Guest guest Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 In a message dated 11/3/2008 7:22:35 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, ericparoissien writes: Nisargadatta , "dennis_travis33"<dennis_travis33 wrote:>> Nisargadatta , "toombaru2006" <lastrain@> > wrote:> >> > > > > > > > > > Over ten thousand people had to die of lung cancer so that> > Nisargadatta could bring his message of light into the world.> > > > > > > > toombaru> > > that's of dualistic point of view> > who, for real, are this ten thousand people who had to die of lung > cancer?> > ....> > nobody ever brought any light into any imaginary world> > except into imaginary ego bubbles world....who were lost > into/with/by/from/about themself....means, blinded by themself.> > > Marc"I'll nihilize you, said one""No i'll nihilize you, said the second"...guys how much more nihilized can you get, shit it out already and stepto concrete aspects of spirituality, there are plenty, and you can bepractically useful, otherwise what's the point of publicizing yourmutual nihilization, just nihilize your darn computer already andleave people alone. Who are you talking to? There's nobody here but the Isness...of the,,,,Beingness...of Nothingness Being What is.....when it isn't. So there. ~ The problem with getting concrete is that we can't pretend we know more than everybody else by saying something so vague as to be totally meaningless. To really say something is to reveal our level of ignorance and somebody might notice we're not enlightened, or hyper-enlightened, beyond even such childplay. I have yet to find an 'advanced' spirituality group where the motivation is to seek or to look or to realize or to gain clarity. It's all about looking good and winning. High level ego games, that often turn into unconscious nonsense. This, too can be looked at since that's where many of us are really at instead of at the fringes beyond Boodahood where we pretend to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 In a message dated 11/3/2008 10:26:23 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, tyga writes: Eric Paroissien wrote:> "I'll nihilize you, said one"> "No i'll nihilize you, said the second"> ...> guys how much more nihilized can you get, shit it out already and step> to concrete aspects of spirituality, there are plenty, and you can be> practically useful, otherwise what's the point of publicizing your> mutual nihilization, just nihilize your darn computer already and> leave people alone.>>> --->> **> Haha, good one Eric, was thinking the same thing myself. :)I think it is naive to believe that there could not possibly be anything other than annihilation, and that there is no possible way for the dreamer to transcend the dream. The only limitation here, is the mind itself.tyga Good, lets talk beyond annihilation. The reason there is no person here is that, as intelligence expresses in the form of thought, it must do so spontaneously. This would be so even if we assumed the person was a mass of biological goo that somehow evolved into an intelligence, so we don't have to get all woo woo about it just yet. Intelligence is not thinking it's way to it's next thought. Intelligence forms thought but does not think about what it is going to think before the thought forms. Hencely, all thoughts form spontaneously. Then, and only then, can that thought be observed, and it is of course observed by that same intelligence. This is how intelligence can seem to live in our heads; this is where the observable first appears. Intelligence itself is not an object of thought. That can be noticed by anyone without introducing one spiritual concept. Obviously, it means nobody can control their thoughts or know what those thoughts will be. If nobody has control over their thinking, then nobody has free will or the ability to volitionally choose. The notions of personhood, free will and choice are derived from the assumption that something is in control of the thoughts that show up. Even Intelligence is not in control of that. And yet, this intelligence is fully present now and is fully responsive to every thought, feeling and sensation. This intelligence is what you are, and while you can't define it or box it up and poke a stick at it, you also can't annihilate it and say it doesn't have existence. That which wants to say it doesn't exist is existence itself, it's just that thoughts are it's expression and it can't be found in it's expression. It would be like a dog listening to his own barking, trying to find the dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Over ten thousand people had to die of lung cancer so that > > Nisargadatta could bring his message of light into the world. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > that's of dualistic point of view > > who, for real, are this ten thousand people who had to die of lung > cancer? > > .... > > nobody ever brought any light into any imaginary world > > except into imaginary ego bubbles world....who were lost > into/with/by/from/about themself....means, blinded by themself. > > > Marc " I'll nihilize you, said one " " No i'll nihilize you, said the second " .... guys how much more nihilized can you get, shit it out already and step to concrete aspects of spirituality, there are plenty, and you can be practically useful, otherwise what's the point of publicizing your mutual nihilization, just nihilize your darn computer already and leave people alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 Eric Paroissien wrote: > " I'll nihilize you, said one " > " No i'll nihilize you, said the second " > ... > guys how much more nihilized can you get, shit it out already and step > to concrete aspects of spirituality, there are plenty, and you can be > practically useful, otherwise what's the point of publicizing your > mutual nihilization, just nihilize your darn computer already and > leave people alone. > > > --- > > ** > Haha, good one Eric, was thinking the same thing myself. I think it is naive to believe that there could not possibly be anything other than annihilation, and that there is no possible way for the dreamer to transcend the dream. The only limitation here, is the mind itself. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 In a message dated 11/3/2008 9:27:58 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, tyga writes: souldreamone wrote:> > >>> > Good, lets talk beyond annihilation. The reason there is no person> here is that, as intelligence expresses in the form of thought, it> must do so spontaneously. This would be so even if we assumed the> person was a mass of biological goo that somehow evolved into an> intelligence, so we don't have to get all woo woo about it just> yet. Intelligence is not thinking it's way to it's next thought.> Intelligence forms thought but does not think about what it is> going to think before the thought forms. Hencely, all thoughts> form spontaneously. Then, and only then, can that thought be> observed, and it is of course observed by that same intelligence.> This is how intelligence can seem to live in our heads; this is> where the observable first appears. Intelligence itself is not an> object of thought.> > That can be noticed by anyone without introducing one spiritual> concept. Obviously, it means nobody can control their thoughts or> know what those thoughts will be. If nobody has control over their> thinking, then nobody has free will or the ability to volitionally> choose. The notions of personhood, free will and choice are> derived from the assumption that something is in control of the> thoughts that show up. Even Intelligence is not in control of that.> > And yet, this intelligence is fully present now and is fully> responsive to every thought, feeling and sensation. This> intelligence is what you are, and while you can't define it or box> it up and poke a stick at it, you also can't annihilate it and say> it doesn't have existence. That which wants to say it doesn't> exist is existence itself, it's just that thoughts are it's> expression and it can't be found in it's expression. It would be> like a dog listening to his own barking, trying to find the dog.>> >I understand what your saying here and I agree with most of what you have proposed, the problem though that I have with this sort of analysis, is that the analysis is based on 3 dimensional conceptualisations. In the same way that you make the argument that it is existence itself that attempts to deny its own existence, it is 3 dimensional mind attempting to make multidimensional conclusion's about its own existence, or lack of existence, whichever it might be.I'm not attempting here to discredit those observations, I make the same observations myself, more or less, but merely attempting to point out that these observations are fundamentally flawed.We ought not assume that just because of what we understand about what we observe to appear to be true, to then make the assumption that those observations are true.For example, if "God" is essentially infinite, then any attempt to conceptualise god, would always be false. Although this appears to be a logical argument, which is most likely an accurate argument, it is also a 3 dimensional argument. ****Well, I believe I know what you're saying, but what it sounds like is, whatever is seen must be false no matter how good it sounds, so we have to dismiss it. What you read are concepts. You don't know if what the concepts point to is true or not, but as I suggested, you can look and see for yourself if you haven't already done so and dismissed it. Maybe you don't believe you can do that because you have the idea that it is thought that is looking. Thought can't look at anything. What must be looking is the intelligence from which the thought originates. There's nothing else here. No thinking person and no autonomous mentation process. Thought originates from Awareness and is observed in Awareness. However, Awareness can search thorough thoughts for something useful, or it can simply turn it's attention what is. As you look (not think about) to see where thought originates from, what do you see? If you see nothing, it's because you're looking at yourself, the source of thought. We usually make things much more complex than they are. So my real point here is, that rather than believing that there is nothing from which thought arises, rather, there is nothing from which though is capable of perceiving, which is not the same thing as that which though arises cannot be perceived, if you catch my drift?tyga ***Sorry, lost your drift. First of all, do you mean 'thought' where you keep saying 'though'? Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 souldreamone wrote: > > > > > > Good, lets talk beyond annihilation. The reason there is no person > here is that, as intelligence expresses in the form of thought, it > must do so spontaneously. This would be so even if we assumed the > person was a mass of biological goo that somehow evolved into an > intelligence, so we don't have to get all woo woo about it just > yet. Intelligence is not thinking it's way to it's next thought. > Intelligence forms thought but does not think about what it is > going to think before the thought forms. Hencely, all thoughts > form spontaneously. Then, and only then, can that thought be > observed, and it is of course observed by that same intelligence. > This is how intelligence can seem to live in our heads; this is > where the observable first appears. Intelligence itself is not an > object of thought. > > That can be noticed by anyone without introducing one spiritual > concept. Obviously, it means nobody can control their thoughts or > know what those thoughts will be. If nobody has control over their > thinking, then nobody has free will or the ability to volitionally > choose. The notions of personhood, free will and choice are > derived from the assumption that something is in control of the > thoughts that show up. Even Intelligence is not in control of that. > > And yet, this intelligence is fully present now and is fully > responsive to every thought, feeling and sensation. This > intelligence is what you are, and while you can't define it or box > it up and poke a stick at it, you also can't annihilate it and say > it doesn't have existence. That which wants to say it doesn't > exist is existence itself, it's just that thoughts are it's > expression and it can't be found in it's expression. It would be > like a dog listening to his own barking, trying to find the dog. > > > I understand what your saying here and I agree with most of what you have proposed, the problem though that I have with this sort of analysis, is that the analysis is based on 3 dimensional conceptualisations. In the same way that you make the argument that it is existence itself that attempts to deny its own existence, it is 3 dimensional mind attempting to make multidimensional conclusion's about its own existence, or lack of existence, whichever it might be. I'm not attempting here to discredit those observations, I make the same observations myself, more or less, but merely attempting to point out that these observations are fundamentally flawed. We ought not assume that just because of what we understand about what we observe to appear to be true, to then make the assumption that those observations are true. For example, if " God " is essentially infinite, then any attempt to conceptualise god, would always be false. Although this appears to be a logical argument, which is most likely an accurate argument, it is also a 3 dimensional argument. So my real point here is, that rather than believing that there is nothing from which thought arises, rather, there is nothing from which though is capable of perceiving, which is not the same thing as that which though arises cannot be perceived, if you catch my drift? tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Over ten thousand people had to die of lung cancer so that > > > Nisargadatta could bring his message of light into the world. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > that's of dualistic point of view > > > > who, for real, are this ten thousand people who had to die of lung > > cancer? > > > > .... > > > > nobody ever brought any light into any imaginary world > > > > except into imaginary ego bubbles world....who were lost > > into/with/by/from/about themself....means, blinded by themself. > > > > > > Marc > > " I'll nihilize you, said one " > " No i'll nihilize you, said the second " > ... > guys how much more nihilized can you get, shit it out already and step > to concrete aspects of spirituality, there are plenty, and you can be > practically useful, otherwise what's the point of publicizing your > mutual nihilization, just nihilize your darn computer already and > leave people alone. whats your problem about?.... have a deep breath.... don't worry....everything will be fine again!... ..... if you want that people leave you alone..... please stay away....it's very simple, isn't it? ..... i can understand that this your little thinking ego-mind need some appearent others who share at least few of your view points... but then...that's not of my business! ..... one day...also your imaginary will come to end.... .... and you will be finally alone with/by/through/in/about/from....SELF .... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > Eric Paroissien wrote: > > " I'll nihilize you, said one " > > " No i'll nihilize you, said the second " > > ... > > guys how much more nihilized can you get, shit it out already and step > > to concrete aspects of spirituality, there are plenty, and you can be > > practically useful, otherwise what's the point of publicizing your > > mutual nihilization, just nihilize your darn computer already and > > leave people alone. > > > > > > --- > > > > ** > > > Haha, good one Eric, was thinking the same thing myself. > > I think it is naive to believe that there could not possibly be anything > other than annihilation, and that there is no possible way for the > dreamer to transcend the dream. The only limitation here, is the mind > itself. > > tyga hoho, bad one " tyga " ....wasn't thinking the same....lol there is no " dreamer " ...and there is no " dream to transcend " .... the dream Is the dreamer....nothing/nobody else Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > <ericparoissien@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Over ten thousand people had to die of lung cancer so that > > > > Nisargadatta could bring his message of light into the world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > that's of dualistic point of view > > > > > > who, for real, are this ten thousand people who had to die of > lung > > > cancer? > > > > > > .... > > > > > > nobody ever brought any light into any imaginary world > > > > > > except into imaginary ego bubbles world....who were lost > > > into/with/by/from/about themself....means, blinded by themself. > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > " I'll nihilize you, said one " > > " No i'll nihilize you, said the second " > > ... > > guys how much more nihilized can you get, shit it out already and > step > > to concrete aspects of spirituality, there are plenty, and you can > be > > practically useful, otherwise what's the point of publicizing your > > mutual nihilization, just nihilize your darn computer already and > > leave people alone. > > > whats your problem about?.... > > have a deep breath.... > > don't worry....everything will be fine again!... > > .... > > if you want that people leave you alone..... > > please stay away....it's very simple, isn't it? > > .... > > i can understand that this your little thinking ego-mind need some > appearent others who share at least few of your view points... > > but then...that's not of my business! > > .... > > one day...also your imaginary will come to end.... > > ... > > and you will be finally alone with/by/through/in/about/from....SELF > > ... > > Marc Ps: i'm not at all a nihilist... I give life the purpose of Liberation As far i know, there is no purpose/meaning of life for nihilists. ..... As long there is Ignorance, means imaginary ego-mind....there is a purpose....the purpose of Liberation. Liberated ones don't " see " anymore any purpose of life. .... Therefore, proud nihilists....means, worldly nihilists are indeed nothing but fools. ..... > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 dennis_travis33 wrote: > > hoho, bad one " tyga " ....wasn't thinking the same....lol > > there is no " dreamer " ...and there is no " dream to transcend " .... > > the dream Is the dreamer....nothing/nobody else > > > Marc > > > > > --- > I think you probably ought to phrase this as your own belief system Marc, or as your own opinion, or at the very least credit the source you got the idea from. Also, you seem to be stating this idea as though it is a universal fact. I wonder Marc, just my own subjective observation, but when did the quest for enlightenment become so religious for you? tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > > hoho, bad one " tyga " ....wasn't thinking the same....lol > > > > there is no " dreamer " ...and there is no " dream to transcend " .... > > > > the dream Is the dreamer....nothing/nobody else > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > I think you probably ought to phrase this as your own belief system > Marc, or as your own opinion, or at the very least credit the source you > got the idea from. Also, you seem to be stating this idea as though it > is a universal fact. > > I wonder Marc, just my own subjective observation, but when did the > quest for enlightenment become so religious for you? > > > tyga i don't think that this is only my own " belief system " ... and it's not only about an idea.... ..... difficult to discuss non-dual facts with dualists... ..... religious??.... where do you see any religious quest in my words....? Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 souldreamone wrote: > > > I understand what your saying here and I agree with most of what you > have proposed, the problem though that I have with this sort of > analysis, is that the analysis is based on 3 dimensional > conceptualisations. In the same way that you make the argument > that it > is existence itself that attempts to deny its own existence, it is 3 > dimensional mind attempting to make multidimensional conclusion's > about > its own existence, or lack of existence, whichever it might be. > > I'm not attempting here to discredit those observations, I make > the same > observations myself, more or less, but merely attempting to point out > that these observations are fundamentally flawed. > > We ought not assume that just because of what we understand about > what > we observe to appear to be true, to then make the assumption that > those > observations are true. > > For example, if " God " is essentially infinite, then any attempt to > conceptualise god, would always be false. Although this appears to > be a > logical argument, which is most likely an accurate argument, it is > also > a 3 dimensional argument. > > > ****Well, I believe I know what you're saying, but what it sounds > like is, whatever is seen must be false no matter how good it > sounds, so we have to dismiss it. What you read are concepts. You > don't know if what the concepts point to is true or not, but as I > suggested, you can look and see for yourself if you haven't > already done so and dismissed it. Maybe you don't believe you can > do that because you have the idea that it is thought that is > looking. Thought can't look at anything. What must be looking is > the intelligence from which the thought originates. There's > nothing else here. No thinking person and no autonomous mentation > process. Thought originates from Awareness and is observed in > Awareness. > I'm just attempting to throw some ideas out there for consideration. I don't think whatever is seen needs to be dismissed, I think we need to understand that within the frame work of what we are capable of understanding given our limited perspectives, any conceptualisation beyond that framework is precarious at best. > > However, Awareness can search thorough thoughts for something > useful, or it can simply turn it's attention what is. As you look > (not think about) to see where thought originates from, what do > you see? If you see nothing, it's because you're looking at > yourself, the source of thought. We usually make things much more > complex than they are. > I think I see what you mean here. I guess what I am saying here is this, that from our perspective, our own experience of ourselves, we are incapable of seeing beyond our own self referencing, as in the example you provided of witnessing your own witnessing. I'm suggesting that this doesn't therefore mean that this is the absolute level of awareness, it is only our limited understanding of it. If something is infinite for example, it is extremely difficult for us to see that infiniteness as having an ending. As an exercise, try to imagine that space comes to an end and there is no more space beyond that end. It is a difficult task to imagine this. Conversely, the inability for our awareness to see beyond its own awareness, might be simply a limitation of awareness. > > > > > > So my real point here is, that rather than believing that there is > nothing from which thought arises, rather, there is nothing from > which > though is capable of perceiving, which is not the same thing as that > which though arises cannot be perceived, if you catch my drift? > > tyga > > > ***Sorry, lost your drift. First of all, do you mean 'thought' > where you keep saying 'though'? > > > Sorry, I was tired when I wrote this and must have dropped a t or two. That paragraph does look kind of confusing, I'll see if I can clear it up a bit. What I'm attempting to say is, what appears to be nothing to us, from our experience of self awareness, might simply be our limitation to see beyond that. I'm imagining that from a better vantage point, so to speak, one beyond our wildest comprehension, the awareness which we believe is the bases for that which is, could be simple common understanding. I'm not sure I can explain this better. I hope we might be able to make this clearer? I'll try to come up with a better explanation. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 dennis_travis33 wrote: > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > >> dennis_travis33 wrote: >> >>> hoho, bad one " tyga " ....wasn't thinking the same....lol >>> >>> there is no " dreamer " ...and there is no " dream to transcend " .... >>> >>> the dream Is the dreamer....nothing/nobody else >>> >>> >>> Marc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> >> I think you probably ought to phrase this as your own belief system >> Marc, or as your own opinion, or at the very least credit the >> > source you > >> got the idea from. Also, you seem to be stating this idea as though >> > it > >> is a universal fact. >> >> I wonder Marc, just my own subjective observation, but when did the >> quest for enlightenment become so religious for you? >> >> >> tyga >> > > > i don't think that this is only my own " belief system " ... > > and it's not only about an idea.... > Yes, I know it is not your own belief system, you borrowed it from someone else. I was pointing that out. > .... > > difficult to discuss non-dual facts with dualists... > Facts? Please explain. > .... > > religious??.... > > where do you see any religious quest in my words....? > there is no " dreamer " ...and there is no " dream to transcend " .... the dream Is the dreamer....nothing/nobody else These are subjective opinions stated as quantitative facts, with not a shred of accompanied evidences or explanations. The hallmark of religious dogma, in my opinion. > > Marc > > > > > --- > tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 In a message dated 11/4/2008 4:20:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, tyga writes: souldreamone wrote:>>> I understand what your saying here and I agree with most of what you> have proposed, the problem though that I have with this sort of> analysis, is that the analysis is based on 3 dimensional> conceptualisations. In the same way that you make the argument> that it> is existence itself that attempts to deny its own existence, it is 3> dimensional mind attempting to make multidimensional conclusion's> about> its own existence, or lack of existence, whichever it might be.>> I'm not attempting here to discredit those observations, I make> the same> observations myself, more or less, but merely attempting to point out> that these observations are fundamentally flawed.>> We ought not assume that just because of what we understand about> what> we observe to appear to be true, to then make the assumption that> those> observations are true.>> For example, if "God" is essentially infinite, then any attempt to> conceptualise god, would always be false. Although this appears to> be a> logical argument, which is most likely an accurate argument, it is> also> a 3 dimensional argument.>> > ****Well, I believe I know what you're saying, but what it sounds> like is, whatever is seen must be false no matter how good it> sounds, so we have to dismiss it. What you read are concepts. You> don't know if what the concepts point to is true or not, but as I> suggested, you can look and see for yourself if you haven't> already done so and dismissed it. Maybe you don't believe you can> do that because you have the idea that it is thought that is> looking. Thought can't look at anything. What must be looking is> the intelligence from which the thought originates. There's> nothing else here. No thinking person and no autonomous mentation> process. Thought originates from Awareness and is observed in> Awareness.>I'm just attempting to throw some ideas out there for consideration.I don't think whatever is seen needs to be dismissed, I think we need to understand that within the frame work of what we are capable of understanding given our limited perspectives, any conceptualisation beyond that framework is precarious at best. *****I agree that conceptualization is always limited and innacurate, which is why it's necessary that we see for ourselves. The 'seeing' is not limited by mind or it's concepts. What is it that you've decided you can't see? Is it a surprise you can't see it? Hehe. > > However, Awareness can search thorough thoughts for something> useful, or it can simply turn it's attention what is. As you look> (not think about) to see where thought originates from, what do> you see? If you see nothing, it's because you're looking at> yourself, the source of thought. We usually make things much more> complex than they are.>I think I see what you mean here. I guess what I am saying here is this, that from our perspective, our own experience of ourselves, we are incapable of seeing beyond our own self referencing, as in the example you provided of witnessing your own witnessing. I'm suggesting that this doesn't therefore mean that this is the absolute level of awareness, it is only our limited understanding of it.If something is infinite for example, it is extremely difficult for us to see that infiniteness as having an ending. As an exercise, try to imagine that space comes to an end and there is no more space beyond that end. It is a difficult task to imagine this. Conversely, the inability for our awareness to see beyond its own awareness, might be simply a limitation of awareness.>> > >>> So my real point here is, that rather than believing that there is> nothing from which thought arises, rather, there is nothing from> which> though is capable of perceiving, which is not the same thing as that> which though arises cannot be perceived, if you catch my drift?>> tyga> >> ***Sorry, lost your drift. First of all, do you mean 'thought'> where you keep saying 'though'?>>>Sorry, I was tired when I wrote this and must have dropped a t or two.That paragraph does look kind of confusing, I'll see if I can clear it up a bit.What I'm attempting to say is, what appears to be nothing to us, from our experience of self awareness, might simply be our limitation to see beyond that. I'm imagining that from a better vantage point, so to speak, one beyond our wildest comprehension, the awareness which we believe is the bases for that which is, could be simple common understanding.I'm not sure I can explain this better. I hope we might be able to make this clearer? I'll try to come up with a better explanation.tyga *****When you look at the source of thought, you see nothing because you're looking at that which is looking. You can't see yourself, but you can look and see that this is so. Nothing that exists can turn itself into an object of it's own perceiving. You also can see that there is nothing to be seen because you're looking at the source of perceived things. There are no objects or qualities to be found in the source of objects and qualities. Is this due to a limitation of mind? In a sense, yes. Mind perceives things and there's nothing to perceive. However, this can be seen because you are not the mind. Why not take a look and see? Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 In a message dated 11/4/2008 5:02:41 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, dennis_travis33 writes: Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:>> dennis_travis33 wrote:> > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote:> > > >> dennis_travis33 wrote:> >> > >>> hoho, bad one "tyga"....wasn't thinking the same....lol> >>>> >>> there is no "dreamer"...and there is no "dream to transcend"....> >>>> >>> the dream Is the dreamer....nothing/nobody else> >>>> >>>> >>> Marc> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ---> >>> > >>> > >> I think you probably ought to phrase this as your own belief system > >> Marc, or as your own opinion, or at the very least credit the > >> > > source you > > > >> got the idea from. Also, you seem to be stating this idea as though > >> > > it > > > >> is a universal fact.> >>> >> I wonder Marc, just my own subjective observation, but when did the > >> quest for enlightenment become so religious for you?> >>> >>> >> tyga> >> > >> >> > i don't think that this is only my own "belief system"...> >> > and it's not only about an idea....> > > > Yes, I know it is not your own belief system, you borrowed it from > someone else. I was pointing that out.> do you realy believe that i would simply borrow a belief system from someone else?....lolas i told you....i'm not a religious person...maybe you are a religious person...and are used so to borrow whatever "belief systems" from whoever...my words are completely of my own.....no need to borrow any other systems...such experiences are of spiritual experiences...and so, such experiences can be very well compared with similar experiences from others....on the path to Self...Same path for all...also same for you...even if you don't know aboutMarc What is meant by, 'there is no dreamer, and no dream'? Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote: > > > >> dennis_travis33 wrote: > >> > >>> hoho, bad one " tyga " ....wasn't thinking the same....lol > >>> > >>> there is no " dreamer " ...and there is no " dream to transcend " .... > >>> > >>> the dream Is the dreamer....nothing/nobody else > >>> > >>> > >>> Marc > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> > >> I think you probably ought to phrase this as your own belief system > >> Marc, or as your own opinion, or at the very least credit the > >> > > source you > > > >> got the idea from. Also, you seem to be stating this idea as though > >> > > it > > > >> is a universal fact. > >> > >> I wonder Marc, just my own subjective observation, but when did the > >> quest for enlightenment become so religious for you? > >> > >> > >> tyga > >> > > > > > > i don't think that this is only my own " belief system " ... > > > > and it's not only about an idea.... > > > > Yes, I know it is not your own belief system, you borrowed it from > someone else. I was pointing that out. > do you realy believe that i would simply borrow a belief system from someone else?....lol as i told you....i'm not a religious person... maybe you are a religious person...and are used so to borrow whatever " belief systems " from whoever... my words are completely of my own.....no need to borrow any other systems... such experiences are of spiritual experiences... and so, such experiences can be very well compared with similar experiences from others.... on the path to Self .... Same path for all .... also same for you... even if you don't know about Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 In a message dated 11/5/2008 1:37:10 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, dennis_travis33 writes: > > What is meant by, 'there is no dreamer, and no dream'?i wrote that the dream is the dreamer......Marc Okay. Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 11/4/2008 5:02:41 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > dennis_travis33 writes: > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote: > > > > dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote: > > > > > >> dennis_travis33 wrote: > > >> > > >>> hoho, bad one " tyga " ....wasn't thinking the same....lol > > >>> > > >>> there is no " dreamer " ...and there is no " dream to transcend " .... > > >>> > > >>> the dream Is the dreamer....nothing/nobody else > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Marc > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> --- > > >>> > > >>> > > >> I think you probably ought to phrase this as your own belief > system > > >> Marc, or as your own opinion, or at the very least credit the > > >> > > > source you > > > > > >> got the idea from. Also, you seem to be stating this idea as > though > > >> > > > it > > > > > >> is a universal fact. > > >> > > >> I wonder Marc, just my own subjective observation, but when did > the > > >> quest for enlightenment become so religious for you? > > >> > > >> > > >> tyga > > >> > > > > > > > > > i don't think that this is only my own " belief system " ... > > > > > > and it's not only about an idea.... > > > > > > > Yes, I know it is not your own belief system, you borrowed it from > > someone else. I was pointing that out. > > > > > do you realy believe that i would simply borrow a belief system from > someone else?....lol > > as i told you....i'm not a religious person... > > maybe you are a religious person...and are used so to borrow > whatever " belief systems " from whoever... > > my words are completely of my own.....no need to borrow any other > systems... > > such experiences are of spiritual experiences... > > and so, such experiences can be very well compared with similar > experiences from others.... > > on the path to Self > > ... > > Same path for all > > ... > > also same for you... > > even if you don't know about > > > Marc > > > > > What is meant by, 'there is no dreamer, and no dream'? i wrote that the dream is the dreamer... .... Marc > > > > > > **************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot > 5 Travel Deals! > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212416248x1200771803/aol? redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001) > 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.