Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > round and round it goes... > > ah now i know what " it " is in your world.. > > it's utter bullshit. > > ug krish. was NOT the cousin of jiddu k. > > either you are a con..or a jerk. > > don't get upset pal. > > have i ever said anything about this... > > except when I fantasized someone else > > to tell it to.. > > and an objectifiable person to speak it? > > and to which objectifiable and objectable and objecty thing.. > > could there be that gets subjected to this anyway. > > fuck man i'm cool with this groovy shit. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. " I never let anyone con me. Not even for a nickel. " Wallace Beery Yes, you are cool with the groovy shit. Obvious and obviouser. Dumb, dumberer, and dumberest. There are not three. ..d .d .d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > are " you " talkin' to " me " asshole? > > > > > > about nobody being here???? > > > > > > get the hell out of my dream loser. > > > > > > ROFLMAO! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Are you talking to me about getting out of your dream, loser? > > > > When you know nobody is here, asshole? > > > > ROFLYAO! > > > > .d .d .d > > > you go girl! > > that's so way cool!..roflyao..like dig man..y instead of m. > > like cool dude..you/me..same same.. > > oh wow! > > like..so..you know..like ummm..buddhisticky and stuff. > > right on dannyo! > > LOL! > > .b b.b. Right on bobbyo! You so esoterically cool and shit. right on bobbyo! ROFLMAO! d. d. d. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, May 24, 2009 12:29 AM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > geo> You seem to be pushing this too focefully...I am feeling a bit weary > > to > > answer. > > Light is. > > Hey, it's only wearying if you think about it. > > Otherwise, light is. > > Light is light. > > geo> Hey, stop thinking about it. > Otherewise, ground is. > Ground is ground. > ...remember, that is how we started... > > We are full of prejudice We let out our word games here. Now, we are not full of words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > round and round it goes... > > > > ah now i know what " it " is in your world.. > > > > it's utter bullshit. > > > > ug krish. was NOT the cousin of jiddu k. > > > > either you are a con..or a jerk. > > > > don't get upset pal. > > > > have i ever said anything about this... > > > > except when I fantasized someone else > > > > to tell it to.. > > > > and an objectifiable person to speak it? > > > > and to which objectifiable and objectable and objecty thing.. > > > > could there be that gets subjected to this anyway. > > > > fuck man i'm cool with this groovy shit. > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > > " I never let anyone con me. Not even for a nickel. " > > Wallace Beery > > Yes, you are cool with the groovy shit. > > Obvious and obviouser. > > Dumb, dumberer, and dumberest. > > There are not three. > > .d .d .d brilliant.... in a special needs sort of way. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > are " you " talkin' to " me " asshole? > > > > > > > > about nobody being here???? > > > > > > > > get the hell out of my dream loser. > > > > > > > > ROFLMAO! > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Are you talking to me about getting out of your dream, loser? > > > > > > When you know nobody is here, asshole? > > > > > > ROFLYAO! > > > > > > .d .d .d > > > > > > you go girl! > > > > that's so way cool!..roflyao..like dig man..y instead of m. > > > > like cool dude..you/me..same same.. > > > > oh wow! > > > > like..so..you know..like ummm..buddhisticky and stuff. > > > > right on dannyo! > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > Right on bobbyo! > > You so esoterically cool and shit. > > right on bobbyo! > > ROFLMAO! > > d. d. d. that's cute. unimpressive but cute. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Don't get me wrong, though. I liked what he had to say. He spoke about thought in a way that's pretty similar to me. > Maybe you should read more of him, and I'll start making sense to you. > -dan > > I think, dan, as I said you have gone deeply into these stuff...but you dont read well, or....you see in your readings that what suits you. > > I want to go into this a bit because I find the issue interesting in itself. > > Krisnamurti would talk about the nature of thought somehow following a simple nomeclature. He would say that there are two kinds of thinking. > The first is that kind of thinking that is a result and at the same time the originator of the inner psichological self. The other - to which he rarely referred to because it was not a big issue to him - is " technological thinking " . The later is thought solving technical issues. By " technical " he meant all issues that did not have to nessessarily relate to the psichological center. > > To you - a you said - to recognise a street the inner self is nescessary. To K no. To geo, also no. > To you any sense of time is related to a self. To K no. Time by the watch - as he called it - is not a problem at all. Of course it is not. You need that to go to work at the right time, but that doesnt mean that some inner sense of psichological center is invoved. > > Nonetheless you say K talked about thought as you do. > -geo- Geo - I don't believe in any inner self. Let alone thinking that an inner self would be necessary to recognize a street name. You seem to have misinterpreted things I've said. Look, let's communicate now. Not based on the past, just starting fresh. Yes, you need to go to work on time if you want to get paid. What I've been saying is that time is constructed by thought, and thought is constructed using time. It's a paradox, if one notices it. One comes to paradox, if one is clear on the paradox, linear thought is not held onto, one now is awareness independent of thought. Not the word or thought of awareness. Not depending on thought. Because awareness isn't the word, sometimes I've used the word 'nothing.' Nothing meaning that no meaning or quality can be attributed to who one is. Thought arranges to go to work. Thought conceptualizes the time one needs to be at work by using a clock. You don't need to have a psychological center to think. Thought can occur thoughtlessly, no center is necessarily implied. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > Something else. If you say that to recognise a chair, a table, a > street.....time and space is involved so a self is also involved, how could > you talk about, the light, or the ground, or whatever name we give to IT, if > you are typing in a keyboard that you recognise, sitting in a chair you > recognise, looking at a display you recognise, picking letters you > recognise, and words you recognise. It is all coming from the inner center - > the self.? > -geo- There is no self needing to be involved. Self is an attempt to hold. To hold the past, to hold a position, to have without losing. The self isn't needed. It is an attempt. It never actually occurred, just the attempt to have it is being made. The self is let go because it never has been ... now. The self is an attempt to hold the there and then-- and Now, here, is not the there and then. The there and then is not needed, one is now clear, so the dropping of the holding. And the dropping of the dropping. Simply being. Is. Here is a key point: memory can function without any holding to a past self. No holding to a collection of memories that say " me, " that say " my identity. " This Now is inclusive, not exclusive. It doesn't need to get rid of there and then, there is no attempt to get rid of memory. One can present one's driver's license if asked for proof of identity. Memory works. Thought happens. Yet, one's being is here. Untouched by memory images. Not conceived by thought. There is no problem recognizing a chair. Just as there is no problem using a clock to get to work on time. Awareness allows memory to function, but awareness is not trying to have a location in time that is based on an identity, based on a collection of memories. Awareness doesn't have a name for itself. We use the term " awareness " to communicate, but who one is, is not communicated. This is because there is no " other " to communicate to, to say who one is, to offer a concept. So, because the term " awareness " involves communicating a concept, one can say one is no-thing. Even saying that one is nothing involves communicating. Who am I now, with no other involved, no communication about it happening? No statement is needed or given. Yet, I communicate with you. Memory works. I recognize the words and computer screen. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > I don't look down on him just because he wanted a J.K. Foundation. > > > > Although his cousin U.G. thought that was pretty ironic for > > someone who said that the truth is a pathless land. > > Seems pretty ironic here how much U.G. thought about no-thought. He's even (supposedly) recognized as a primary thinker in this area :=p. Funny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > Something else. If you say that to recognise a chair, a table, a > > street.....time and space is involved so a self is also involved, how could > > you talk about, the light, or the ground, or whatever name we give to IT, if > > you are typing in a keyboard that you recognise, sitting in a chair you > > recognise, looking at a display you recognise, picking letters you > > recognise, and words you recognise. It is all coming from the inner center - > > the self.? > > -geo- > > There is no self needing to be involved. > > Self is an attempt to hold. To hold the past, to hold a position, to have without losing. > > The self isn't needed. It is an attempt. It never actually occurred, just the attempt to have it is being made. > > The self is let go because it never has been ... now. > > The self is an attempt to hold the there and then-- and Now, here, is not the there and then. The there and then is not needed, one is now clear, so the dropping of the holding. And the dropping of the dropping. Simply being. Is. > > Here is a key point: memory can function without any holding to a past self. No holding to a collection of memories that say " me, " that say " my identity. " This Now is inclusive, not exclusive. It doesn't need to get rid of there and then, there is no attempt to get rid of memory. > > One can present one's driver's license if asked for proof of identity. > > Memory works. > > Thought happens. > > Yet, one's being is here. > > Untouched by memory images. > > Not conceived by thought. > > There is no problem recognizing a chair. > > Just as there is no problem using a clock to get to work on time. > > Awareness allows memory to function, but awareness is not trying to have a location in time that is based on an identity, based on a collection of memories. > > Awareness doesn't have a name for itself. > > We use the term " awareness " to communicate, but who one is, is not communicated. > > This is because there is no " other " to communicate to, to say who one is, to offer a concept. > > So, because the term " awareness " involves communicating a concept, one can say one is no-thing. > > Even saying that one is nothing involves communicating. > > Who am I now, with no other involved, no communication about it happening? > > No statement is needed or given. > > Yet, I communicate with you. Memory works. I recognize the words and computer screen. > > -- Dan > Yeah........like that. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > " I never let anyone con me. Not even for a nickel. " > > > > Wallace Beery > > > > Yes, you are cool with the groovy shit. > > > > Obvious and obviouser. > > > > Dumb, dumberer, and dumberest. > > > > There are not three. > > > > .d .d .d > > > brilliant.... > > in a special needs sort of way. > > .b b.b. Nice to hear you say something nicerer. I not brilliant, just bright. Bright, brighter, brighterest, Danley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Sunday, May 24, 2009 3:16 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, May 24, 2009 12:29 AM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > geo> You seem to be pushing this too focefully...I am feeling a bit > > weary > > to > > answer. > > Light is. > > Hey, it's only wearying if you think about it. > > Otherwise, light is. > > Light is light. > > geo> Hey, stop thinking about it. > Otherewise, ground is. > Ground is ground. > ...remember, that is how we started... > > We are full of prejudice We let out our word games here. Now, we are not full of words. geo> Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Sunday, May 24, 2009 3:41 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > Something else. If you say that to recognise a chair, a table, a > street.....time and space is involved so a self is also involved, how > could > you talk about, the light, or the ground, or whatever name we give to IT, > if > you are typing in a keyboard that you recognise, sitting in a chair you > recognise, looking at a display you recognise, picking letters you > recognise, and words you recognise. It is all coming from the inner > center - > the self.? > -geo- There is no self needing to be involved. Self is an attempt to hold. To hold the past, to hold a position, to have without losing. The self isn't needed. It is an attempt. It never actually occurred, just the attempt to have it is being made. The self is let go because it never has been ... now. The self is an attempt to hold the there and then-- and Now, here, is not the there and then. The there and then is not needed, one is now clear, so the dropping of the holding. And the dropping of the dropping. Simply being. Is. Here is a key point: memory can function without any holding to a past self. No holding to a collection of memories that say " me, " that say " my identity. " This Now is inclusive, not exclusive. It doesn't need to get rid of there and then, there is no attempt to get rid of memory. One can present one's driver's license if asked for proof of identity. Memory works. Thought happens. Yet, one's being is here. Untouched by memory images. Not conceived by thought. There is no problem recognizing a chair. Just as there is no problem using a clock to get to work on time. Awareness allows memory to function, but awareness is not trying to have a location in time that is based on an identity, based on a collection of memories. Awareness doesn't have a name for itself. We use the term " awareness " to communicate, but who one is, is not communicated. This is because there is no " other " to communicate to, to say who one is, to offer a concept. So, because the term " awareness " involves communicating a concept, one can say one is no-thing. Even saying that one is nothing involves communicating. Who am I now, with no other involved, no communication about it happening? No statement is needed or given. Yet, I communicate with you. Memory works. I recognize the words and computer screen. -- Dan No-thing is lighter, brighter and subtler. Forget it... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > " I never let anyone con me. Not even for a nickel. " > > > > > > Wallace Beery > > > > > > Yes, you are cool with the groovy shit. > > > > > > Obvious and obviouser. > > > > > > Dumb, dumberer, and dumberest. > > > > > > There are not three. > > > > > > .d .d .d > > > > > > brilliant.... > > > > in a special needs sort of way. > > > > .b b.b. > > Nice to hear you say something nicerer. > > I not brilliant, just bright. > > Bright, brighter, brighterest, > > Danley evidently you didn't understand what i said. it wasn't nice. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > " I never let anyone con me. Not even for a nickel. " > > > > > > > > Wallace Beery > > > > > > > > Yes, you are cool with the groovy shit. > > > > > > > > Obvious and obviouser. > > > > > > > > Dumb, dumberer, and dumberest. > > > > > > > > There are not three. > > > > > > > > .d .d .d > > > > > > > > > brilliant.... > > > > > > in a special needs sort of way. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nice to hear you say something nicerer. > > > > I not brilliant, just bright. > > > > Bright, brighter, brighterest, > > > > Danley > > > evidently you didn't understand what i said. > > it wasn't nice. > > .b b.b. My humor is wasted on you. ..D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > " I never let anyone con me. Not even for a nickel. " > > > > > > > > > > Wallace Beery > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you are cool with the groovy shit. > > > > > > > > > > Obvious and obviouser. > > > > > > > > > > Dumb, dumberer, and dumberest. > > > > > > > > > > There are not three. > > > > > > > > > > .d .d .d > > > > > > > > > > > > brilliant.... > > > > > > > > in a special needs sort of way. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nice to hear you say something nicerer. > > > > > > I not brilliant, just bright. > > > > > > Bright, brighter, brighterest, > > > > > > Danley > > > > > > evidently you didn't understand what i said. > > > > it wasn't nice. > > > > .b b.b. > > My humor is wasted on you. > > .D yes your humor is wasted. way wasted. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Geo - I don't believe in any inner self. Let alone thinking that an inner self would be necessary to recognize a street name. You seem to have misinterpreted things I've said. Look, let's communicate now. Not based on the past, just starting fresh. Yes, you need to go to work on time if you want to get paid. What I've been saying is that time is constructed by thought, and thought is constructed using time. It's a paradox, if one notices it. One comes to paradox, if one is clear on the paradox, linear thought is not held onto, one now is awareness independent of thought. Not the word or thought of awareness. Not depending on thought. Because awareness isn't the word, sometimes I've used the word 'nothing.' Nothing meaning that no meaning or quality can be attributed to who one is. Thought arranges to go to work. Thought conceptualizes the time one needs to be at work by using a clock. You don't need to have a psychological center to think. Thought can occur thoughtlessly, no center is necessarily implied. -- Dan ===== Well.... I was refering to this peace of conversaton here: geo> The recognition of a street, the ability to play some game, does not need to generate conflict. Dan:The conflict is there. It is time and death. The recognition of a street has meaning because it assists survival. Survival is the attempt to continue. Continuity is subject to time, limitation, violence, illness, aging, and death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > Geo - > > I don't believe in any inner self. > > Let alone thinking that an inner self would be necessary to recognize a > street name. > > You seem to have misinterpreted things I've said. > > Look, let's communicate now. > > Not based on the past, just starting fresh. > > Yes, you need to go to work on time if you want to get paid. > > What I've been saying is that time is constructed by thought, and thought is > constructed using time. > > It's a paradox, if one notices it. > > One comes to paradox, if one is clear on the paradox, linear thought is not > held onto, one now is awareness independent of thought. > > Not the word or thought of awareness. Not depending on thought. > > Because awareness isn't the word, sometimes I've used the word 'nothing.' > Nothing meaning that no meaning or quality can be attributed to who one is. > > Thought arranges to go to work. Thought conceptualizes the time one needs to > be at work by using a clock. > > You don't need to have a psychological center to think. > > Thought can occur thoughtlessly, no center is necessarily implied. > > -- Dan > > ===== > Well.... I was refering to this peace of conversaton here: > geo> The recognition of a street, the ability to play some game, does not > need to generate conflict. > > Dan:The conflict is there. > > It is time and death. > > The recognition of a street has meaning because it assists survival. > > Survival is the attempt to continue. > > Continuity is subject to time, limitation, violence, illness, aging, and > death. Yes. I see your point. And I agree with you that recognizing a street sign doesn't need to generate conflict, doesn't always generate conflict. It would have been more clear if I would have said, " Yes, it doesn't necessarily have to generate conflict, yet typically, the conflict is there. " Probably, due to posting quickly, I leave out sentences that could have clarified my response better. What I was speaking to is that the conflict is there, generally, because the recognition of the street sign is tied in to the sense of personal survival, continuation of the self. It is possible to resolve the conflict. In which case, one is living paradox. Thoughts occur thoughtlessly. One is living through time, timelessly. One is using memory, and surviving while one does, but there is not investment in personal continuity, not an anchoring of awareness in personal continuity. Thanks for clarifying, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Geo - > > > > I don't believe in any inner self. > > > > Let alone thinking that an inner self would be necessary to recognize a > > street name. > > > > You seem to have misinterpreted things I've said. > > > > Look, let's communicate now. > > > > Not based on the past, just starting fresh. > > > > Yes, you need to go to work on time if you want to get paid. > > > > What I've been saying is that time is constructed by thought, and thought is > > constructed using time. > > > > It's a paradox, if one notices it. > > > > One comes to paradox, if one is clear on the paradox, linear thought is not > > held onto, one now is awareness independent of thought. > > > > Not the word or thought of awareness. Not depending on thought. > > > > Because awareness isn't the word, sometimes I've used the word 'nothing.' > > Nothing meaning that no meaning or quality can be attributed to who one is. > > > > Thought arranges to go to work. Thought conceptualizes the time one needs to > > be at work by using a clock. > > > > You don't need to have a psychological center to think. > > > > Thought can occur thoughtlessly, no center is necessarily implied. > > > > -- Dan > > > > ===== > > Well.... I was refering to this peace of conversaton here: > > geo> The recognition of a street, the ability to play some game, does not > > need to generate conflict. > > > > Dan:The conflict is there. > > > > It is time and death. > > > > The recognition of a street has meaning because it assists survival. > > > > Survival is the attempt to continue. > > > > Continuity is subject to time, limitation, violence, illness, aging, and > > death. > > Yes. I see your point. > > And I agree with you that recognizing a street sign doesn't need to generate conflict, doesn't always generate conflict. > > It would have been more clear if I would have said, " Yes, it doesn't necessarily have to generate conflict, yet typically, the conflict is there. " > > Probably, due to posting quickly, I leave out sentences that could have clarified my response better. > > What I was speaking to is that the conflict is there, generally, because the recognition of the street sign is tied in to the sense of personal survival, continuation of the self. > > It is possible to resolve the conflict. > > In which case, one is living paradox. > > Thoughts occur thoughtlessly. > > One is living through time, timelessly. > > One is using memory, and surviving while one does, but there is not investment in personal continuity, not an anchoring of awareness in personal continuity. > > Thanks for clarifying, > > Dan > The tension of life remains and the personal identification continues. The entity gets angry.......frightened.....protective of its kingdom.....fearful.....lust arises.....anxiety.....vanity....loneliness..... All of that is allowed to take its natural course and are seen as just the way the reactive machinery grinds along. But........the primary locus of attention is no longer centered in the physical apparatus. After the Understanding dawns.....I feels like one is Life itself experiencing itself through the temporary help of the identified entity. One becomes the entire gamut.......a delicious blend...flowing easily....(sometimes not so)........between the banks of the Micro and the Macro...... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Sunday, May 24, 2009 7:13 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > Geo - > > I don't believe in any inner self. > > Let alone thinking that an inner self would be necessary to recognize a > street name. > > You seem to have misinterpreted things I've said. > > Look, let's communicate now. > > Not based on the past, just starting fresh. > > Yes, you need to go to work on time if you want to get paid. > > What I've been saying is that time is constructed by thought, and thought > is > constructed using time. > > It's a paradox, if one notices it. > > One comes to paradox, if one is clear on the paradox, linear thought is > not > held onto, one now is awareness independent of thought. > > Not the word or thought of awareness. Not depending on thought. > > Because awareness isn't the word, sometimes I've used the word 'nothing.' > Nothing meaning that no meaning or quality can be attributed to who one > is. > > Thought arranges to go to work. Thought conceptualizes the time one needs > to > be at work by using a clock. > > You don't need to have a psychological center to think. > > Thought can occur thoughtlessly, no center is necessarily implied. > > -- Dan > > ===== > Well.... I was refering to this peace of conversaton here: > geo> The recognition of a street, the ability to play some game, does not > need to generate conflict. > > Dan:The conflict is there. > > It is time and death. > > The recognition of a street has meaning because it assists survival. > > Survival is the attempt to continue. > > Continuity is subject to time, limitation, violence, illness, aging, and > death. Yes. I see your point. And I agree with you that recognizing a street sign doesn't need to generate conflict, doesn't always generate conflict. It would have been more clear if I would have said, " Yes, it doesn't necessarily have to generate conflict, yet typically, the conflict is there. " Probably, due to posting quickly, I leave out sentences that could have clarified my response better. What I was speaking to is that the conflict is there, generally, because the recognition of the street sign is tied in to the sense of personal survival, continuation of the self. It is possible to resolve the conflict. In which case, one is living paradox. Thoughts occur thoughtlessly. One is living through time, timelessly. One is using memory, and surviving while one does, but there is not investment in personal continuity, not an anchoring of awareness in personal continuity. Thanks for clarifying, Dan Me also...sometimes when words seeem to flow most easily, when there is a sense if " inspiration " ...it is when one must be more attent ..for those are the times when we tend to take one thing for another. " Yes, it doesn't necessarily have to generate conflict, yet typically, the conflict is there. " Yes conflict is there, but not because of the natural intelligence of the organism that is amazingly beautifull... it is capable of doing hundreds of little things correctly and simultaneusly. Conflict is there because typically man has an imagined inner fixed separate entity called ME that is always insatisfactory, always in need to become something else, always in need to progress, need to improve, to change, all that of course in time...etc..And we know all this. Seems so simple, yet... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Sunday, May 24, 2009 7:32 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Geo - > > > > I don't believe in any inner self. > > > > Let alone thinking that an inner self would be necessary to recognize a > > street name. > > > > You seem to have misinterpreted things I've said. > > > > Look, let's communicate now. > > > > Not based on the past, just starting fresh. > > > > Yes, you need to go to work on time if you want to get paid. > > > > What I've been saying is that time is constructed by thought, and > > thought is > > constructed using time. > > > > It's a paradox, if one notices it. > > > > One comes to paradox, if one is clear on the paradox, linear thought is > > not > > held onto, one now is awareness independent of thought. > > > > Not the word or thought of awareness. Not depending on thought. > > > > Because awareness isn't the word, sometimes I've used the word > > 'nothing.' > > Nothing meaning that no meaning or quality can be attributed to who one > > is. > > > > Thought arranges to go to work. Thought conceptualizes the time one > > needs to > > be at work by using a clock. > > > > You don't need to have a psychological center to think. > > > > Thought can occur thoughtlessly, no center is necessarily implied. > > > > -- Dan > > > > ===== > > Well.... I was refering to this peace of conversaton here: > > geo> The recognition of a street, the ability to play some game, does > > not > > need to generate conflict. > > > > Dan:The conflict is there. > > > > It is time and death. > > > > The recognition of a street has meaning because it assists survival. > > > > Survival is the attempt to continue. > > > > Continuity is subject to time, limitation, violence, illness, aging, and > > death. > > Yes. I see your point. > > And I agree with you that recognizing a street sign doesn't need to > generate conflict, doesn't always generate conflict. > > It would have been more clear if I would have said, " Yes, it doesn't > necessarily have to generate conflict, yet typically, the conflict is > there. " > > Probably, due to posting quickly, I leave out sentences that could have > clarified my response better. > > What I was speaking to is that the conflict is there, generally, because > the recognition of the street sign is tied in to the sense of personal > survival, continuation of the self. > > It is possible to resolve the conflict. > > In which case, one is living paradox. > > Thoughts occur thoughtlessly. > > One is living through time, timelessly. > > One is using memory, and surviving while one does, but there is not > investment in personal continuity, not an anchoring of awareness in > personal continuity. > > Thanks for clarifying, > > Dan > The tension of life remains and the personal identification continues. The entity gets angry.......frightened.....protective of its kingdom.....fearful.....lust arises.....anxiety.....vanity....loneliness..... All of that is allowed to take its natural course and are seen as just the way the reactive machinery grinds along. But........the primary locus of attention is no longer centered in the physical apparatus. After the Understanding dawns.....It feels like one is Life itself experiencing itself through the temporary help of the identified entity. One becomes the entire gamut.......a delicious blend...flowing easily....(sometimes not so)........between the banks of the Micro and the Macro...... toombaru How strange is this. It is almost as if this localized being, its life, its battles, its sorrows, happiness, dramas where created with only one goal in " mind " : to be transcended. Each one of us seems to have received his correct lot. And then " life " gains a different purpose - yes purpose: must be defeated, seen through. The nature of the battles change... but at this present date I dont think the war is ever over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Geo - > > > > > > I don't believe in any inner self. > > > > > > Let alone thinking that an inner self would be necessary to recognize a > > > street name. > > > > > > You seem to have misinterpreted things I've said. > > > > > > Look, let's communicate now. > > > > > > Not based on the past, just starting fresh. > > > > > > Yes, you need to go to work on time if you want to get paid. > > > > > > What I've been saying is that time is constructed by thought, and thought is > > > constructed using time. > > > > > > It's a paradox, if one notices it. > > > > > > One comes to paradox, if one is clear on the paradox, linear thought is not > > > held onto, one now is awareness independent of thought. > > > > > > Not the word or thought of awareness. Not depending on thought. > > > > > > Because awareness isn't the word, sometimes I've used the word 'nothing.' > > > Nothing meaning that no meaning or quality can be attributed to who one is. > > > > > > Thought arranges to go to work. Thought conceptualizes the time one needs to > > > be at work by using a clock. > > > > > > You don't need to have a psychological center to think. > > > > > > Thought can occur thoughtlessly, no center is necessarily implied. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > ===== > > > Well.... I was refering to this peace of conversaton here: > > > geo> The recognition of a street, the ability to play some game, does not > > > need to generate conflict. > > > > > > Dan:The conflict is there. > > > > > > It is time and death. > > > > > > The recognition of a street has meaning because it assists survival. > > > > > > Survival is the attempt to continue. > > > > > > Continuity is subject to time, limitation, violence, illness, aging, and > > > death. > > > > Yes. I see your point. > > > > And I agree with you that recognizing a street sign doesn't need to generate conflict, doesn't always generate conflict. > > > > It would have been more clear if I would have said, " Yes, it doesn't necessarily have to generate conflict, yet typically, the conflict is there. " > > > > Probably, due to posting quickly, I leave out sentences that could have clarified my response better. > > > > What I was speaking to is that the conflict is there, generally, because the recognition of the street sign is tied in to the sense of personal survival, continuation of the self. > > > > It is possible to resolve the conflict. > > > > In which case, one is living paradox. > > > > Thoughts occur thoughtlessly. > > > > One is living through time, timelessly. > > > > One is using memory, and surviving while one does, but there is not investment in personal continuity, not an anchoring of awareness in personal continuity. > > > > Thanks for clarifying, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > The tension of life remains and the personal identification continues. > > > The entity gets angry.......frightened.....protective of its kingdom.....fearful.....lust arises.....anxiety.....vanity....loneliness..... > > All of that is allowed to take its natural course and are seen as just the way the reactive machinery grinds along. > > But........the primary locus of attention is no longer centered in the physical apparatus. > > After the Understanding dawns.....I feels like one is Life itself experiencing itself through the temporary help of the identified entity. > > One becomes the entire gamut.......a delicious blend...flowing easily....(sometimes not so)........between the banks of the Micro and the Macro...... > > > > toombaru I agree that the life runs its course, with whatever emotions or situations arise and dissolve. It's a good point that nothing can stand in its way, not the arising of anxiety, lust, greed, etc. Yet, these emotions have no anchor and tend to dissipate quickly, automatically. But there is no investment in having them dissolve. No need to get rid of them. Awareness involves no judgments. Judgments are of thought and emotions, which arise/dissolve along with all that is mutually co-arising. The life is understood as simultaneous, birth and death not separated, the time sequences involuntarily included as is, choices unfolding choicelessly. The understanding is the manifesting of the life, although there isn't a point within a life that can hold the understanding. The beginning is in the end, and the end is there with the beginning. It is entirely open. Birth/death is open as this, that is. The understanding is the same as the awareness that includes the entirety from before beginning. I wouldn't put it that the understanding dawns on one and changes one's life. I would put it that one's being is subsumed, identity dissolved without anything occurring -- into this primordial unspeakable awareness. The life is already included. Each moment already included, couldn't be otherwise. Identities come and go. Yet there has never been identification into an individual life. Identification is impossible and never happened. This nothingness is not coming and going. " Nothing " doesn't move. Yet includes all movements, all seeming identifications. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Me also...sometimes when words seeem to flow most easily, when there is a > sense if " inspiration " ...it is when one must be more attent ..for those are > the times when we tend to take one thing for another. > " Yes, it doesn't necessarily have to generate conflict, yet typically, the > conflict is there. " Yes conflict is there, but not because of the natural > intelligence of the organism that is amazingly beautifull... it is capable > of doing hundreds of little things correctly and simultaneusly. Conflict is > there because typically man has an imagined inner fixed separate entity > called ME that is always insatisfactory, always in need to become something > else, always in need to progress, need to improve, to change, all that of > course in time...etc..And we know all this. Seems so simple, yet... > -geo- Geo - Good point. Teachers generally point out to a group of people how they need to look at their me's. This is the job of a teacher, I suppose. However, it is misleading. Because one can't see another in one's view who has a me, without having a me to oneself. " It takes one to know one. " It takes a me to relate to a me, it takes a me to " call out " a me. The only 'me' that really requires being addressed is the one here, now. Not 'out there' belonging to someone else. So, however great the teacher was at pointing out other people's me's, I now let go of that urge to tell someone else about his or her me. This is necessary at the point where only this 'me' here is involved in being understood, directly. Here is where it gets interesting. One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an activity, an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It is not an actually existing thing, being, or center. Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function here as a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone " else. " It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will give away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not about how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to a person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in here/out there undivided. Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an attempt to hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are the unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives through time. One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a matter of time. And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and there is no 'me' center found anywhere. Not inside or outside. And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no division. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > I agree that the life runs its course, with whatever emotions or situations arise and dissolve. It's a good point that nothing can stand in its way, not the arising of anxiety, lust, greed, etc. Yet, these emotions have no anchor and tend to dissipate quickly, automatically. But there is no investment in having them dissolve. No need to get rid of them. > > > > Awareness involves no judgments. Judgments are of thought and emotions, which arise/dissolve along with all that is mutually co-arising. > > > > The life is understood as simultaneous, birth and death not separated, the time sequences involuntarily included as is, choices unfolding choicelessly. The understanding is the manifesting of the life, although there isn't a point within a life that can hold the understanding. > > > > The beginning is in the end, and the end is there with the beginning. > > > > It is entirely open. > > > > Birth/death is open as this, that is. > > > > The understanding is the same as the awareness that includes the entirety from before beginning. > > > > I wouldn't put it that the understanding dawns on one and changes one's life. > > > > I would put it that one's being is subsumed, identity dissolved without anything occurring -- into this primordial unspeakable awareness. > > > > The life is already included. > > Each moment already included, couldn't be otherwise. > > > > Identities come and go. > > > > Yet there has never been identification into an individual life. > > > > Identification is impossible and never happened. > > > > This nothingness is not coming and going. > > > > " Nothing " doesn't move. > > > > Yet includes all movements, all seeming identifications. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > Better. > > > > > toombaru You're almost enlightened, Dan. You gotta try a little harder tho to meet Toomie's standards. Stttrreetccchhh it a little... (heheh). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > I agree that the life runs its course, with whatever emotions or situations arise and dissolve. It's a good point that nothing can stand in its way, not the arising of anxiety, lust, greed, etc. Yet, these emotions have no anchor and tend to dissipate quickly, automatically. But there is no investment in having them dissolve. No need to get rid of them. > > > > Awareness involves no judgments. Judgments are of thought and emotions, which arise/dissolve along with all that is mutually co-arising. > > > > The life is understood as simultaneous, birth and death not separated, the time sequences involuntarily included as is, choices unfolding choicelessly. The understanding is the manifesting of the life, although there isn't a point within a life that can hold the understanding. > > > > The beginning is in the end, and the end is there with the beginning. > > > > It is entirely open. > > > > Birth/death is open as this, that is. > > > > The understanding is the same as the awareness that includes the entirety from before beginning. > > > > I wouldn't put it that the understanding dawns on one and changes one's life. > > > > I would put it that one's being is subsumed, identity dissolved without anything occurring -- into this primordial unspeakable awareness. > > > > The life is already included. > > Each moment already included, couldn't be otherwise. > > > > Identities come and go. > > > > Yet there has never been identification into an individual life. > > > > Identification is impossible and never happened. > > > > This nothingness is not coming and going. > > > > " Nothing " doesn't move. > > > > Yet includes all movements, all seeming identifications. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > Better. > > > > > toombaru You're almost enlightened, Dan. You gotta try a little harder tho to meet Toomie's standards. Stttrreetccchhh it a little... (heheh). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > How strange is this. It is almost as if this localized being, its life, its > battles, its sorrows, happiness, dramas where created with only one goal in > " mind " : to be transcended. Each one of us seems to have received his correct > lot. And then " life " gains a different purpose - yes purpose: must be > defeated, seen through. The nature of the battles change... but at this > present date I dont think the war is ever over. The war is over now. Here and now, sitting in front of the computer reading these words, what is 'this localized being' at war with? Is attention on some active 'background war' as these words are seen, one at a time? Or is that war actually in memory, part of the past, and perhaps an expected part of the future? This moment, as the eyes scan this: 0 0 0 what 0 0 0 0 0 is the entity 0 0 0 0 0 at war 0 0 with? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 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.