate. > > that only he knows what he feels and not you or anyone else > > that he ,,etc. etc etc. > > joe doesn't really buy any of that shit. > > and for good reason. > > they're all relaively true but absolutely false. > > all of the above..including the initial " i'm joe blow " are just > labels of separation and definition that conceptually create a 'world' > for 'him' and a 'place' for 'him' to be..... > > just like 'you' and 'me' an the imagined 'many many'. > > but joe..you...me..everyone have known since the first glimmerings of > contained thought in the infantile arising that none of this story or > any other stories are in fact the case. > > joe knows he did not come to be and will not cease to be. > > change reigns supreme. > > birth and death are but shades of changing colors of THAT which IS. > > but without playing the game together..thre is no game. > > so..if it pleases you to continue in play.. > > you are tom.. > > i'm .b bobji baba. > > and we are separate in thought and concept. > > and in fact...it doesn't matter which way is believed or followed. > > when we lose the vortexing spin of 'our' identities.. > > we disolve as do the planets and stars and sun and moon and wars and > tragedies and peace and relaxation and love for 'other'... > > they are no more and have never been.. > > but the unknowable band plays on.. > > an unimaginable tune of time and tunnels and trippy traps. > > to be continued... > > :-) > > .b b.b. > Hi boys, Anna comes uninvited to the party once again. Y'all miss me? Separation. How can there be separation in existence? Only the mind can think, process and divert attention like THAT in THIS. Wink. AnnA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2007 Report Share Posted August 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ericlonline " > > <ericlonline@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is said that all separation is the result of > > > > conceptualization.I > > > > > > > wonder if anyone can explain this statement--in non > > > > headbusting > > > > > > terms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the Ark that is mind, everything is named > > > > > > in pairs. These pairs appear (separated) from > > > > > > the very process of naming. > > > > > > > > > > > > love > > > > > > > > > > > > e > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the asking of the question and all the poor attempts at > > answering > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > ARE separation. > > > > > > > > > > it's an unrealistic question that owns no answer. > > > > > > > > > > live life and quit with the whats and whys and FREEDOM reigns. > > > > > > > > > > all imagined needs for gods or religions or spiritualities and > > > > > > > > > > philosophies evaporate into the meaningless mists of a > > sloughed > > > > off > > > > > > > > > > and 'self' created web of deceit and mystery. > > > > > > > > > > the only mystery is that there IS no mystery. > > > > > > > > > > most phantom sentients just can't stand that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > There is no mystery.So that when Buddha held up the flower and > > > > Mahakassapa smiled while all the other guys were furiously > > trying to > > > > figure out what the hell he meant by the flower shtick it just > > meant > > > > that each and every one of them was perceiving exactly the only > > > > thing that was to each of them perceivable at that maoment. > > > > > > > > > > > > buddy buddha enjoyed a great looking flower, a good joke and > > besides > > > he knew there was nothing to say about nothing anyway. > > > > > > maha-ha-kassapa 'got' the joke and quite 'naturally' smiled. > > > > > > the rest of the crowd, though not hecklers, took everything that > > poor > > > guy did seriously. > > > > > > that's the sum total of the mystery of buddha's action, > > mahakassapa's > > > smile...and the weird and funny Truth of the Great Mystery Search. > > > > > > the only thing mysterious about all of it is that in the face of > > the > > > fact that 'we' know 'we' are alive and who 'we' are without > > definition > > > or question...'we keep wanting it all to be a mystery that needs > > solving. > > > > > > there are more interesting mysteries on TV. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > >We know who we are? If someone asks Joe Blow his name suddenly, Joe > > does not say: " THAT! " He says: " Joe Blow! " > > > > > or joe might say he is the dad of joe blow jr. > > or: > > the son of joe and clara blow. > > a graduate of notre dame university. > > a republican with some liberal leanings. > > a failed medical doctor. > > a resident of montana. > > a catholic of the roman type that's into buddha.. > > or.. > > he could say what he secretly believes about 'himself': > > knows more or better than 'you' regarding what's what. > > that he's handsome but feels inadequate. > > that only he knows what he feels and not you or anyone else > > that he ,,etc. etc etc. > > joe doesn't really buy any of that shit. > > and for good reason. > > they're all relaively true but absolutely false. > > all of the above..including the initial " i'm joe blow " are just > labels of separation and definition that conceptually create a 'world' > for 'him' and a 'place' for 'him' to be..... > > just like 'you' and 'me' an the imagined 'many many'. > > but joe..you...me..everyone have known since the first glimmerings of > contained thought in the infantile arising that none of this story or > any other stories are in fact the case. > > joe knows he did not come to be and will not cease to be. > > change reigns supreme. > > birth and death are but shades of changing colors of THAT which IS. > > but without playing the game together..thre is no game. > > so..if it pleases you to continue in play.. > > you are tom.. > > i'm .b bobji baba. > > and we are separate in thought and concept. > > and in fact...it doesn't matter which way is believed or followed. > > when we lose the vortexing spin of 'our' identities.. > > we disolve as do the planets and stars and sun and moon and wars and > tragedies and peace and relaxation and love for 'other'... > > they are no more and have never been.. > > but the unknowable band plays on.. > > an unimaginable tune of time and tunnels and trippy traps. > > to be continued... > > :-) > > .b b.b. > I confess that I don't believe anymore in the tom identity but it is still there. I can see it any time I like and most of the time even when I don't like.So be it. 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.