Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Dan, bbb, I would like to start anew whith the following considerations: -Any name to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds -Any attempt to point to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds -Any attempt to referr to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds So what is left to "do" except turn in the opposite direction? And -All and any attempts to understand the nature of the ground, without accepting any understanding whatsoever, will produce good fruits. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Hi Geo - > Dan, bbb, I would like to start anew whith the following considerations: > > -Any name to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds It has never receded, and never been named. There is no one who ever emerged separately from it, from whom it could recede. > -Any attempt to point to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds Again, it has never been pointed to. Someone would have to have emerged from it, and have a separate existence from it, in order to point. > -Any attempt to referr to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds It has never been referred to. > So what is left to " do " except turn in the opposite direction? How are you going to turn in a direction if you've never owned a location from which to turn? > And > > -All and any attempts to understand the nature of the ground, without accepting any understanding whatsoever, will produce good fruits. What fruit are you wanting to produce? Exactly what is now, is exactly what is now. Is it going to make be more of what it is tomorrow than now, after we develop a more fruitful approach, once we start not accepting any understanding? What is there to understand or not to understand? In terms of the world, there are things to learn, to understand or not understand. You can learn more about physics, or art, or bookkeeping. You can add knowledge to what you have. You lose this knowledge and understanding when your brain dies, or when you get Alzheimer's. But One, with no other, with no self, with no inside or outside - there is not " more " - there is no incompletion. Thus, there is no learning in the usual sense of the word. It's not brain-dependent. It's All or nothing - All at once, or you're involved in time. There is no time involved. Even when you feel yourself to be involved in time, using a brain, learning and losing learning - even while the experiencing is going on, being stored in the brain, no time is actually involved. Time appears with a thinking/perceiving being, that has a sense of observing separated from things observed. Although a being believes itself to be moving through time, the apparent being is the time that it feels itself to be moving through. The experiencer is the experiencing, no actual inside or outside has occurred, no split really took place. It's just a matter of dissolution of assumptions, the assumptions involved in a separate being " being there. " This understanding is now - not tomorrow. So, there's no approach. No learning or unlearning. This includes my words, of course. I'm not assuming that what I wrote about this adds anything. It's just for the fun of communicating. - D - - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Dan, bbb, I would like to start anew whith the following considerations: > > -Any name to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds > -Any attempt to point to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds > -Any attempt to referr to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds > > So what is left to " do " except turn in the opposite direction? > > And > > -All and any attempts to understand the nature of the ground, without accepting any understanding whatsoever, will produce good fruits. > -geo- it's an old adage: the foot feels the foot when it feels the ground. NOW.. loose the foot.. dancing footloose " electro-light " . ..b b.b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: Hey Geo - > Dan, bbb, I would like to start anew whith the following considerations: > > -Any name to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds there isn't any namer of this, who ever separated from it, to exist apart. so no name has ever been given. how then can it recede? > -Any attempt to point to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds same. > -Any attempt to referr to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds same. > So what is left to " do " except turn in the opposite direction? " you " don't get to " do " anything. > And > > -All and any attempts to understand the nature of the ground, without accepting any understanding whatsoever, will produce good fruits. Producing fruits involves time. What can occur as a temporal event, passes. Any understanding that develops over time, from any approach, passes, dissolves. - D - > -geo- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:27 PM Re: 000ooo.... Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Dan, bbb, I would like to start anew whith the following considerations: > > -Any name to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds > -Any attempt to point to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds > -Any attempt to referr to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds > > So what is left to " do " except turn in the opposite direction? > > And > > -All and any attempts to understand the nature of the ground, without > accepting any understanding whatsoever, will produce good fruits. > -geo- it's an old adage: the foot feels the foot when it feels the ground. NOW.. geo> Exactly. Yes. loose the foot.. dancing footloose " electro-light " . ..b b.b avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 3/6/2009 16:05:46 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Hi Geo - > Dan, bbb, I would like to start anew whith the following considerations: > > -Any name to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds It has never receded, and never been named. There is no one who ever emerged separately from it, from whom it could recede. geo> The same. > -Any attempt to point to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds Again, it has never been pointed to. Someone would have to have emerged from it, and have a separate existence from it, in order to point. geo> The same. > -Any attempt to referr to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds It has never been referred to. geo> The same > So what is left to " do " except turn in the opposite direction? How are you going to turn in a direction if you've never owned a location from which to turn? geo> Tthe one searching for an outside ground will turn. > And > > -All and any attempts to understand the nature of the ground, without > accepting any understanding whatsoever, will produce good fruits. What fruit are you wanting to produce? Exactly what is now, is exactly what is now. Is it going to make be more of what it is tomorrow than now, after we develop a more fruitful approach, once we start not accepting any understanding? What is there to understand or not to understand? In terms of the world, there are things to learn, to understand or not understand. You can learn more about physics, or art, or bookkeeping. You can add knowledge to what you have. You lose this knowledge and understanding when your brain dies, or when you get Alzheimer's. But One, with no other, with no self, with no inside or outside - there is not " more " - there is no incompletion. Thus, there is no learning in the usual sense of the word. It's not brain-dependent. It's All or nothing - All at once, or you're involved in time. There is no time involved. Even when you feel yourself to be involved in time, using a brain, learning and losing learning - even while the experiencing is going on, being stored in the brain, no time is actually involved. Time appears with a thinking/perceiving being, that has a sense of observing separated from things observed. Although a being believes itself to be moving through time, the apparent being is the time that it feels itself to be moving through. The experiencer is the experiencing, no actual inside or outside has occurred, no split really took place. It's just a matter of dissolution of assumptions, the assumptions involved in a separate being " being there. " This understanding is now - not tomorrow. So, there's no approach. No learning or unlearning. This includes my words, of course. I'm not assuming that what I wrote about this adds anything. It's just for the fun of communicating. - D - - D - avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 3/6/2009 16:15:51 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Hey Geo - > Dan, bbb, I would like to start anew whith the following considerations: > > -Any name to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds there isn't any namer of this, who ever separated from it, to exist apart. so no name has ever been given. how then can it recede? geo> You are so clever! You are calling it a " this " . So you are the namer separate from it. > -Any attempt to point to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds same. geo> The same separte namer who called it a " this " . > -Any attempt to referr to a ground is trying to objectify it...it receeds same. geo> The same separte namer who called it a " this " . > So what is left to " do " except turn in the opposite direction? " you " don't get to " do " anything. > And > > -All and any attempts to understand the nature of the ground, without > accepting any understanding whatsoever, will produce good fruits. Producing fruits involves time. What can occur as a temporal event, passes. Any understanding that develops over time, from any approach, passes, dissolves. - D - geo> No. Each and every seeing is new and atemporal. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 3/6/2009 16:16:52 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > So what is left to " do " except turn in the opposite direction? > > How are you going to turn in a direction if you've never owned a location > from which to turn? > > geo> Tthe one searching for an outside ground will turn. Without being able to go forward, back, or stay put: dissolution - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> You are so clever! You are calling it a " this " . So you are the namer > separate from it. yes, this is so. this is why this conversation is imaginary. > > -All and any attempts to understand the nature of the ground, without > > accepting any understanding whatsoever, will produce good fruits. > > Producing fruits involves time. > > What can occur as a temporal event, passes. > > Any understanding that develops over time, from any approach, passes, > dissolves. > > - D - > > geo> No. Each and every seeing is new and atemporal. " Each and every " requires memory to know about. Experiences, in other words. The atemporal isn't registered in memory as an experience. It has never been before. So, calling it " new " will do, as long as you have to name it. But then, you are the namer, calling it new. And it's still imaginary, our discussion. ;-) - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 > -All and any attempts to understand the nature of the ground, without accepting any understanding whatsoever, will produce good fruits.What fruit are you wanting to produce?Exactly what is now, is exactly what is now.Is it going to make be more of what it is tomorrow than now, after we develop a more fruitful approach, once we start not accepting any understanding?What is there to understand or not to understand?In terms of the world, there are things to learn, to understand or not understand.You can learn more about physics, or art, or bookkeeping.You can add knowledge to what you have.You lose this knowledge and understanding when your brain dies, or when you get Alzheimer's.But One, with no other, with no self, with no inside or outside - there is not "more" - there is no incompletion.Thus, there is no learning in the usual sense of the word.It's not brain-dependent.It's All or nothing - All at once, or you're involved in time.There is no time involved.Even when you feel yourself to be involved in time, using a brain, learning and losing learning - even while the experiencing is going on, being stored in the brain, no time is actually involved.Time appears with a thinking/perceiving being, that has a sense of observing separated from things observed.Although a being believes itself to be moving through time, the apparent being is the time that it feels itself to be moving through.The experiencer is the experiencing, no actual inside or outside has occurred, no split really took place.It's just a matter of dissolution of assumptions, the assumptions involved in a separate being "being there." This understanding is now - not tomorrow. So, there's no approach. No learning or unlearning.This includes my words, of course. I'm not assuming that what I wrote about this adds anything. It's just for the fun of communicating.- D -I did not know what words use to answer this......... Dan, this part where I say "All and any attempts to understand the nature of the ground, without accepting any understanding whatsoever, will produce good fruits" is for people like me. I can only "see" people who are like me or those who are where I used to be. This part is not for those permanently in a state of atemporality like you. Me..sometimes its like being in a nightmare, you know things are not OK...you want to wake up. You feel boredom, or anxiety, or anger...or conflicting desires. So you go indulge in pleasure...try different things...to no avail. So for those who ever felt this way...from my own experience... of someone who has insights and nightmares, my advice is: -- understand the nature of the ground that you are. Do that!!! Try to find out what is its true nature....even if it receeds...good...that is getting closer to it. These explorations have a cummulative effect. Dan, have you ever felt conflict? Or the stings of anxiety, or the feeling that things are twisted? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Dan, have you ever felt conflict? Or the stings of anxiety, or the > feeling that things are twisted? > -geo- Of course he has. I have, everybody has. But again, this is not a case of a separate being feeling something it's separate from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:15 PM Re: 000ooo.... Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> You are so clever! You are calling it a " this " . So you are the namer > separate from it. yes, this is so. this is why this conversation is imaginary. geo> This is why it is imaginary??? So there is need for reasons, causes, particular events for it to be? > > -All and any attempts to understand the nature of the ground, without > > accepting any understanding whatsoever, will produce good fruits. > > Producing fruits involves time. > > What can occur as a temporal event, passes. > > Any understanding that develops over time, from any approach, passes, > dissolves. > > - D - > > geo> No. Each and every seeing is new and atemporal. " Each and every " requires memory to know about. Experiences, in other words. The atemporal isn't registered in memory as an experience. It has never been before. geo> Really? And how do you know that you are what you state you are? - Atemporal? From your memory? Yes...I always thought you where being theoretical. Your atemporality is conceptual. So, calling it " new " will do, as long as you have to name it. But then, you are the namer, calling it new. And it's still imaginary, our discussion. ;-) - D - avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 3/6/2009 17:20:22 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:36 PM Re: 000ooo.... Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Dan, have you ever felt conflict? Or the stings of anxiety, or the > feeling that things are twisted? > -geo- Of course he has. I have, everybody has. But again, this is not a case of a separate being feeling something it's separate from. geo> No Tim. Conflict is a sure sign of fragmentation. One desire against another. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 3/6/2009 17:55:13 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:36 PM > Re: 000ooo.... > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Dan, have you ever felt conflict? Or the stings of anxiety, or the > > feeling that things are twisted? > > -geo- > > Of course he has. I have, everybody has. But again, this is not a case of a > separate being feeling something it's separate from. > > geo> No Tim. Conflict is a sure sign of fragmentation. One desire against > another. Did I say it wasn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > Even when you feel yourself to be involved in time, using a brain, learning and losing learning - even while the experiencing is going on, being stored in the brain, no time is actually involved. if you see that, then what would you be looking to produce? > I did not know what words use to answer this......... the answer is not in any of the words > Dan, this part where I say " All and any attempts to understand the nature of the ground, without accepting any understanding whatsoever, will produce good fruits " is for people like me. okay. > I can only " see " people who are like me or those who are where I used to be. This part is not for those permanently in a state of atemporality like you. hello. you just said that even when the brain is storing experiences, no time is actually involved. so, now you are involved in time and I'm not? do you see the contradiction? if the brain is storing experiences and no actual time is involved, then neither you nor I are involved in time. saying that I'm in a permanent state of atemporality and you're not is absurd, is it not? The " I " is manufactured by the brain as a center going through experiences over a period of time. If the actuality is that no time is involved, no " I " is involved. To make it a situation where one of us has an " I " involved in time and the other is in some kind of " permanent atemporal state " is utterly contradictory - is it not? By the way, permanence implies time. Atemporal is neither permanent nor nonexistent. > Me..sometimes its like being in a nightmare, you know things are not OK...you want to wake up. You feel boredom, or anxiety, or anger...or conflicting desires. So you go indulge in pleasure...try different things...to no avail. So for those who ever felt this way...from my own experience... of someone who has insights and nightmares, my advice is: -- understand the nature of the ground that you are. Do that!!! Try to find out what is its true nature....even if it receeds...good...that is getting closer to it. These explorations have a cummulative effect. The cumulative effect is to show you that you can't get closer. Then, you have no choice. Dissolution of what never existed. The " I " that is seeking isn't viable. So yes, by all means, seek. I agree with you. " Knock and you shall receive. " Knock so hard that everything you have is in it. So the receiving can't be put off another moment. > Dan, have you ever felt conflict? Or the stings of anxiety, or the feeling that things are twisted? Didn't you read the story I posted when you asked what was involved for me in understanding? And I have never said that I am not human. The human being is conflict. The observer is the observed. I am the world I observe. This world is conflict. The truth of it is in the middle of the fire. Not by avoiding the fire, not by claiming to be above it. One is the fire, one is the conflict. The truth of this involves no separable " me " anywhere. This human conflict is the human being. In the heart of this conflict is no-conflict. In the heart of the cyclone is empty stillness. Everything I'm saying about this is my interpretation. b.b.b. will say it is bullshit preaching. Okay. So don't look in the words. I am my personality, my interpretation. That is all you'll read here from anyone. To know truth is to be the truth without involving interpretation. To be the actual fire as it is. To be it, is to die to it. To be, is to be not. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > geo> You are so clever! You are calling it a " this " . So you are the namer > > separate from it. > > yes, this is so. > > this is why this conversation is imaginary. > > geo> This is why it is imaginary??? So there is need for reasons, causes, > particular events for it to be? Not at all. Me naming it is the reason it's imaginary. The reason is therefore imaginary, because it was named " the reason. " The imaginary reason is naming. *This is neither real nor unreal, and neither is nor isn't.* > geo> Really? And how do you know that you are what you state you are? - > Atemporal? > From your memory? Yes...I always thought you where being theoretical. Your > atemporality is conceptual. Any word we use is conceptual. There isn't a " your " and " my " atemporality. You or me could be imagined as having offered the word " atemporality. " But the actuality, the unnameable actual - never could come from you or me, nor belong to you or me, nor have you or me in it. Clearly the word is not the actuality. The actuality doesn't involve having a verbally-oriented meaning or construction. So why use the word " actuality? " Just for the fun of communicating. As long as it's fun. If it's not fun, it doesn't need to happen. -- D -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:36 PM > Re: 000ooo.... > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Dan, have you ever felt conflict? Or the stings of anxiety, or the > > feeling that things are twisted? > > -geo- > > Of course he has. I have, everybody has. But again, this is not a case of a > separate being feeling something it's separate from. > > geo> No Tim. Conflict is a sure sign of fragmentation. One desire against > another. So, what is you against me, then? What is taking offense against an other? - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:40 PM Re: 000ooo.... Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > Even when you feel yourself to be involved in time, using a brain, > learning and losing learning - even while the experiencing is going on, > being stored in the brain, no time is actually involved. if you see that, then what would you be looking to produce? > I did not know what words use to answer this......... the answer is not in any of the words > Dan, this part where I say " All and any attempts to understand the nature > of the ground, without accepting any understanding whatsoever, will > produce good fruits " is for people like me. okay. > I can only " see " people who are like me or those who are where I used to > be. This part is not for those permanently in a state of atemporality like > you. hello. you just said that even when the brain is storing experiences, no time is actually involved. so, now you are involved in time and I'm not? do you see the contradiction? geo> I did not write that. Perhaps it was yourself. === Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:12 PM Re: 000ooo.... Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:36 PM > Re: 000ooo.... > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Dan, have you ever felt conflict? Or the stings of anxiety, or the > > feeling that things are twisted? > > -geo- > > Of course he has. I have, everybody has. But again, this is not a case of > a > separate being feeling something it's separate from. > > geo> No Tim. Conflict is a sure sign of fragmentation. One desire against > another. So, what is you against me, then? What is taking offense against an other? - D - geo> That is the presence of the inner entity. But I am not the one claiming that that is the case always. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 3/6/2009 20:46:25 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:11 PM Re: 000ooo.... Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:36 PM > Re: 000ooo.... > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Dan, have you ever felt conflict? Or the stings of anxiety, or the > > feeling that things are twisted? > > -geo- > > Of course he has. I have, everybody has. But again, this is not a case of > a > separate being feeling something it's separate from. > > geo> No Tim. Conflict is a sure sign of fragmentation. One desire against > another. Did I say it wasn't? geo> Yes you did. Fragmentation is what? It is the fragmentation of what is as inner entity ant outer world. That is the reason for conflict. NO other reasons whatsoever. Without fragmentation htere is no conflict....none. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 3/6/2009 20:46:19 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> Yes you did. Fragmentation is what? It is the fragmentation of what is > as inner entity ant outer world. That is the reason for conflict. NO other > reasons whatsoever. Without fragmentation htere is no > conflict....none. Obviously. You don't have to conflict with me to convince me of that ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Clearly the word is not the actuality. > > The actuality doesn't involve having a verbally-oriented meaning or > construction. > > So why use the word " actuality? " > > Just for the fun of communicating. In a sense, too, the word *is* the actuality. The description of the observer is the only observer there is, separate from the observed. That observer constitutes nothing more than a belief that the description is 'it'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Clearly the word is not the actuality. > > > > The actuality doesn't involve having a verbally-oriented meaning or > > construction. > > > > So why use the word " actuality? " > > > > Just for the fun of communicating. > > In a sense, too, the word *is* the actuality. The description of the observer is the only observer there is, separate from the observed. That observer constitutes nothing more than a belief that the description is 'it'. that depends on what your definition of " is " is. Monica was an " it " girl. Bill did not believe in " it " . so he said fuck " it " . and he sort of kinda did. but he didn't have sex with " it " . he entered the mouth of " it " and " it " spat him out. in and out just like that. the world was enlightened. but nothing changed. huh! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > that depends on what your definition of " is " is. > > Monica was an " it " girl. > > Bill did not believe in " it " . > > so he said fuck " it " . You know how they say " It's raining outside " ... is that the " it " Bill fucked? :-D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:54 PM Re: 000ooo.... Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> Yes you did. Fragmentation is what? It is the fragmentation of what > is > as inner entity ant outer world. That is the reason for conflict. NO other > reasons whatsoever. Without fragmentation htere is no > conflict....none. Obviously. You don't have to conflict with me to convince me of that ;-). geo> No conflict. Just following the natural flow of the thread: " Dan, have you ever felt conflict? Or the stings of anxiety, or the feeling that things are twisted? -geo- Tim: Of course he has. I have, everybody has. But again, this is not a case of a separate being feeling something it's separate from. " avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 4/6/2009 07:12:08 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. 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.