Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 As I have understood it, the essential teachings of any and all of the self-realized sages like Nisargadatta, Maharshi, Papaji, and the like has been to consistently and persistently direct the seeker toward discovering the core nature of his or her self. Deep-rooted within these teachings is the indispensable process of self-inquiry—the process that seeks to reach a conclusive answer to the question(s) – ‘who or what am I?’ Although it seems that everyone in this group has traversed this path of self-inquiry to one degree or another, I feel the discussion sometimes gets directed tangentially away from the central target - the bulls-eye target of the Self. Although I do recognize the inherent difficulties involved in trying to talk about this Self, the fact that this Self is the root of all reality is to me an undeniable and incontestable certainty, whether or not this statement is agreed to by all or even any of the members of this group. Perhaps the problem comes about with the need to eventually accept the limitations of the mind’s capacity to comprehend this Self, and ultimately to recognize the need to ‘let go’ and ‘lose’ one’s mind into the unknown (a - la those acid experiences previously referenced by Bob); somewhat scary stuff for a mind trained and habituated from a lifetime of conditioned thought. In this pursuit of the understanding of who or what I am, or my true sense of identity, it has been my experience to recognize a borderline beyond which the mind cannot travel, and beyond which the mind is not allowed further access. This borderline has been alluded to by Nisargadatta many times in the discourses from many if not all of his books. Up to this borderline, which may be said to be the delineation between ‘being’ and ‘non-being’, the mind is still capable of unraveling the structured mental concepts it had previously layered and assembled one on top of the other to form its mental sense of self (the ego). When this mental sense of self is recognized as being merely and purely an imaginary fabrication, it is also now seen as being no more than a house built of playing cards. At this stage the mind is thus able to ‘loosen’ its conceptual ties or ‘free’ itself up to a large degree from its own formulated maze of thought. Up to this borderline, the mind can still understand. But to step beyond this borderline is to step into a state where ‘non-being’ and ‘being’ merge, and in this state the mind no longer has any standing. Here are some more things to think about: Nisargadatta: “This vicious circle of life, death, rebirth, etc., started with consciousness. Try to understand that consciousness, and in the process of understanding, you will become its background, the basis.†“[The supreme state] is not perceivable, because it is what makes perception possible. It is beyond being and not being. It is neither the mirror nor the image in the mirror. It is what is - the timeless reality†“To know yourself is the real knowledge, but you cannot LOOK at yourself, you can only ABIDE n your Self. Give up your attachment to mind modifications.†Marv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 I find what you say here to be very clear, Marv.> As i have understood it, the essential teachings of any and all> of the self-realized sages like nisargadatta, maharshi, papaji,> and the like has been to consistently and persistently direct the > seeker toward discovering the core nature of his or her self.> Deep-rooted within these teachings is the indispensable process> of self-inquiry--the process that seeks to reach a conclusive> answer to the question(s) -- ‘who or what am i?’ A conclusive answer, or simply the end of the question?It is a question that everyone has, except the few that have " passed through " (my view).I wonder if you have read the later discourses of Nisargadatta: Consciousness and the Absolute: The Final Talks of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj and Prior to Consciousness.While in I Am That he talks a great deal about the " I Am " and the question " Who am I? " , in his later talks, which he describes as being " advanced " he clarifies that the " I Am " is also an illusion, but that inquiring into the " I Am " is a step of realizing non-identificationwith all of the trappings of personification. Here he speaks of thegold as what is crucial, vs. the ornaments of which it is made, the gold corresponding to the " I Am " , and the ornaments to thepersonal features that decorate a life.> Although it seems that everyone in this group has traversed this> path of self-inquiry to one degree or another, i feel the > discussion sometimes gets directed tangentially away from the> central target - the bulls-eye target of the self. Although i do> recognize the inherent difficulties involved in trying to talk> about this self, the fact that this self is the root of all > reality is to me an undeniable and incontestable certainty,> whether or not this statement is agreed to by all or even any of> the members of this group. Perhaps the problem comes about with> the need to eventually accept the limitations of the mind’s > capacity to comprehend this self, and ultimately to recognize the> need to ‘let go’ and ‘lose’ one’s mind into the unknown (a - la> those acid experiences previously referenced by bob); somewhat> scary stuff for a mind trained and habituated from a lifetime of > conditioned thought.> In this pursuit of the understanding of who or what i am, or my> true sense of identity, it has been my experience to recognize a> borderline beyond which the mind cannot travel, and beyond which > the mind is not allowed further access. This borderline has been> alluded to by nisargadatta many times in the discourses from many> if not all of his books. Up to this borderline, which may be> said to be the delineation between ‘being’ and ‘non-being’, the > mind is still capable of unraveling the structured mental> concepts it had previously layered and assembled one on top of> the other to form its mental sense of self (the ego). When this> mental sense of self is recognized as being merely and purely an > imaginary fabrication, it is also now seen as being no more than> a house built of playing cards. At this stage the mind is thus> able to ‘loosen’ its conceptual ties or ‘free’ itself up to a> large degree from its own formulated maze of thought. Up to this > borderline, the mind can still understand. But to step beyond> this borderline is to step into a state where ‘non-being’ and> ‘being’ merge, and in this state the mind no longer has any> standing. Yes, all very well put. The mind can go to the gates but cannever enter in. Any effort to " know " is a trap, for to makeknowing the end is to never go beyond the mind.Personally I don't care for the notion of " Self " because it tends to suck people into " looking for it " . The Self is not to be foundas such. The Self is " realized " (quite different from beingknown or understood) only when the seeking has ended, when the wondering, " Who am I? " has been extinguished.Others will put it differently, but I see the ending of that questas the " mind dying into the Heart. " Such was my experience,and the only teacher I could find that spoke in those terms was Ramana Maharshi. But in any case, the mind comes to a kind of end.There is not such thing as a " sense of the Self " , in my view.It is as if in Absence living pours forth naturally. When the " little self " is finally extinguished (leaving simple Absence) what pours through unimpeded has a magical wholeness,a depth and richness. One can look at the natural wholenessof manifestation that pours through such Absence asthe " manifestation of something " ... and if so one could perhaps name that something as the Self. But I think to doso adds nothing and has peril in terms of speaking to others,as it is very misleading to those who haven't yet " passedthrough " . It really adds nothing and is more appropriate, I suggest, to simply say, " there is no 'whole' albeit a profound sense of wholeness. " All this my own view of course.In the later Nisargadatta books I mention above you willfind that he speaks mostly of the Absolute, and not so much of the Self. > Here are some more things to think about:> > Nisargadatta:> > " This vicious circle of life, death, rebirth, etc., started with> consciousness. Try to understand that consciousness, and in the > process of understanding, you will become its background, the> basis. " > > " [The supreme state] is not perceivable, because it is what> makes perception possible. It is beyond being and not being. It > is neither the mirror nor the image in the mirror. It is what is> - the timeless reality " > > " To know yourself is the real knowledge, but you cannot look at> yourself, you can only abide n your self. Give up your > attachment to mind modifications. " This is a great selection of Niz quotes, Marv. What he says about consciousness in the first quoteis very important.I especially like the last one. Because yes, the end of seeking is an abiding.Bill> > Marv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > I find what you say here to be very clear, Marv. > > > As i have understood it, the essential teachings of any and all > > of the self-realized sages like nisargadatta, maharshi, papaji, > > and the like has been to consistently and persistently direct the > > seeker toward discovering the core nature of his or her self. > > Deep-rooted within these teachings is the indispensable process > > of self-inquiry--the process that seeks to reach a conclusive > > answer to the question(s) -- `who or what am i?' > > A conclusive answer, or simply the end of the question? > It is a question that everyone has, except the few that have > " passed through " (my view). > > I wonder if you have read the later discourses of Nisargadatta: > <http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Absolute-Final-Nisargadatta-Maharaj/dp/0893\ 860417/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8 & s=books & qid=1239684851 & sr=1-3> > *Consciousness and the Absolute: The Final Talks of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > *<http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Absolute-Final-Nisargadatta-Maharaj/dp/089\ 3860417/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8 & s=books & qid=1239684851 & sr=1-3> > and *Prior to Consciousness*. > > While in *I Am That *he talks a great deal about the " I Am " and > the question " Who am I? " , in his later talks, which he describes > as being " advanced " he clarifies that the " I Am " is also an illusion, > but that inquiring into the " I Am " is a step of realizing non-identification > with all of the trappings of personification. Here he speaks of the > gold as what is crucial, vs. the ornaments of which it is made, > the gold corresponding to the " I Am " , and the ornaments to the > personal features that decorate a life. > > > Although it seems that everyone in this group has traversed this > > path of self-inquiry to one degree or another, i feel the > > discussion sometimes gets directed tangentially away from the > > central target - the bulls-eye target of the self. Although i do > > recognize the inherent difficulties involved in trying to talk > > about this self, the fact that this self is the root of all > > reality is to me an undeniable and incontestable certainty, > > whether or not this statement is agreed to by all or even any of > > the members of this group. Perhaps the problem comes about with > > the need to eventually accept the limitations of the mind's > > capacity to comprehend this self, and ultimately to recognize the > > need to `let go' and `lose' one's mind into the unknown (a - la > > those acid experiences previously referenced by bob); somewhat > > scary stuff for a mind trained and habituated from a lifetime of > > conditioned thought. > > > > In this pursuit of the understanding of who or what i am, or my > > true sense of identity, it has been my experience to recognize a > > borderline beyond which the mind cannot travel, and beyond which > > the mind is not allowed further access. This borderline has been > > alluded to by nisargadatta many times in the discourses from many > > if not all of his books. Up to this borderline, which may be > > said to be the delineation between `being' and `non-being', the > > mind is still capable of unraveling the structured mental > > concepts it had previously layered and assembled one on top of > > the other to form its mental sense of self (the ego). When this > > mental sense of self is recognized as being merely and purely an > > imaginary fabrication, it is also now seen as being no more than > > a house built of playing cards. At this stage the mind is thus > > able to `loosen' its conceptual ties or `free' itself up to a > > large degree from its own formulated maze of thought. Up to this > > borderline, the mind can still understand. But to step beyond > > this borderline is to step into a state where `non-being' and > > `being' merge, and in this state the mind no longer has any > > standing. > > Yes, all very well put. The mind can go to the gates but can > never enter in. Any effort to " know " is a trap, for to make > knowing the end is to never go beyond the mind. > > Personally I don't care for the notion of " Self " because it tends > to suck people into " looking for it " . The Self is not to be found > as such. The Self is " realized " (quite different from being > *known *or *understood*) only when the seeking has ended, > when the wondering, " Who am I? " has been extinguished. > Others will put it differently, but I see the ending of that quest > as the " *mind dying into the Heart*. " Such was my experience, > and the only teacher I could find that spoke in those terms was > Ramana Maharshi. But in any case, the mind comes to > a kind of end. > > There is not such thing as a " sense of the Self " , in my view. > It is as if in Absence living pours forth naturally. When the > " little self " is finally extinguished (leaving simple Absence) > what pours through unimpeded has a magical wholeness, > a depth and richness. One can look at the natural wholeness > of manifestation that pours through such Absence as > the " manifestation of *something* " ... and if so one could > perhaps name that something as the Self. But I think to do > so adds nothing and has peril in terms of speaking to others, > as it is very misleading to those who haven't yet " passed > through " . It really adds nothing and is more appropriate, > I suggest, to simply say, " there is no 'whole' albeit a > profound sense of wholeness. " All this my own view of > course. > > In the later Nisargadatta books I mention above you will > find that he speaks mostly of the Absolute, and not so > much of the Self. > > > Here are some more things to think about: > > > > Nisargadatta: > > > > " This vicious circle of life, death, rebirth, etc., started with > > consciousness. Try to understand that consciousness, and in the > > process of understanding, you will become its background, the > > basis. " > > > > " [The supreme state] is not perceivable, because it is what > > makes perception possible. It is beyond being and not being. It > > is neither the mirror nor the image in the mirror. It is what is > > - the timeless reality " > > > > " To know yourself is the real knowledge, but you cannot look at > > yourself, you can only abide n your self. Give up your > > attachment to mind modifications. " > > This is a great selection of Niz quotes, Marv. > > What he says about consciousness in the first quote > is very important. > > I especially like the last one. > Because yes, the end of seeking is an *abiding*. > > > Bill > > > > > > Marv > Bill is right, Marv, You never will know what the Self is or the Absolute. They just are appetizers tickling one's spiritual greed. Therefore forget the Self and the Absolute and better find out what the " I am is " and what does mean " Know thyself " . Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > I find what you say here to be very clear, Marv. > > > > > As i have understood it, the essential teachings of any and all > > > of the self-realized sages like nisargadatta, maharshi, papaji, > > > and the like has been to consistently and persistently direct the > > > seeker toward discovering the core nature of his or her self. > > > Deep-rooted within these teachings is the indispensable process > > > of self-inquiry--the process that seeks to reach a conclusive > > > answer to the question(s) -- `who or what am i?' > > > > A conclusive answer, or simply the end of the question? > > It is a question that everyone has, except the few that have > > " passed through " (my view). > > > > I wonder if you have read the later discourses of Nisargadatta: > > <http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Absolute-Final-Nisargadatta-Maharaj/dp/0893\ 860417/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8 & s=books & qid=1239684851 & sr=1-3> > > *Consciousness and the Absolute: The Final Talks of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > *<http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Absolute-Final-Nisargadatta-Maharaj/dp/089\ 3860417/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8 & s=books & qid=1239684851 & sr=1-3> > > and *Prior to Consciousness*. > > > > While in *I Am That *he talks a great deal about the " I Am " and > > the question " Who am I? " , in his later talks, which he describes > > as being " advanced " he clarifies that the " I Am " is also an illusion, > > but that inquiring into the " I Am " is a step of realizing non-identification > > with all of the trappings of personification. Here he speaks of the > > gold as what is crucial, vs. the ornaments of which it is made, > > the gold corresponding to the " I Am " , and the ornaments to the > > personal features that decorate a life. > > > > > Although it seems that everyone in this group has traversed this > > > path of self-inquiry to one degree or another, i feel the > > > discussion sometimes gets directed tangentially away from the > > > central target - the bulls-eye target of the self. Although i do > > > recognize the inherent difficulties involved in trying to talk > > > about this self, the fact that this self is the root of all > > > reality is to me an undeniable and incontestable certainty, > > > whether or not this statement is agreed to by all or even any of > > > the members of this group. Perhaps the problem comes about with > > > the need to eventually accept the limitations of the mind's > > > capacity to comprehend this self, and ultimately to recognize the > > > need to `let go' and `lose' one's mind into the unknown (a - la > > > those acid experiences previously referenced by bob); somewhat > > > scary stuff for a mind trained and habituated from a lifetime of > > > conditioned thought. > > > > > > > In this pursuit of the understanding of who or what i am, or my > > > true sense of identity, it has been my experience to recognize a > > > borderline beyond which the mind cannot travel, and beyond which > > > the mind is not allowed further access. This borderline has been > > > alluded to by nisargadatta many times in the discourses from many > > > if not all of his books. Up to this borderline, which may be > > > said to be the delineation between `being' and `non-being', the > > > mind is still capable of unraveling the structured mental > > > concepts it had previously layered and assembled one on top of > > > the other to form its mental sense of self (the ego). When this > > > mental sense of self is recognized as being merely and purely an > > > imaginary fabrication, it is also now seen as being no more than > > > a house built of playing cards. At this stage the mind is thus > > > able to `loosen' its conceptual ties or `free' itself up to a > > > large degree from its own formulated maze of thought. Up to this > > > borderline, the mind can still understand. But to step beyond > > > this borderline is to step into a state where `non-being' and > > > `being' merge, and in this state the mind no longer has any > > > standing. > > > > Yes, all very well put. The mind can go to the gates but can > > never enter in. Any effort to " know " is a trap, for to make > > knowing the end is to never go beyond the mind. > > > > Personally I don't care for the notion of " Self " because it tends > > to suck people into " looking for it " . The Self is not to be found > > as such. The Self is " realized " (quite different from being > > *known *or *understood*) only when the seeking has ended, > > when the wondering, " Who am I? " has been extinguished. > > Others will put it differently, but I see the ending of that quest > > as the " *mind dying into the Heart*. " Such was my experience, > > and the only teacher I could find that spoke in those terms was > > Ramana Maharshi. But in any case, the mind comes to > > a kind of end. > > > > There is not such thing as a " sense of the Self " , in my view. > > It is as if in Absence living pours forth naturally. When the > > " little self " is finally extinguished (leaving simple Absence) > > what pours through unimpeded has a magical wholeness, > > a depth and richness. One can look at the natural wholeness > > of manifestation that pours through such Absence as > > the " manifestation of *something* " ... and if so one could > > perhaps name that something as the Self. But I think to do > > so adds nothing and has peril in terms of speaking to others, > > as it is very misleading to those who haven't yet " passed > > through " . It really adds nothing and is more appropriate, > > I suggest, to simply say, " there is no 'whole' albeit a > > profound sense of wholeness. " All this my own view of > > course. > > > > In the later Nisargadatta books I mention above you will > > find that he speaks mostly of the Absolute, and not so > > much of the Self. > > > > > Here are some more things to think about: > > > > > > Nisargadatta: > > > > > > " This vicious circle of life, death, rebirth, etc., started with > > > consciousness. Try to understand that consciousness, and in the > > > process of understanding, you will become its background, the > > > basis. " > > > > > > " [The supreme state] is not perceivable, because it is what > > > makes perception possible. It is beyond being and not being. It > > > is neither the mirror nor the image in the mirror. It is what is > > > - the timeless reality " > > > > > > " To know yourself is the real knowledge, but you cannot look at > > > yourself, you can only abide n your self. Give up your > > > attachment to mind modifications. " > > > > This is a great selection of Niz quotes, Marv. > > > > What he says about consciousness in the first quote > > is very important. > > > > I especially like the last one. > > Because yes, the end of seeking is an *abiding*. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Marv > > > > > Bill is right, Marv, > > You never will know what the Self is or the Absolute. They just are appetizers tickling one's spiritual greed. > > Therefore forget the Self and the Absolute and better find out what the " I am is " and what does mean " Know thyself " . > > Werner seems like a greedy endeavor. there is nothing needed. what's to " find out " ? who's to find " it " . why is one " way " better than another? know this: there's absolutely nothing to be known. not even a knower. that's just show for nobody. it's a no show. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 seems like a greedy endeavor. there is nothing needed. what's to " find out " ? who's to find " it " . why is one " way " better than another? know this: there's absolutely nothing to be known. not even a knower. that's just show for nobody. it's a no show. ..b b.b. --------------------- how does the end of seeking come about? how does the question, " Who am I? " come to be extinguished? by reading what you have written above? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > seems like a greedy endeavor. > > there is nothing needed. > > what's to " find out " ? > > who's to find " it " . > > why is one " way " better than another? > > know this: > > there's absolutely nothing to be known. > > not even a knower. > > that's just show for nobody. > > it's a no show. > > .b b.b. > > --------------------- > > how does the end of seeking come about? heavens it beats the hell out of " me " . > how does the question, " Who am I? " come to > be extinguished? i don't know who could possibly answer that. i don't know any whos. > by reading what you have written above? > > > Bill it doesn't. did i say that it did? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:> >> > seems like a greedy endeavor.> >> > there is nothing needed. > >> > what's to " find out " ?> >> > who's to find " it " .> >> > why is one " way " better than another?> >> > know this: > >> > there's absolutely nothing to be known.> >> > not even a knower.> >> > that's just show for nobody.> >> > it's a no show.> > > > .b b.b.> >> > ---------------------> >> > how does the end of seeking come about?> > heavens it beats the hell out of " me " .> > > how does the question, " Who am I? " come to > > be extinguished?> > i don't know who could possibly answer that.> > i don't know any whos.It is you that is sticking the " whos " in there.There are none in the question. Is it the case that the question, " Who am I? " is a puzzle, a nagging uncertainty? Ever?If so, is it the case that such uncertaintynever disappears, dissolves, or whatever?Think of it in terms of a " field " of some kind, and a strange attractor of some sort in thefield. At some point the strange attractordissolves back into the field.A sense of " me " doesn't have to imply " anybody " having such a sense. It can be seen as a strange attractor in some kind of field.> > > > by reading what you have written above?> >> >> > Bill> > it doesn't.> > did i say that it did? Are you saying that whatever you write ispointless? Bill> > .b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > seems like a greedy endeavor. > > > > > > there is nothing needed. > > > > > > what's to " find out " ? > > > > > > who's to find " it " . > > > > > > why is one " way " better than another? > > > > > > know this: > > > > > > there's absolutely nothing to be known. > > > > > > not even a knower. > > > > > > that's just show for nobody. > > > > > > it's a no show. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > how does the end of seeking come about? > > > > heavens it beats the hell out of " me " . > > > > > how does the question, " Who am I? " come to > > > be extinguished? > > > > i don't know who could possibly answer that. > > > > i don't know any whos. > > It is you that is sticking the " whos " in there. > There are none in the question. > > Is it the case that the question, " Who am I? " > is a puzzle, a nagging uncertainty? Ever? > > If so, is it the case that such uncertainty > never disappears, dissolves, or whatever? > > Think of it in terms of a " field " of some kind, > and a strange attractor of some sort in the > field. At some point the strange attractor > dissolves back into the field. > > A sense of " me " doesn't have to imply " anybody " > having such a sense. It can be seen as a > strange attractor in some kind of field. > > > > > > > > by reading what you have written above? > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > it doesn't. > > > > did i say that it did? > > Are you saying that whatever you write is > pointless? > > Bill > > > > > .b b.b. of course. what could it point to? i neither point nor give the finger to anything or anyone. the ones that get pissed off.. if they look closely enough.. will see that there's no reason to get perturbed. no finger..no pointing...no reason for anything. but i play the game. what else? i don't know anything..and i know nothing else. whatever the hell " It " is...is unknowable. I don't understand what i'm saying. and i know this is the True. all the rest of the pontificating.. even my own.. is just what it is and it isn't worth anything. it's just nothing. i can't explain this unknowing nor this no-self. but yes..in Real terms..it's pointless anyway. except when i make or order breakfast..lunch..or dinner. even that sometimes now seems pointless. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > seems like a greedy endeavor. > > > > > > > > there is nothing needed. > > > > > > > > what's to " find out " ? > > > > > > > > who's to find " it " . > > > > > > > > why is one " way " better than another? > > > > > > > > know this: > > > > > > > > there's absolutely nothing to be known. > > > > > > > > not even a knower. > > > > > > > > that's just show for nobody. > > > > > > > > it's a no show. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > > > how does the end of seeking come about? > > > > > > heavens it beats the hell out of " me " . > > > > > > > how does the question, " Who am I? " come to > > > > be extinguished? > > > > > > i don't know who could possibly answer that. > > > > > > i don't know any whos. > > > > It is you that is sticking the " whos " in there. > > There are none in the question. > > > > Is it the case that the question, " Who am I? " > > is a puzzle, a nagging uncertainty? Ever? > > > > If so, is it the case that such uncertainty > > never disappears, dissolves, or whatever? > > > > Think of it in terms of a " field " of some kind, > > and a strange attractor of some sort in the > > field. At some point the strange attractor > > dissolves back into the field. > > > > A sense of " me " doesn't have to imply " anybody " > > having such a sense. It can be seen as a > > strange attractor in some kind of field. > > > > > > > > > > > > by reading what you have written above? > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > it doesn't. > > > > > > did i say that it did? > > > > Are you saying that whatever you write is > > pointless? > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > of course. > > what could it point to? > > i neither point nor give the finger to anything or anyone. > > the ones that get pissed off.. > > if they look closely enough.. > > will see that there's no reason to get perturbed. > > no finger..no pointing...no reason for anything. > > but i play the game. > > what else? > > i don't know anything..and i know nothing else. > > whatever the hell " It " is...is unknowable. > > I don't understand what i'm saying. > > and i know this is the True. > > all the rest of the pontificating.. > > even my own.. > > is just what it is and it isn't worth anything. > > it's just nothing. > > i can't explain this unknowing nor this no-self. > > but yes..in Real terms..it's pointless anyway. > > except when i make or order breakfast..lunch..or dinner. > > even that sometimes now seems pointless. > > .b b.b. of course too.. it's pointless to say its pointless. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 > Are you saying that whatever you write is > pointless? > > Bill > > > > > .b b.b. of course. what could it point to? i neither point nor give the finger to anything or anyone. the ones that get pissed off.. if they look closely enough.. will see that there's no reason to get perturbed. no finger..no pointing...no reason for anything. but i play the game. what else? i don't know anything..and i know nothing else. whatever the hell " It " is...is unknowable. I don't understand what i'm saying. and i know this is the True. all the rest of the pontificating.. even my own.. is just what it is and it isn't worth anything. it's just nothing. i can't explain this unknowing nor this no-self. but yes..in Real terms..it's pointless anyway. except when i make or order breakfast..lunch..or dinner. even that sometimes now seems pointless. ..b b.b.---------is there any point then in writing your posts?you seem to make assertions from time to time.even complete sentences.is such grammatical " fussiness " an atavistic hangover from days gone by, old habitsthat persist in spite of being pointless?don't get me wrong.I enjoy your posts...but seems you could come " out of the closet " a bit morelet the old pinions of syntax unfurlto span a vaster scapeof lexical freedomBill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > Are you saying that whatever you write is > > pointless? > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > of course. > > what could it point to? > > i neither point nor give the finger to anything or anyone. > > the ones that get pissed off.. > > if they look closely enough.. > > will see that there's no reason to get perturbed. > > no finger..no pointing...no reason for anything. > > but i play the game. > > what else? > > i don't know anything..and i know nothing else. > > whatever the hell " It " is...is unknowable. > > I don't understand what i'm saying. > > and i know this is the True. > > all the rest of the pontificating.. > > even my own.. > > is just what it is and it isn't worth anything. > > it's just nothing. > > i can't explain this unknowing nor this no-self. > > but yes..in Real terms..it's pointless anyway. > > except when i make or order breakfast..lunch..or dinner. > > even that sometimes now seems pointless. > > .b b.b. > --------- > > is there any point then in writing your posts? > > you seem to make assertions from time to time. > > even complete sentences. > > is such grammatical " fussiness " an atavistic > hangover from days gone by, old habits > that persist in spite of being pointless? > > don't get me wrong. > I enjoy your posts... > > but seems you could come " out of the closet " > a bit more > let the old pinions of syntax > unfurl > > to span a vaster scape > of lexical freedom > > > Bill i write 'em for the hell of it Bill. beginning and end of story. yes occasionally i do wax on.. and afterward i usually think my ass should be kicked.. for trying to say what cannot be said..or even thought. but it's usually a residual thing.. that acts as a " Force " upon me.. and actually it is more that " Force " (whatever that means).. than it is " i " that tries to spill the beans. this nonsense generally occurs.. in the immediacy of the " just after " of what i can only term: The Event. It is not other than i..or you.. and it's vastly more than that. but i can't explain that and i don't dare to say.. that i even understand It nor what It's saying. it's just the way it goes or IS. see..even right now.. It HERE is Presence. i gotta shut my mouth now too. i'm making a fool of myself again. but that's how i get my kicks. who needs Route 66? :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > Are you saying that whatever you write is > > > pointless? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > of course. > > > > what could it point to? > > > > i neither point nor give the finger to anything or anyone. > > > > the ones that get pissed off.. > > > > if they look closely enough.. > > > > will see that there's no reason to get perturbed. > > > > no finger..no pointing...no reason for anything. > > > > but i play the game. > > > > what else? > > > > i don't know anything..and i know nothing else. > > > > whatever the hell " It " is...is unknowable. > > > > I don't understand what i'm saying. > > > > and i know this is the True. > > > > all the rest of the pontificating.. > > > > even my own.. > > > > is just what it is and it isn't worth anything. > > > > it's just nothing. > > > > i can't explain this unknowing nor this no-self. > > > > but yes..in Real terms..it's pointless anyway. > > > > except when i make or order breakfast..lunch..or dinner. > > > > even that sometimes now seems pointless. > > > > .b b.b. > > --------- > > > > is there any point then in writing your posts? > > > > you seem to make assertions from time to time. > > > > even complete sentences. > > > > is such grammatical " fussiness " an atavistic > > hangover from days gone by, old habits > > that persist in spite of being pointless? > > > > don't get me wrong. > > I enjoy your posts... > > > > but seems you could come " out of the closet " > > a bit more > > let the old pinions of syntax > > unfurl > > > > to span a vaster scape > > of lexical freedom > > > > > > Bill > > > i write 'em for the hell of it Bill. > > beginning and end of story. > > yes occasionally i do wax on.. > > and afterward i usually think my ass should be kicked.. > > for trying to say what cannot be said..or even thought. > > but it's usually a residual thing.. > > that acts as a " Force " upon me.. > > and actually it is more that " Force " (whatever that means).. > > than it is " i " that tries to spill the beans. > > this nonsense generally occurs.. > > in the immediacy of the " just after " of what i can only term: > > The Event. > > It is not other than i..or you.. > > and it's vastly more than that. > > but i can't explain that and i don't dare to say.. > > that i even understand It nor what It's saying. > > it's just the way it goes or IS. > > see..even right now.. > > It HERE is Presence. > > i gotta shut my mouth now too. > > i'm making a fool of myself again. > > but that's how i get my kicks. > > who needs Route 66? > > :-) > > .b b.b. > totally with you, first line to last... err... not " you " of course... but the ripple of the phrases rambling through my brain (so to speak) just for the hell of it yes what else is there than these simple twinings of nonsense-sense-nonsense lacing their way... as if neural nets are depicting themselves for the simple pleasure of non-self gratification. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > Are you saying that whatever you write is > > > > pointless? > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > of course. > > > > > > what could it point to? > > > > > > i neither point nor give the finger to anything or anyone. > > > > > > the ones that get pissed off.. > > > > > > if they look closely enough.. > > > > > > will see that there's no reason to get perturbed. > > > > > > no finger..no pointing...no reason for anything. > > > > > > but i play the game. > > > > > > what else? > > > > > > i don't know anything..and i know nothing else. > > > > > > whatever the hell " It " is...is unknowable. > > > > > > I don't understand what i'm saying. > > > > > > and i know this is the True. > > > > > > all the rest of the pontificating.. > > > > > > even my own.. > > > > > > is just what it is and it isn't worth anything. > > > > > > it's just nothing. > > > > > > i can't explain this unknowing nor this no-self. > > > > > > but yes..in Real terms..it's pointless anyway. > > > > > > except when i make or order breakfast..lunch..or dinner. > > > > > > even that sometimes now seems pointless. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > --------- > > > > > > is there any point then in writing your posts? > > > > > > you seem to make assertions from time to time. > > > > > > even complete sentences. > > > > > > is such grammatical " fussiness " an atavistic > > > hangover from days gone by, old habits > > > that persist in spite of being pointless? > > > > > > don't get me wrong. > > > I enjoy your posts... > > > > > > but seems you could come " out of the closet " > > > a bit more > > > let the old pinions of syntax > > > unfurl > > > > > > to span a vaster scape > > > of lexical freedom > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > i write 'em for the hell of it Bill. > > > > beginning and end of story. > > > > yes occasionally i do wax on.. > > > > and afterward i usually think my ass should be kicked.. > > > > for trying to say what cannot be said..or even thought. > > > > but it's usually a residual thing.. > > > > that acts as a " Force " upon me.. > > > > and actually it is more that " Force " (whatever that means).. > > > > than it is " i " that tries to spill the beans. > > > > this nonsense generally occurs.. > > > > in the immediacy of the " just after " of what i can only term: > > > > The Event. > > > > It is not other than i..or you.. > > > > and it's vastly more than that. > > > > but i can't explain that and i don't dare to say.. > > > > that i even understand It nor what It's saying. > > > > it's just the way it goes or IS. > > > > see..even right now.. > > > > It HERE is Presence. > > > > i gotta shut my mouth now too. > > > > i'm making a fool of myself again. > > > > but that's how i get my kicks. > > > > who needs Route 66? > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > > totally with you, first line to last... > > err... > > not " you " of course... > > but the ripple of the phrases > rambling through my brain > (so to speak) > just for the hell of it > yes > > what else is there than > these simple twinings > of nonsense-sense-nonsense > lacing their way... > as if neural nets > are depicting themselves > for the simple pleasure > of non-self gratification. > > > Bill i'm one with that Bill. hey.. i've been really enjoying our nonsense lately. thanks. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > i'm one with that Bill. > > hey.. > > i've been really enjoying our nonsense lately. > > thanks. > > :-) > > .b b.b. P: Wholesome fun at a reasonable price. Ideally suited for the poor in spirit. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > i'm one with that Bill. > > > > hey.. > > > > i've been really enjoying our nonsense lately. > > > > thanks. > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > P: Wholesome fun at a reasonable price. Ideally > suited for the poor in spirit. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > i'm one with that Bill. > > > > hey.. > > > > i've been really enjoying our nonsense lately. > > > > thanks. > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > P: Wholesome fun at a reasonable price. Ideally > suited for the poor in spirit. and blessed are they if you believe in that sorta stuff. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm one with that Bill. > > > > > > hey.. > > > > > > i've been really enjoying our nonsense lately. > > > > > > thanks. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > P: Wholesome fun at a reasonable price. Ideally > > suited for the poor in spirit. > > > and blessed are they if you believe in that sorta stuff. > > :-) > > .b b.b. > total crackup Bob! Bill 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.