Guest guest Posted December 3, 2008 Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 I'd like to give everyone the gift of 'no words.' By that I mean, take them to that place where no word can offend, or flatter, or move you in any way. Few are willing to accept that gift because it hurts. If you put ice on a burn, it hurts more, until the nerves get numb and you don't feel a thing and the burn begins to heal. It's like that with words you have to let them burn without reacting, until you get numb, and see they cannot hurt. Phil doesn't understand that yet. So he leaves every list chased away by words. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > I'd like to give everyone the gift > of 'no words.' By that I mean, take them > to that place where no word can offend, > or flatter, or move you in any way. Few > are willing to accept that gift because > it hurts. If you put ice on a burn, it > hurts more, until the nerves get numb > and you don't feel a thing and the burn > begins to heal. It's like that with words > you have to let them burn without reacting, > until you get numb, and see they cannot hurt. > > Phil doesn't understand that yet. So he > leaves every list chased away by words. > > Pete > Allow Me Allow me to love you as you are it's easy enough once you get out of my way... the puzzle always fits when the last piece is found, There's just no sense in looking back at who we were when all those ways to get to heaven were useless as the wet sticks we tried to rub together to build a fire, and we were just as lost, anyway, and what we spoke of was nothing more than little stones in our shoes that left us with feet bleeding in all that green we had yet to grow, and all that soul food we had yet to feed our hungry minds. It's all good darling, you see, we're older now, we've been simplified with a few well-deserved pieces of quiet dignity, and there's a certain honesty in time that no longer laments as it passes by unadorned and understated. ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > I'd like to give everyone the gift > of 'no words.' By that I mean, take them > to that place where no word can offend, > or flatter, or move you in any way. Few > are willing to accept that gift because > it hurts. If you put ice on a burn, it > hurts more, until the nerves get numb > and you don't feel a thing and the burn > begins to heal. It's like that with words > you have to let them burn without reacting, > until you get numb, and see they cannot hurt. > > Phil doesn't understand that yet. So he > leaves every list chased away by words. > > Pete > Well then Pete I guess you are not offended by a little criticism? What you write is a load of crap.You evolved the ego into superego Ya think ego is a bitch, superego is a walk into hell, believing it is heaven Be only what you are not. Be better.Love more. Acceept all We are all one and when the fear is screaming too loud you get numb huh? Easier to just drink a six pack,I reckon. But nonetheless that's some top notch advice giving. Join a religion and go numb,how true it is You gotta burn baby burn,not by good mind to bad mind,but mind itself. Ya gotta let the fire cconsume all of you.the good the bad and the ugly until that truth is realized, you will die with mind and the fear that has gone numb and it will haunt you on your death bed until the ego will finally be comsumed. It's worse fear realized. No matter how much you try to bullshit your way out of the dream with some codependant love nonsense. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > P: I'd like to give everyone the gift > > of 'no words.' By that I mean, take them > > to that place where no word can offend, > > or flatter, or move you in any way. Few > > are willing to accept that gift because > > it hurts. If you put ice on a burn, it > > hurts more, until the nerves get numb > > and you don't feel a thing and the burn > > begins to heal. It's like that with words > > you have to let them burn without reacting, > > until you get numb, and see they cannot hurt. > > > > Phil doesn't understand that yet. So he > > leaves every list chased away by words. > > > > Pete > > > M: Well then Pete I guess you are not offended by a little criticism? P: That's correct. >M: What you write is a load of crap. Crap for you, maybe food for others. Crap is what feeds the world as fertilizer. All the top soil of the planet comes from crap, and decaying vegetable and animal tissues. So we could say, you're able to write about my crap because crap, in general, has keep you alive. Long live crap! M:You evolved the ego into superego > Ya think ego is a bitch, superego is a walk into > hell, P: Could you explain what a superego is to you. I can't take offense, or agree without knowing what that term means to you. Common knowledge says that the bigger the ego, the more prone to offense the person becomes. So I don't understand how you connect superego with not reacting to words. Could you explain? > >M: But nonetheless that's some top notch advice giving. Join a religion > and go numb, P: I didn't advise to join any religion and the use of ice as burning, and then numbing the skin was a metaphor. Attacking a metaphor doesn't disproves the idea it illustrates, which was: until we understand how words acquire meaning, and how this set meaning makes us react, we will be a slave to words, and vulnerable to manipulation. Thanks for your input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Allow me > to love you > as you are > it's easy enough > once you get out of my way... > the puzzle always fits > when the last piece is found, > > There's just no sense in looking back > at who we were when all those > ways to get to heaven were > useless as the wet sticks > we tried to rub together to > build a fire, and we were just as lost, > anyway, and what we spoke of > was nothing more > than little stones in our shoes > that left us with feet bleeding > in all that green we had yet to grow, > and all that soul food we had yet to feed > our hungry minds. > > It's all good darling, you see, > we're older now, > we've been simplified > with a few well-deserved pieces of quiet dignity, > and there's > a certain honesty in time that > no longer laments as it > passes by unadorned and > understated. > > ~A P: Good poem. I enjoy it. Thanks > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " > <marktimmins60@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > P: I'd like to give everyone the gift > > > of 'no words.' By that I mean, take them > > > to that place where no word can offend, > > > or flatter, or move you in any way. Few > > > are willing to accept that gift because > > > it hurts. If you put ice on a burn, it > > > hurts more, until the nerves get numb > > > and you don't feel a thing and the burn > > > begins to heal. It's like that with words > > > you have to let them burn without reacting, > > > until you get numb, and see they cannot hurt. > > > > > > Phil doesn't understand that yet. So he > > > leaves every list chased away by words. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > M: Well then Pete I guess you are not offended by a little criticism? > > P: That's correct. > > > >M: What you write is a load of crap. > > Crap for you, maybe food for others. > Crap is what feeds the world as fertilizer. > All the top soil of the planet comes from > crap, and decaying vegetable and animal > tissues. So we could say, you're able to > write about my crap because crap, in general, > has keep you alive. Long live crap! > > > M:You evolved the ego into superego > > Ya think ego is a bitch, superego is a walk into > > hell, > > P: Could you explain what a superego is to you. > I can't take offense, or agree without knowing > what that term means to you. Common knowledge > says that the bigger the ego, the more prone > to offense the person becomes. So I don't > understand how you connect superego with > not reacting to words. Could you explain? > > > > > >M: But nonetheless that's some top notch advice giving. Join a religion > > and go numb, > > P: I didn't advise to join any religion > and the use of ice as burning, and then numbing > the skin was a metaphor. Attacking a metaphor > doesn't disproves the idea it illustrates, > which was: until we understand how words > acquire meaning, and how this set meaning makes > us react, we will be a slave to words, and > vulnerable to manipulation. > > Thanks for your input. > Pete good any offense or judgment felt gets in the way of the discussion and more worse gets off the track of what is being discussed. I thank you for your input as well, nothing wrong with an opposing discussion,yeah? it's gotta me better than posting nothing. A superego is an awakening ego. Watch out danger!danger!warning! warning! So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass here. What others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is not real All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word you prefer) Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write. Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and naive. it turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of beliefs. which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality. Metaphor or metawhore? Words only point to what is real. I know I took the metaphor as it was not intended, but the fire and numbness thing was too good to pass up. But understanding words is a fool's game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as nonduality or nonduality itself love is self Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 > > >M: A superego is an awakening ego. P: Would not that be an oximoron? But I think I know what you mean. You mean the brain gets certain insights, and then attributes them to the effort it has made, and takes pride in possessing such insights. Much like a TV taking pride in what good programs it shows. But to me, ego and superego are just concepts, not entities in the brain. >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass here. P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. ) M: What > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is not real > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word you prefer) > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write. P: What meaning do you give to the word real? Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like taking a bush moving in the night wind for an animal jumping at you? >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and naive. P: See! I could have taken offense to that, but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled to think that your opinions are superior to mine. M: it > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of beliefs. > which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality. P: True > M: But understanding words is a fool's > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as > nonduality or nonduality itself. P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that? > > M: love is self. P: And self is what? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > > > >M: A superego is an awakening ego. > > P: Would not that be an oximoron? > > But I think I know what you mean. > You mean the brain gets certain > insights, and then attributes them > to the effort it has made, and takes > pride in possessing such insights. Much > like a TV taking pride in what good > programs it shows. > > But to me, ego and superego are just > concepts, not entities in the brain. > > > >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass here. > > P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. ) > > M: What > > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is not real > > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word you prefer) > > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write. > > P: What meaning do you give to the word real? > Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you > equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like > taking a bush moving in the night wind for > an animal jumping at you? > > >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and naive. > > P: See! I could have taken offense to that, > but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put > down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled > to think that your opinions are superior to mine. > > M: it > > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of beliefs. > > which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality. > > P: True > > > M: But understanding words is a fool's > > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as > > nonduality or nonduality itself. > > P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that? > > > > M: love is self. > > P: And self is what? > > > Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing you choose to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too anal for me to sustain. I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant nonduality. Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and peace for all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may appear. But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were perverted by ego. Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have the " love " thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many posts that teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by superego.FYI, a concept is an entity in the mind. Exactly! real is non-exsistent I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >M: A superego is an awakening ego. > > > > P: Would not that be an oximoron? > > > > But I think I know what you mean. > > You mean the brain gets certain > > insights, and then attributes them > > to the effort it has made, and takes > > pride in possessing such insights. Much > > like a TV taking pride in what good > > programs it shows. > > > > But to me, ego and superego are just > > concepts, not entities in the brain. > > > > > > >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass here. > > > > P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. ) > > > > M: What > > > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is not > real > > > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word you > prefer) > > > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write. > > > > P: What meaning do you give to the word real? > > Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you > > equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like > > taking a bush moving in the night wind for > > an animal jumping at you? > > > > >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and naive. > > > > P: See! I could have taken offense to that, > > but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put > > down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled > > to think that your opinions are superior to mine. > > > > M: it > > > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of beliefs. > > > which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality. > > > > P: True > > > > > M: But understanding words is a fool's > > > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as > > > nonduality or nonduality itself. > > > > P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that? > > > > > > M: love is self. > > > > P: And self is what? > > > > > > Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing you choose > to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too anal for me > to sustain. > > I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant nonduality. > Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and peace for > all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may appear. > But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were perverted by > ego. > > Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have the " love " > thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many posts that > teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by superego.FYI, a > concept is an entity in the mind. > > Exactly! real is non-exsistent > > I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean > > Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when > > Mark P: Did you intend to kill the dialog? Answering with such rambling generalities leaves no room for reply. So good bey, till next time. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 cerosoul wrote: > > >> M: A superego is an awakening ego. >> > > P: Would not that be an oximoron? > > But I think I know what you mean. > You mean the brain gets certain > insights, and then attributes them > to the effort it has made, and takes > pride in possessing such insights. Much > like a TV taking pride in what good > programs it shows. > > But to me, ego and superego are just > concepts, not entities in the brain. > > > Hi, That is correct, ego, superego and Id, are all just concepts, not actual entities in the brain/mind. These were concepts developed by Sigmund Freud in order that he might understand the mind better, so that he might have a more effective psychoanalytic theory. These concepts tend to get used these days in 'pseudo science new age circles' as though they are actual aspects of the mind/brain. In general, people that use these terms often have no idea what they actually mean. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 lNisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " > <marktimmins60@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >M: A superego is an awakening ego. > > > > > > P: Would not that be an oximoron? > > > > > > But I think I know what you mean. > > > You mean the brain gets certain > > > insights, and then attributes them > > > to the effort it has made, and takes > > > pride in possessing such insights. Much > > > like a TV taking pride in what good > > > programs it shows. > > > > > > But to me, ego and superego are just > > > concepts, not entities in the brain. > > > > > > > > > >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass here. > > > > > > P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. ) > > > > > > M: What > > > > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is not > > real > > > > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word you > > prefer) > > > > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write. > > > > > > P: What meaning do you give to the word real? > > > Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you > > > equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like > > > taking a bush moving in the night wind for > > > an animal jumping at you? > > > > > > >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and naive. > > > > > > P: See! I could have taken offense to that, > > > but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put > > > down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled > > > to think that your opinions are superior to mine. > > > > > > M: it > > > > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of beliefs. > > > > which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality. > > > > > > P: True > > > > > > > M: But understanding words is a fool's > > > > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as > > > > nonduality or nonduality itself. > > > > > > P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that? > > > > > > > > M: love is self. > > > > > > P: And self is what? > > > > > > > > > Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing you choose > > to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too anal for me > > to sustain. > > > > I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant nonduality. > > Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and peace for > > all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may appear. > > But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were perverted by > > ego. > > > > Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have the " love " > > thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many posts that > > teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by superego.FYI, a > > concept is an entity in the mind. > > > > Exactly! real is non-exsistent > > > > I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean > > > > Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when > > > > Mark > > P: Did you intend to kill the dialog? > Answering with such rambling generalities > leaves no room for reply. So good bey, till > next time. > > > > speaking of generalities lol,couldn't stand the heat heat huh? go run into the corner with Anna. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60 wrote: > > lNisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " > > <marktimmins60@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >M: A superego is an awakening ego. > > > > > > > > P: Would not that be an oximoron? > > > > > > > > But I think I know what you mean. > > > > You mean the brain gets certain > > > > insights, and then attributes them > > > > to the effort it has made, and takes > > > > pride in possessing such insights. Much > > > > like a TV taking pride in what good > > > > programs it shows. > > > > > > > > But to me, ego and superego are just > > > > concepts, not entities in the brain. > > > > > > > > > > > > >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass > here. > > > > > > > > P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. ) > > > > > > > > M: What > > > > > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is > not > > > real > > > > > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word > you > > > prefer) > > > > > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write. > > > > > > > > P: What meaning do you give to the word real? > > > > Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you > > > > equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like > > > > taking a bush moving in the night wind for > > > > an animal jumping at you? > > > > > > > > >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and > naive. > > > > > > > > P: See! I could have taken offense to that, > > > > but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put > > > > down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled > > > > to think that your opinions are superior to mine. > > > > > > > > M: it > > > > > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of > beliefs. > > > > > which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality. > > > > > > > > P: True > > > > > > > > > M: But understanding words is a fool's > > > > > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as > > > > > nonduality or nonduality itself. > > > > > > > > P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that? > > > > > > > > > > M: love is self. > > > > > > > > P: And self is what? > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing you > choose > > > to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too anal > for me > > > to sustain. > > > > > > I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant nonduality. > > > Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and peace > for > > > all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may > appear. > > > But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were perverted > by > > > ego. > > > > > > Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have > the " love " > > > thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many posts > that > > > teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by > superego.FYI, a > > > concept is an entity in the mind. > > > > > > Exactly! real is non-exsistent > > > > > > I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean > > > > > > Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when > > > > > > Mark > > > > P: Did you intend to kill the dialog? > > Answering with such rambling generalities > > leaves no room for reply. So good bey, till > > next time. > > > > > > > > speaking of generalities > lol,couldn't stand the heat heat huh? > go run into the corner with Anna. > Mark > Shit.... now what did I do that I didn't do? ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " > <marktimmins60@> wrote: > > > > lNisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " > > > <marktimmins60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >M: A superego is an awakening ego. > > > > > so > > > > > P: Would not that be an oximoron? > > > > > > > > > > But I think I know what you mean. > > > > > You mean the brain gets certain > > > > > insights, and then attributes them > > > > > to the effort it has made, and takes > > > > > pride in possessing such insights. Much > > > > > like a TV taking pride in what good > > > > > programs it shows. > > > > > > > > > > But to me, ego and superego are just > > > > > concepts, not entities in the brain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass > > here. > > > > > > > > > > P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. ) > > > > > > > > > > M: What > > > > > > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is > > not > > > > real > > > > > > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word > > you > > > > prefer) > > > > > > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write. > > > > > > > > > > P: What meaning do you give to the word real? > > > > > Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you > > > > > equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like > > > > > taking a bush moving in the night wind for > > > > > an animal jumping at you? > > > > > > > > > > >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and > > naive. > > > > > > > > > > P: See! I could have taken offense to that, > > > > > but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put > > > > > down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled > > > > > to think that your opinions are superior to mine. > > > > > > > > > > M: it > > > > > > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of > > beliefs. > > > > > > which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality. > > > > > > > > > > P: True > > > > > > > > > > > M: But understanding words is a fool's > > > > > > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as > > > > > > nonduality or nonduality itself. > > > > > > > > > > P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that? > > > > > > > > > > > > M: love is self. > > > > > > > > > > P: And self is what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing you > > choose > > > > to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too anal > > for me > > > > to sustain. > > > > > > > > I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant nonduality. > > > > Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and peace > > for > > > > all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may > > appear. > > > > But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were perverted > > by > > > > ego. > > > > > > > > Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have > > the " love " > > > > thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many posts > > that > > > > teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by > > superego.FYI, a > > > > concept is an entity in the mind. > > > > > > > > Exactly! real is non-exsistent > > > > > > > > I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean > > > > > > > > Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > P: Did you intend to kill the dialog? > > > Answering with such rambling generalities > > > leaves no room for reply. So good bey, till > > > next time. > > > > > > > > > > > > speaking of generalities > > lol,couldn't stand the heat heat huh? > > go run into the corner with Anna. > > Mark > > > > > > Shit.... now what did I do that I didn't do? > > ~A > sorry anna my bad, I just seem to tie you into all that peace and love for all thing Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60 wrote: > > lNisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " > > <marktimmins60@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >M: A superego is an awakening ego. > > > > > > > > P: Would not that be an oximoron? > > > > > > > > But I think I know what you mean. > > > > You mean the brain gets certain > > > > insights, and then attributes them > > > > to the effort it has made, and takes > > > > pride in possessing such insights. Much > > > > like a TV taking pride in what good > > > > programs it shows. > > > > > > > > But to me, ego and superego are just > > > > concepts, not entities in the brain. > > > > > > > > > > > > >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass > here. > > > > > > > > P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. ) > > > > > > > > M: What > > > > > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is > not > > > real > > > > > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word > you > > > prefer) > > > > > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write. > > > > > > > > P: What meaning do you give to the word real? > > > > Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you > > > > equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like > > > > taking a bush moving in the night wind for > > > > an animal jumping at you? > > > > > > > > >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and > naive. > > > > > > > > P: See! I could have taken offense to that, > > > > but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put > > > > down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled > > > > to think that your opinions are superior to mine. > > > > > > > > M: it > > > > > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of > beliefs. > > > > > which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality. > > > > > > > > P: True > > > > > > > > > M: But understanding words is a fool's > > > > > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as > > > > > nonduality or nonduality itself. > > > > > > > > P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that? > > > > > > > > > > M: love is self. > > > > > > > > P: And self is what? > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing you > choose > > > to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too anal > for me > > > to sustain. > > > > > > I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant nonduality. > > > Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and peace > for > > > all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may > appear. > > > But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were perverted > by > > > ego. > > > > > > Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have > the " love " > > > thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many posts > that > > > teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by > superego.FYI, a > > > concept is an entity in the mind. > > > > > > Exactly! real is non-exsistent > > > > > > I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean > > > > > > Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when > > > > > > Mark > > > > P: Did you intend to kill the dialog? > > Answering with such rambling generalities > > leaves no room for reply. So good bey, till > > next time. > > > > > > > > speaking of generalities > lol,couldn't stand the heat heat huh? > go run into the corner with Anna. > Mark P: LOL What heat? I asked you very specific questions about the superego and what you meant by " Words only point towards duality or duality posing as nonduality or nonduality itself. " And you answer with more gibberish about love and peace and perverting Nis. So you have no idea what you're talking about. Tiga was right on, no gibberish there. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " > <marktimmins60@> wrote: > > > > lNisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " > > > <marktimmins60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >M: A superego is an awakening ego. > > > > > > > > > > P: Would not that be an oximoron? > > > > > > > > > > But I think I know what you mean. > > > > > You mean the brain gets certain > > > > > insights, and then attributes them > > > > > to the effort it has made, and takes > > > > > pride in possessing such insights. Much > > > > > like a TV taking pride in what good > > > > > programs it shows. > > > > > > > > > > But to me, ego and superego are just > > > > > concepts, not entities in the brain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass > > here. > > > > > > > > > > P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. ) > > > > > > > > > > M: What > > > > > > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is > > not > > > > real > > > > > > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word > > you > > > > prefer) > > > > > > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write. > > > > > > > > > > P: What meaning do you give to the word real? > > > > > Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you > > > > > equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like > > > > > taking a bush moving in the night wind for > > > > > an animal jumping at you? > > > > > > > > > > >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and > > naive. > > > > > > > > > > P: See! I could have taken offense to that, > > > > > but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put > > > > > down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled > > > > > to think that your opinions are superior to mine. > > > > > > > > > > M: it > > > > > > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of > > beliefs. > > > > > > which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality. > > > > > > > > > > P: True > > > > > > > > > > > M: But understanding words is a fool's > > > > > > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as > > > > > > nonduality or nonduality itself. > > > > > > > > > > P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that? > > > > > > > > > > > > M: love is self. > > > > > > > > > > P: And self is what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing you > > choose > > > > to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too anal > > for me > > > > to sustain. > > > > > > > > I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant nonduality. > > > > Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and peace > > for > > > > all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may > > appear. > > > > But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were perverted > > by > > > > ego. > > > > > > > > Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have > > the " love " > > > > thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many posts > > that > > > > teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by > > superego.FYI, a > > > > concept is an entity in the mind. > > > > > > > > Exactly! real is non-exsistent > > > > > > > > I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean > > > > > > > > Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > P: Did you intend to kill the dialog? > > > Answering with such rambling generalities > > > leaves no room for reply. So good bey, till > > > next time. > > > > > > > > > > > > speaking of generalities > > lol,couldn't stand the heat heat huh? > > go run into the corner with Anna. > > Mark > > P: LOL What heat? I asked you very specific > questions about the superego and what you > meant by " Words only point towards duality > or duality posing as nonduality or nonduality itself. " > > And you answer with more gibberish about love > and peace and perverting Nis. So you have no > idea what you're talking about. Tiga was right > on, no gibberish there. > > You might go read " I am that " before you say something stupid again,otherwise please tell me Nisargadatta's unperverted teachings according to Pete. I would love to hear em. You are clueless as to what Nisargadatta spoke. YOu jumped on board with your own agenda. So let me get this straight first you ask the pertinent questions and then you judge the proper response. Have I got that right? Good god man,You must be a teacher of some nonduality religion. I should of known better. By the way Mark didn't answear your qour questions the ay you would of liked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 marktimmins60 wrote: > > sorry anna my bad, I just seem to tie you into all that > peace and love for all thing > Mark > > > --- > > I might suggest that some peace and love probably wouldn't go astray if included in your dialogue. I make the simple suggestion that when attempting to communicate, a civil reference position is always a much more constructive position for persuasion, than an uncivil one. Just as an example, if we focus negatively on a persons personality while attempting to convey a message to them, that person will most likely become either defensive or not listen to the point we might be attempting to make but instead focus on our attack of their personality. The discussion then usually descends quickly into attack and defend, achieving essentially nothing except maybe frustration. The way we communicate is always the key to a constructive or non-constructive conversation. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 > > > > P: LOL What heat? I asked you very specific > > questions about the superego and what you > > meant by " Words only point towards duality > > or duality posing as nonduality or nonduality itself. " > > > > And you answer with more gibberish about love > > and peace and perverting Nis. So you have no > > idea what you're talking about. Tiga was right > > on, no gibberish there. > > > >M: You might go read " I am that " before you say something stupid > again,otherwise please tell me Nisargadatta's unperverted teachings > according to Pete. P: I don't mind saying something stupid. I read all Nis' books years ago. I don't need his words anymore, do you? I had a broken leg once, and used crutches for a while. As soon as the bone healed, I put the crutches aside, and have no need of them. I never think of the crutches, or of Nis' words. They both did their job well. The purpose of Nis' words are to take you beyond words. M: I would love to hear em. You are clueless as to > what Nisargadatta spoke. YOu jumped on board with your own agenda. P: Why don't you tell what Nis' words have done for you? > > So let me get this straight first you ask the pertinent questions > and then you judge the proper response. Have I got that right? P: Of course! How else can you understand what people mean? Do you ask impertinent questions and ignore the response? Maybe that's why this conversation is going nowhere fast. > M: Good god man,You must be a teacher of some nonduality religion. > I should of known better. P; Was Nis a teacher of nonduality, in your opinion? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > > > > P: LOL What heat? I asked you very specific > > > questions about the superego and what you > > > meant by " Words only point towards duality > > > or duality posing as nonduality or nonduality itself. " > > > > > > And you answer with more gibberish about love > > > and peace and perverting Nis. So you have no > > > idea what you're talking about. Tiga was right > > > on, no gibberish there. > > > > > >M: You might go read " I am that " before you say something stupid > > again,otherwise please tell me Nisargadatta's unperverted teachings > > according to Pete. > > P: I don't mind saying something stupid. > I read all Nis' books years ago. I don't > need his words anymore, do you? I had a > broken leg once, and used crutches for a > while. As soon as the bone healed, I put > the crutches aside, and have no need of > them. I never think of the crutches, or > of Nis' words. They both did their job > well. The purpose of Nis' words are to > take you beyond words. > > > > > M: I would love to hear em. You are clueless as to > > what Nisargadatta spoke. YOu jumped on board with your own agenda. > > P: Why don't you tell what Nis' words have done > for you? > > > > So let me get this straight first you ask the pertinent questions > > and then you judge the proper response. Have I got that right? > > P: Of course! How else can you understand > what people mean? Do you ask impertinent questions > and ignore the response? Maybe that's why this > conversation is going nowhere fast. > > > M: Good god man,You must be a teacher of some nonduality religion. > > I should of known better. > > P; Was Nis a teacher of nonduality, in your opinion? > > >Pete Stupid is as stupid thinks. You know I don't blame you, I blame Bill Clinton for this song and dance debate style that he made so popular. Ever notice how people just can't tell the truth?? But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here because you might have missed the question in your enlightened state. Would you tell me the unperverted teachings of Nisargadatta according to you. As a matter of fact I do read Nisargadatta daily. His eloquence keeps me vigilant from becoming an awakened ego. You might wanna give it a try. But anyway, the way it works for me, is if I am asked a question I respond with a direct answear, if I ask a question, I would expect the samething. But not you, you answear with a question(more Bill here)or you deflect by attacking off topic. Nope the reason this conversation is going nowhere fast is because I am talking to an enlightened ego. I just thought I would give it the old college try, ya know? Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > I'd like to give everyone the gift > > of 'no words.' By that I mean, take them > > to that place where no word can offend, > > or flatter, or move you in any way. Few > > are willing to accept that gift because > > it hurts. If you put ice on a burn, it > > hurts more, until the nerves get numb > > and you don't feel a thing and the burn > > begins to heal. It's like that with words > > you have to let them burn without reacting, > > until you get numb, and see they cannot hurt. > > > > Phil doesn't understand that yet. So he > > leaves every list chased away by words. > > > > Pete > > > > Allow Me > > > > Allow me > to love you > as you are > it's easy enough > once you get out of my way... > the puzzle always fits > when the last piece is found, > > There's just no sense in looking back > at who we were when all those > ways to get to heaven were > useless as the wet sticks > we tried to rub together to > build a fire, and we were just as lost, > anyway, and what we spoke of > was nothing more > than little stones in our shoes > that left us with feet bleeding > in all that green we had yet to grow, > and all that soul food we had yet to feed > our hungry minds. > > It's all good darling, you see, > we're older now, > we've been simplified > with a few well-deserved pieces of quiet dignity, > and there's > a certain honesty in time that > no longer laments as it > passes by unadorned and > understated. > > ~A > So it really is love for all then!!?? Oh wait a minute " I " got to get out of the way first. Another enlightened ego. I better go read Pete's edition of the unperverted Nisargadatta's teaching as soon as he writes it The last piece to the puzzle Anna, is who you are. Grow up before you it is too late. Sorry, that was as much of your poem thatI could stomach to read. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > marktimmins60 wrote: > > > > sorry anna my bad, I just seem to tie you into all that > > peace and love for all thing > > Mark > > > > > > --- > > > > > I might suggest that some peace and love probably wouldn't go astray if > included in your dialogue. > > I make the simple suggestion that when attempting to communicate, a > civil reference position is always a much more constructive position for > persuasion, than an uncivil one. > > Just as an example, if we focus negatively on a persons personality > while attempting to convey a message to them, that person will most > likely become either defensive or not listen to the point we might be > attempting to make but instead focus on our attack of their personality. > The discussion then usually descends quickly into attack and defend, > achieving essentially nothing except maybe frustration. > > The way we communicate is always the key to a constructive or > non-constructive conversation. > > tyga > Go deeper, it is all love. You might be confusing etiquette and good taste with love maybe? I choose rather just to speak to the brutality of real love than to walk the danger thin line of codependancy. Instead of looking at the words read the intent. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 M: Ever notice how people > just can't tell the truth?? P: No, most people try to tell the truth as they see it, most of the time. > >M: But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here because > you might have missed the question in your enlightened state. Would > you tell me the unperverted teachings of Nisargadatta according to > you. P: I have no such thing. When the teachings came to Nis' mind they were not perverted. When he spoke them, he perverted them with words. When those words were translated into English they were perverted again. When someone reads them they are perverted once again. When that reader retells them perversion is added. So there is no such thing as unperverted Nis's teachings. > >M: As a matter of fact I do read Nisargadatta daily. His eloquence > keeps me vigilant from becoming an awakened ego. You might wanna > give it a try. P: What are you now? A sleeping ego? What is an Awakened ego? > M: I just thought I would give it the > old college try, ya know? P: What was your major? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > M: Ever notice how people > > just can't tell the truth?? > > P: No, most people try to tell > the truth as they see it, most of the time. > > > >M: But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here because > > you might have missed the question in your enlightened state. Would > > you tell me the unperverted teachings of Nisargadatta according to > > you. > > P: I have no such thing. When the teachings came > to Nis' mind they were not perverted. When he > spoke them, he perverted them with words. When > those words were translated into English they > were perverted again. When someone reads them > they are perverted once again. When that reader > retells them perversion is added. So there > is no such thing as unperverted Nis's teachings. > > > >M: As a matter of fact I do read Nisargadatta daily. His eloquence > > keeps me vigilant from becoming an awakened ego. You might wanna > > give it a try. > > P: What are you now? A sleeping ego? What is an Awakened > ego? > > > M: I just thought I would give it the > > old college try, ya know? > > P: What was your major? > > > > > > > You really are Bill Clinton aren't you? I do blame you then. Who am I? I am. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 marktimmins60 wrote: > Go deeper, it is all love. > You might be confusing etiquette and good taste with love maybe? > I choose rather just to speak to the brutality of real love than to > walk the danger thin line of codependancy. Instead of looking at > the words read the intent. > > Mark > > > --- > > ** > > Etiquette and good taste would definitely be a great start. But no, I'm not confusing etiquette and good taste with love, thanks for asking. I also mentioned peace though, I wonder, did you not realise I mentioned peace? If I understand you correctly, what you might be saying here, is that you prefer to take the tough approach to love, to take the disciplinarian approach maybe, in order that you not yourself become undisciplined or tainted by the tenderer aspects of love and be drawn into some sort of co-dependant love deception? I'm not really sure what you mean? You are perfectly entitled to take whatever approach you like, that is entirely up to you of course, but I remind you, that the way we communicate makes all the difference in whether or not we are effective, in my opinion. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2008 Report Share Posted December 6, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > marktimmins60 wrote: > > Go deeper, it is all love. > > You might be confusing etiquette and good taste with love maybe? > > I choose rather just to speak to the brutality of real love than to > > walk the danger thin line of codependancy. Instead of looking at > > the words read the intent. > > > > Mark > > > > > > --- > > > > ** > > > > > Etiquette and good taste would definitely be a great start. But no, I'm > not confusing etiquette and good taste with love, thanks for asking. I > also mentioned peace though, I wonder, did you not realise I mentioned > peace? > > If I understand you correctly, what you might be saying here, is that > you prefer to take the tough approach to love, to take the > disciplinarian approach maybe, in order that you not yourself become > undisciplined or tainted by the tenderer aspects of love and be drawn > into some sort of co-dependant love deception? > > I'm not really sure what you mean? > > You are perfectly entitled to take whatever approach you like, that is > entirely up to you of course, but I remind you, that the way we > communicate makes all the difference in whether or not we are effective, > in my opinion. > > tyga > it is all love don't you understand? peace is love war is love and sarcasm is love and I love using it when I hear nonsense. and yes even awakened egos are love. but that you think there is love and not love tells me that you are in the right universe, but the wrong forum and besides who made you the love judge anway? You must be very close to God. If however you want my respect, don't talk the walk,walk the walk. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2008 Report Share Posted December 6, 2008 marktimmins60 wrote: > > it is all love don't you understand? peace is love war is love and > sarcasm is love and I love using it when I hear nonsense. > and yes even awakened egos are love. but that you think there is love > and not love tells me that you are in the right universe, but the > wrong forum > and besides who made you the love judge anway? You must be very > close to God. If however you want my respect, don't talk the > walk,walk the walk. > > Mark > > > > --- > > ** > > I Don't I understand? How odd that you ought ask me that question. I was just recently making the point that unconditional love is the source of all things, which would entail that all things are love. I'm sorry Mark, but you don't appear to making any sense as far as I can tell. tyga 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.