Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. > > > > > > > > I throughly enjoy these futile dialogues. > > > > > > > > They are wonderful. > > > > > > > > It is in their failure that truth opens. > > > > > > For truth to open, truth would have to be closed. > > > > > > The opposites play on, eh? > > > > Each word and idea has a limit, has other words outside of it, has an opposite concept. > > > > - D - > > Yes, and what I'm saying is that this 'play of opposites' must be wonderful, or enjoyable, as you said so ;-). > > Watching birds and dragonflies on the wing, they seem equally to be enjoying it, > > Although this enjoyment isn't elsewhere, with them. Yes, thanks. It is so. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 12:50 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 8:18 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:55 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:20 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what goes around comes around. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and no actual 'contact' has occurred. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes... contact between what and what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am what I see, hear, smell, taste, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fried chicken smells like myself ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And what about.. I am not what I see, hear, smell, taste, etc.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not consciousness, I am not the world, I am not the senses with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One negates everything that has been known or can be known. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, there is still negation, which is a process of knowing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Negation negated ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Negation, negation...till silent afirmation is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not even that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am the is-ness where waves of things arise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This moment of experience arising, I arises with and as the experiencing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time arises with the experiencing of memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This timeless moment, undivided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The is-ing, now-ing, is of and from nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Never has been commented upon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> The potentiality of all possibilities was never named, or referred to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not say a thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and you guys claim this is not a word game? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clarabelle made more sense with his seltzer bottle and honk horn. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i am not really here and am not saying any words and you aren't there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and i'm so clever for telling you that.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so that you can think that i know something you don't know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and whatever it is it's NAMELESS and IMPORTANT and.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way beyond your powers of thought or belief.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even my enlightened knowing to use words to tell. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to fucking bad about your luck. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm THERE though and that's what matters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kiss the little toe with the golden toenail ring attached. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > woo hoo! that tickles! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There isn't any other who could bow down and kiss anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Expressing words about this does no harm. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Imputing motivations to others who post seems like a waste of time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enjoy being here with no other involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i enjoy being here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's your problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're wasting your time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can motivations be imputed one of another? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it ain't two. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you like to judge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you set up the two. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you put a break in enjoying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I enjoy wasting time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you - have some sympathy and some taste. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or I'll lay this time to waste. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As there's no you to judge, there's no break in being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being is - not placing enjoyment against disgust. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, I remain quite disgusted with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bullshit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > besides... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who the fuck do you think gives a monkey's ass? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a monkey. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the monkey gives his ass? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to who and what the fuck for? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know. > > > > > > > > > > > > But here's his picture: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://tremendousnews.com/2009/05/20/the-solution-how-lessons-from-the-bare-asse\ d-monkey-can-help-us-end-obesity/ > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you have too much time on your hands. > > > > > > > > > > you need another hobby besides playtime guru. > > > > > > > > > > ask around. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > I just love entertaining you, Bob. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > i love watching you entertain yourself danny boy. > > > > > > i'm just starting to catch up with your endless.. > > > > > > self-appreciating bullshit... > > > > > > put forth in a barrage of puke ridden nonsense. > > > > > > post after post after.. > > > > > > well let's see where it goes from here. > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > god you love yourself so much dan boy. > > > > I so loved the world that I gave my only begotten bullshit. > > > > Thank you for appreciating it so. > > > > - d - > > > hey it's best to kind to cripples. > > .b b.b. knock it off, or I hit you with this crutch. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > in simpler more earthy terms.. > > > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > yes, great. > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > thanks for letting us all know. > > > > - d - > > What's interesting (from here) is why he's letting us all know over and over and over and over again. > > Self-flagellation? " us " ???? oh my! there is something fundamental which is missing here. we perhaps can talk in time. keep guessing though if it cheers " you " . ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > geo > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 2:21 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 1:58 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 1:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 12:50 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 8:18 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:55 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: it's not there or over there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:20 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what goes around comes around. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and no actual 'contact' has occurred. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes... contact between what and what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am what I see, hear, smell, taste, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fried chicken smells like myself ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And what about.. I am not what I see, hear, smell, taste, etc.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not consciousness, I am not the world, I am not the senses > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One negates everything that has been known or can be known. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, there is still negation, which is a process of knowing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Negation negated ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Negation, negation...till silent afirmation is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not even that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am the is-ness where waves of things arise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This moment of experience arising, I arises with and as the > > > > > > > > > > > > > experiencing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time arises with the experiencing of memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This timeless moment, undivided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The is-ing, now-ing, is of and from nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Never has been commented upon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> The potentiality of all possibilities was never named, or referred > > > > > > > > > > > > > to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not say a thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D: Good point, thanks for clarifying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> What did I clarify? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D: What you didn't say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo>The statement " The potentiality of all possibilities was never named, or > > > > > > > > > > > referred to. I did not say a thing. " is not referring to anything I wrote > > > > > > > > > > > before. It is a stand-alone thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thing is: either one decides not to name it or even referr to it, or > > > > > > > > > > > yes. Once one decides that yes...then any word will not do the job > > > > > > > > > > > anyway...so, in fact it doesnt matter much which name one uses. It can be > > > > > > > > > > > THAT or ISNESS or " The potentiality of all possibilities " or " the never > > > > > > > > > > > named " even " I " - like in " I am not consciousness " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D: Thanks for the further clarification. Yes, I had this sense of what you were saying. Your comments make it more clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One uses a name for the sake of conversing, for the sake of expressing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because of the way that words work, one who hears what is said may mistakenly think that because naming was employed, a quality of being is referred to, or a state of consciousness is being referred to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, this can be personalized, such as, " Joe X has more of this quality of being than Sid Y, " or " Sally M is in this state of consciousness, and Mary R isn't. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words don't " work " n any specified way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " you " work the words. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why do you work them that way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one puts words out there, but how they are heard may have little to do with how they were put out there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one does one's best to be clear, and that is all one can do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words are given meaning by association with past experience and images from memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words evoke images. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or they don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all one can do is laugh. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > all one can do is rot, or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's what all fetid and doomed meat believes. > > > > > > > > > > does it comfort you in your condition? > > > > > > > > > > you'll get over it. > > > > > > > > > > just lose identity with what you feel is * " important " . > > > > > > > > > > (*that's " danny " for " you " ). > > > > > > > > > > then all that rot about rot will go away lost urchin. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > thanks for the advice. > > > > > > > > and it's free, too. > > > > > > > > all I had to do was open a message on the Nis. list. > > > > > > > > wow, the wonders of technology! > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > it's all the wonder of you. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > sigh. > > > > ain't love grand? > > > > - d - > > > grand bullshit yes. > > .b b.b. yes, that's exactly how I feel, too. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is one separately existing, apart from the other? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence, > > > > > > rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case, and > > > > > > prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different. Sense > > > > > > of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows that. > > > > > > Is this not obvious/clear? > > > > > > What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if the > > > > > > people involved acted guided by clarity? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if " Clarity " is all that is claimed of it.. > > > > > > > > > > how could it not be the Primal Cause and Guiding Force.. > > > > > > > > > > of any and all things..states..behaviors..conditions? > > > > > > > > > > you be the judge. > > > > > > > > > > Clarity never judges. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > that's funny. > > > > > > > > that's what I said. > > > > > > > > gee, I guess you're not such a bad guru after all. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > call me anything.. > > > > > > call my mother anything... > > > > > > but don't call me a " guru " mofo! > > > > > > that's your sad ass wannabe trip. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > only you, my guru, could call me out so confidently, so wisely. > > > > you have put me in my place. > > > > i am screwed. > > > > i am up shit creek with no paddle. > > > > i am on a sad-ass trip. > > > > i am a wannabe. > > > > thanks for your pearls of wisdom. > > > > wonderful! > > > > - d - > > > you still don't get it. > > it's not all about you yo-yo. > > .b b.b. yes, I'll never get it the way you got it. i'm a lost cause. maybe if I just keep repeating, this is bullshit, it's not about me yoyo. maybe in a hundred years i'll be one little step closer to being where you're not. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:06 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Otherwise, it would perhaps have linear logic to it, and someone would > > see it, and immediately die, because their body-mind isn't there. > > > > But it's not linear logic, and not someone's possession. > > > > So, the body-mind not being here doesn't mean that the body-mind- > > world dies physically. It is more that the body-mind-self dies in > > terms of having any grasp, or existence here. > > In a way, it does mean that. Don't we all die? Yes. What I mean is that knowing/being truth, doesn't require that the body-mind physically die, to be known, to be as it is. If that were true, something would exist outside of it, that could inhibit it, and which would need to be gotten rid of, for it to be what it is. - D - And the same may be said about the human world with its objects and things and rivers and trees. It doesnt need to disapear either. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:13 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > in simpler more earthy terms.. > > > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > yes, great. > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > thanks for letting us all know. > > > > - d - > > What's interesting (from here) is why he's letting us all know over and > over and over and over again. > > Self-flagellation? I don't know. I'm willing to concede I'm full of shit, if we don't have to keep revisiting the issue. - D - LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!! -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Otherwise, it would perhaps have linear logic to it, and someone would see it, and immediately die, because their body-mind isn't there. > > > > > > > > But it's not linear logic, and not someone's possession. > > > > > > > > So, the body-mind not being here doesn't mean that the body-mind- > > > > world dies physically. It is more that the body-mind-self dies in > > > > terms of having any grasp, or existence here. > > > > > > In a way, it does mean that. Don't we all die? > > > > Yes. > > > > What I mean is that knowing/being truth, doesn't require that the > > body-mind physically die, to be known, to be as it is. > > True... nor does it require the body-mind be physically alive. > > Alive/dead is another duality, from here... Certainly. Existing as someone alive, going through time, is an interpretation. A body-mind existing as a living organism that will die, is an interpretation. Such interpretations require duality. There is only now, undivided. The now of any body-mind being born. The now of any body-mind dying. The now of perception of a body-mind. The now of no-perception of a body-mind. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > in simpler more earthy terms.. > > > > > > > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > yes, great. > > > > > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > > > > > thanks for letting us all know. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > What's interesting (from here) is why he's letting us all know over and over and over and over again. > > > > > > Self-flagellation? > > > > I don't know. > > > > I'm willing to concede I'm full of shit, if we don't have to keep > > revisiting the issue. > > > > - D - > > You don't need to concede anything. He does. > > But keep calling yourself " I " , and conceding. Maybe that'll help. " he " ??? now boys! we must come together as One ...HERE NOW.. stop fucking gossiping. you're making me blush. although i am a VIP..you know about that stuff dan. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > in simpler more earthy terms.. > > > > > > > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > yes, great. > > > > > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > > > > > thanks for letting us all know. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > What's interesting (from here) is why he's letting us all know over and over and over and over again. > > > > > > Self-flagellation? > > > > I don't know. > > > > I'm willing to concede I'm full of shit, if we don't have to keep > > revisiting the issue. > > > > - D - > > You don't need to concede anything. He does. > > But keep calling yourself " I " , and conceding. Maybe that'll help. Maybe, but doubtful. Consider that I'm conceding, because I understand he's addicted to an aggressive stance, and won't concede. I don't think it's just the nuns, either. Some real darkness this dude has gone through. So, allow me to be the one who concedes. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > calling people " asshole, " is something Nisargadatta would have appreciated. > > > > > > he wasted so much time talking about awareness. > > > > > > he could have just told people what assholes they are constantly. > > > > > > why didn't he think of that? > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > how the fuck am i supposed to know. > > > > ask him. > > > > he had his problems.. > > Yeah, like being dead. How the fuck is Dan supposed to ask him? > > > i got mine..few though they seem to be. > > You got one problem... everyone else got many. > > Except everyone else is you, and you is everyone else. yes daniel you have all the answers. no matter how stupid they are.. you'll use them in order to maintain your belief.. that you know what the fuck your even talking about. i kind of am beginning to feel sorrow for you. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > i know who i am. > > Who are you? i. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is clarity, nobody is there to try anything or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Indeed. Only clarity, an organsim and the circumstances. > > > > > > > Intelligence acts. > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no need for 'the organism' either... it's in awareness > > > > > > (clarity), > > > > > > along with the entire situation, every thought, sight, smell, etc. In > > > > > > other > > > > > > words, 'the organism' need not be separated from the circumstances. > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes, the same. One can break down plurality/diversity as much as > > > > > > one > > > > > > wants. > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont know what you have in mind. Maybe something I am not getting. As > > > > > > I > > > > > > wrote to bbb: > > > > > > There are glasses of coke, coffee, tea, wisky on the table. You stick > > > > > > your > > > > > > arm out and pick up the one you choose, or dont. Where is the need for a > > > > > > self for this? Where is the need of a " controler " for this. There is > > > > > > none. > > > > > > If the controler, the inner entity, teh imagined center is there, > > > > > > actions > > > > > > take a different direction then without those.That is all I am saying. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > because you imagine there are two sets of people. > > > > > > > > > > and who can form this imagining, other than an " I " that is separated from > > > > > the people being categorized? > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > geo>Do I need an " I " to see the color of her hair or skin? Do I need an I > > > > > to > > > > > recognise when a person is so angry that is about to shoot? > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Call it " I " or call it " the observer, " whatever you wish. > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > You are located as a subject to which an object can appear and be > > > > understood. > > > > > > > > You understand that you are looking at someone with red hair. > > > > > > > > geo> No. That is just how the organism manages to live in the human world. > > > > If it is the way you say, how can you talk about awareness and selflessness > > > > and atemporality in this list? You must see the keyboard, its color..etc... > > > > So all that is just theory, hipocrisy? BTW, you are being an hipocrit right > > > > now, are you not? > > > > === > > > > > > > > That experience is of the past. > > > > > > > > Redness is based on memories of red. > > > > > > > > Hair is based on memories of hair. > > > > > > > > The distance between you and the one you observe is based on memories of > > > > distance. > > > > > > > > The same with the person who is angry. > > > > > > > > The same with any experience, any perception that involves recognizable > > > > qualities. > > > > > > > > Any experience that involves time (duration) and space (location). > > > > > > > > geo> The human world dan, that is the human world. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > dan prefers DannyWorld. > > > > > > everything is possible there and he and his funny ears is GOD. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > no, you are god > > > > because you have the divine right to label other people as assholes. > > > > and to say that they don't exist. > > > > and to call them names again. > > > > and to say that nothing exists. > > > > and to tell others that they think they are god. > > > > and they are spouting bullshit. > > > > only god could be doing that. > > > > thank you, your holiness. > > > > - d - i know who i am. > > i find worship and worshipers equally insignificant. > > .b b.b. i know who you are, so I worship you. you are way cool, dude. you are the light of this list. but since you don't post enough, I'll have to double my output just to hold a little candle to your magnificence. - d- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > geo> Do I need an " I " to see the color of her hair or skin? Do I need an I to recognise when a person is so angry that is about to shoot? > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > Call it " I " or call it " the observer, " whatever you wish. > > > > Yes. > > > > You are located as a subject to which an object can appear and be > > > > understood. > > > > You understand that you are looking at someone with red hair. > > > > That experience is of the past. > > > > Redness is based on memories of red. > > > > Hair is based on memories of hair. > > > > The distance between you and the one you observe is based on memories of > > > > distance. > > > > The same with the person who is angry. > > > > The same with any experience, any perception that involves recognizable > > > > qualities. > > > > Any experience that involves time (duration) and space (location). > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > Following the logic of your own words dan, there is not the slightest possibility that you have ever " experienced " directly, or " realized " directly what atemporality is, what awareness is, what selflessness is, what absense of " I " is, unless we are supposed to beleive that you are in a state of complete non-recognition all the time - or for any lengh of time for the matter. All you know is states where there is the " I " , " the observer, " or whatever you wish to call it - as you said. > > > > Now, If you perhaps say that sometimes you enter a state where you dont recognise time and space and any objects, then what about the other periods of the day or week of month? Just memories? You must admit that I have the " right " to not understand what you are saying. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > in simpler more earthy terms.. > > > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > yes, great. > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > thanks for letting us all know. > > > > - d - > > > > everyone already knows dan. > > funny how you're always the last to know. > > .b b.b. it's more fun when it comes as a surprise. hey, I know I'm going to hell for being selfish. when I get there, I'll be the one smirking at you, while you throw more kerosene on the fire. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 > > You said that recognition of objects, location, time, presuposes an " I " - > YOU SAID THAT. So I said that there is an " I " over there because you > recognise the chair, the keyboard. So when you said that " recognition of > objects, location, time, presuposes an " I " is false. > -geo- To whom are the chair, keyboard, time to type, appearing? A disembodied consciousness that has no location and memory? How is memory connected, how are associations made, how is the meaning " chair " derived from stimuli appearing now? Without any " I, " without any observer, there wouldn't be any qualities brought forward to project as " chair. " geo> No, no, no. No dan!! You are really missing this. Consciousness involves the existence of this body. Where else could consciousness exist? This same consciousness involves teh existence of an organic center as the body. This is part of consciusness. You can not dissolve this relation - to try to is error. The body/consciousness together as one movement see chairs, tables, trees, stars, planets, the moon. Where is the need of an " I " ?? That would involve a separte inner entity - there is none, as you know. The " observer " you mention is just the organism having relation with a chair. The body was made to see, touch, smell. NO need for an " I " at all. === The chair is appearing to someone. The point is, that someone and the chair are actually not-two. To observe the chair, you need distance apart from it. So, there is the " I " in that distance between the observer and observed. That distance is necessary to give qualities to the chair. And understanding that " I " is " the chair " ... the distance dissolves. Now, no-I, no chair. geo> No. It is the organism and the chair as one movement as consciousness. No I is needed. The I is a psichological entity that gets offended, or is proud, or need love, or hates, or desires. There isno need of such qualities to sit on a chair. === So, it is not that chairs appear out of thin air to no one, or to disembodied consciousness. It is that the " I " (embodied consciousness, with memory, with an orientation in time and space) and " the chair " are not two, and any separation and experience dissolves ... now. this is nothing, no-thing. this is now. I know it sounds like two different worlds or states are being discussed, but it is not two different states. It is the conventional way of experiencing, and the no-experience, which Nis. calls " the absolute. " Simultaneous. There is no " ego " to get rid of, in other words. Not here, and not " out there " - which is not separate from here. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is one separately existing, apart from the other? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence, > > > > > > > rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case, and > > > > > > > prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different. Sense > > > > > > > of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows that. > > > > > > > Is this not obvious/clear? > > > > > > > What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if the > > > > > > > people involved acted guided by clarity? > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if " Clarity " is all that is claimed of it.. > > > > > > > > > > > > how could it not be the Primal Cause and Guiding Force.. > > > > > > > > > > > > of any and all things..states..behaviors..conditions? > > > > > > > > > > > > you be the judge. > > > > > > > > > > > > Clarity never judges. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > that's funny. > > > > > > > > > > that's what I said. > > > > > > > > > > gee, I guess you're not such a bad guru after all. > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > call me anything.. > > > > > > > > call my mother anything... > > > > > > > > but don't call me a " guru " mofo! > > > > > > > > that's your sad ass wannabe trip. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > only you, my guru, could call me out so confidently, so wisely. > > > > > > you have put me in my place. > > > > > > i am screwed. > > > > > > i am up shit creek with no paddle. > > > > > > i am on a sad-ass trip. > > > > > > i am a wannabe. > > > > > > thanks for your pearls of wisdom. > > > > > > wonderful! > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > you still don't get it. > > > > it's not all about you yo-yo. > > > > .b b.b. > > yes, I'll never get it the way you got it. > > i'm a lost cause. > > maybe if I just keep repeating, this is bullshit, it's not about me yoyo. > > maybe in a hundred years i'll be one little step closer to being where you're not. > > - d - there is absolutely nothing to gain. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:04 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:09 PM > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > If personality is an imagined pattern based on assumed differences, > > > > and > > > > one > > > > is aware without imagining, then that imagined pattern isn't found > > > > anywhere. > > > > > > > > geo> Wrong. If one is aware without imagining then personality is a > > > > set > > > > of > > > > conditionings. Some people are conditioned to inject heroin. Otheres > > > > to > > > > coffee. > > > > === > > > > > > You say I am wrong. That is your judgment. All I can say is that here is > > > awareness that does not depend on attaching to a personality, and no > > > personality is real here. The " Dan " personality is not real here, > > > anymore > > > than " Geo, " " Tim, " or any other. There isn't a patterning going on here > > > that > > > was determined in the past. Nothing is being continued from a past and > > > brought forward in time. > > > > > > That is all I can say. > > > > > > You can certainly reject what I am saying, as you have. > > > > > > geo> No I am not rejecting what you are saying. Except that you say that > > > to > > > recognise a keyboard, letters, words, sentences, color of the table, > > > etc.. > > > you must have an " I " (in another post). So how should your statement > > > " nothing is being continued from a past and brought forward in time. " > > > understood. A mistake? > > > > Not a mistake. > > > > In words, in concepts, it makes it sound like two different " realities. " > > > > The reality of time, of thought, of the past being projected, of the > > observer and the observed, of experience. > > > > And the reality, or truth, if you will, of no-thing: timeless, no > > division, > > no separation, no experience - just " being " just " is " just " unnameable > > nothing " just " all possible possibility. " > > > > These two realities are not divided. > > > > But in words, concept, they will necessarily seem to be discussed as if > > different. > > > > The " I " or " I am " or " observer " is the bringing forward of location > > through > > time and experience. > > > > So, saying that nothing continues here makes it sound like two realities. > > > > But they aren't. > > > > Otherwise, it would perhaps have linear logic to it, and someone would see > > it, and immediately die, because their body-mind isn't there. > > > > But it's not linear logic, and not someone's possession. > > > > So, the body-mind not being here doesn't mean that the body-mind-world > > dies > > physically. It is more that the body-mind-self dies in terms of having any > > grasp, or existence here. > > > > This is where a " leap " is involved that can't be spoken, languaged, > > thought > > about, conceived. > > > > A timeless leap that doesn't depend on logic, and no words do justice to. > > > > Not a leap made by someone. > > > > Not a leap that I made and someone else didn't make. > > > > Not a leap involving moving from somewhere to somewhere else. > > > > - D - > > > > You said " If personality is an imagined pattern based on assumed > > differences, and one is aware without imagining, then that imagined > > pattern > > isn't found anywhere. > > > > geo said> Wrong. You thought it was my judgment and gave that explanation > > above. So I say: your statement is still wrong. Personality is a set of > > behaviours based on the assumption of some inner fixed entity. If one is > > aware without imagining looking at another individual who is acting based > > on > > that imagined assumption it is his acts that will show his personality. > > You > > say it is not found anywhere. > > -geo- > > Don't you see that you have to interpret the behavior? > > And who is interpreting the behavior? > > And how are the labels and the judgments supplied to define the behavior > observed? > > Do you see my point? > > - D - > > I see your point and do not agree totaly. No need to " interpret " behaviour > of another. It is there in front of the seeing eyes. You " see " the set of > conditionings as if one concrete thing (well..almost). It is analogous to > seeing a driver of the bus you are riding at night falling asleep. It > fucking happened with me. I hit the top of his head with my palms as strong > as I could. The guy by my side started shouting..wake up SOB....SOB..... > LOL. I t is there as a sleeping man. > -geo- you don't see the extent of the interpreting. there is no " objective behavior " you're observing, separate from the subjective interpretation of it. check it out. you are not a blank slate with no past, looking at someone else who is conditioned. it takes one to know one. do you see how that works? understanding this, there is no investment in either one (of the apparent organisms thinking they are observing the behavior of someone else). - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is one separately existing, apart from the other? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence, > > > > > > > > rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case, and > > > > > > > > prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different. Sense > > > > > > > > of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows that. > > > > > > > > Is this not obvious/clear? > > > > > > > > What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if the > > > > > > > > people involved acted guided by clarity? > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if " Clarity " is all that is claimed of it.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how could it not be the Primal Cause and Guiding Force.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any and all things..states..behaviors..conditions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you be the judge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clarity never judges. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some would make of Clarity or Realization.. > > > > > > > > > > > > a " God " not unlike the christian/jewish/islamic one. > > > > > > > > > > > > " Clarity " would never do this..or that... > > > > > > > > > > > > (all the " bad stuff) > > > > > > > > > > > > " Clarity " IS this or that. > > > > > > > > > > > > (all the good stuff) > > > > > > > > > > > > it's all good all knowing without knowing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > it's the best Daddy daddyo. > > > > > > > > > > > > and those same folks sit around.. > > > > > > > > > > > > and pontificate like a pope.. > > > > > > > > > > > > rattling on and on about the Ultimate of Ultimates.. > > > > > > > > > > > > and how they are individually in tune with " It " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > and how they have come to tell you what's what. > > > > > > > > > > > > fucking bullshit my friends. > > > > > > > > > > > > don't put money nor belief nor trust in their basket. > > > > > > > > > > > > they live to believe that you think they are wise. > > > > > > > > > > > > dolts. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > you are so wise. > > > > > > > > > > I love when you put everyone else down but you. > > > > > > > > > > You are way cool. > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > yep.. > > > > > > > > it's not gonna quit. > > > > > > > > let's have more dan and then some danny and some more dan afterward. > > > > > > > > daniel: > > > > > > > > i am not different than anyone or everyone or no one. > > > > > > > > you have a queer necessity so see things.. > > > > > > > > as some matter of " personal " projection. > > > > > > > > that's your lost adventure danny. > > > > > > > > it's not happenin' here. > > > > > > > > be clear on this. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > yes, your here is different than my here. > > > > > > my here is there to you. > > > > > > and your here is better than mine. > > > > > > let's be clear on how your here is different and better, > > > > > > and my here, which is there to you, is worse and lost. > > > > > > i am so clear on this, bobby. > > > > > > wonderful. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > oh sister mary daniela! > > > > don't we have such a pompous and phony way of being catty. > > > > surely you have put Satan to the test! > > > > you earn a 5 year redemption certificate.. > > > > for time off Purgatorial Duty before entering Paradise. > > > > you're so cute danny. > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > thanks sister bobbi - > > you are so funny when you're being all butch and aggressive. > > > - d - try some originality daniel. and keep it straight! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > in simpler more earthy terms.. > > > > > > > > > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > yes, great. > > > > > > > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > > > > > > > thanks for letting us all know. > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > What's interesting (from here) is why he's letting us all know over and over and over and over again. > > > > > > > > Self-flagellation? > > > > > > I don't know. > > > > > > I'm willing to concede I'm full of shit, if we don't have to keep > > > revisiting the issue. > > > > > > - D - > > > > You don't need to concede anything. He does. > > > > But keep calling yourself " I " , and conceding. Maybe that'll help. > > > Maybe, but doubtful. > > Consider that I'm conceding, because I understand he's addicted to an aggressive stance, and won't concede. > > I don't think it's just the nuns, either. > > Some real darkness this dude has gone through. > > So, allow me to be the one who concedes. > > > - d - oh holy and sanctimonious dan.. fuck off. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:16 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:50 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:39 PM > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, of course. > > > > > > I throughly enjoy these futile dialogues. > > > > > > They are wonderful. > > > > > > It is in their failure that truth opens. > > > > For truth to open, truth would have to be closed. > > > > The opposites play on, eh? > > > > geo> So after all.... truth does opens and close. I think so also. > > It might be more accurate to say, falsehood closes (truth opens), > falsehood > opens (truth closes). > > But neither is really accurate. Just a way of looking at things. > > geo> Now we are talking. > I would say is: the shadow is there...the shadow is gone...there...gone... > This changes the outlook. Now see that falsehood and truth are not-two. If one opens when the other closes, aren't they one? geo> HAAA....but to see what you are seeing the shadow is gone. If the shadow was there you would not see it - only conceptualize about it. LIke the piests that say that god is all. Every priest belive in that. (dont say it is true indeed LOL) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is clarity, nobody is there to try anything or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Indeed. Only clarity, an organsim and the circumstances. > > > > > > > > Intelligence acts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no need for 'the organism' either... it's in awareness > > > > > > > (clarity), > > > > > > > along with the entire situation, every thought, sight, smell, etc. In > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > words, 'the organism' need not be separated from the circumstances. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes, the same. One can break down plurality/diversity as much as > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > wants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont know what you have in mind. Maybe something I am not getting. As > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > wrote to bbb: > > > > > > > There are glasses of coke, coffee, tea, wisky on the table. You stick > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > arm out and pick up the one you choose, or dont. Where is the need for a > > > > > > > self for this? Where is the need of a " controler " for this. There is > > > > > > > none. > > > > > > > If the controler, the inner entity, teh imagined center is there, > > > > > > > actions > > > > > > > take a different direction then without those.That is all I am saying. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > because you imagine there are two sets of people. > > > > > > > > > > > > and who can form this imagining, other than an " I " that is separated from > > > > > > the people being categorized? > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > geo>Do I need an " I " to see the color of her hair or skin? Do I need an I > > > > > > to > > > > > > recognise when a person is so angry that is about to shoot? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > Call it " I " or call it " the observer, " whatever you wish. > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > You are located as a subject to which an object can appear and be > > > > > understood. > > > > > > > > > > You understand that you are looking at someone with red hair. > > > > > > > > > > geo> No. That is just how the organism manages to live in the human world. > > > > > If it is the way you say, how can you talk about awareness and selflessness > > > > > and atemporality in this list? You must see the keyboard, its color..etc... > > > > > So all that is just theory, hipocrisy? BTW, you are being an hipocrit right > > > > > now, are you not? > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > That experience is of the past. > > > > > > > > > > Redness is based on memories of red. > > > > > > > > > > Hair is based on memories of hair. > > > > > > > > > > The distance between you and the one you observe is based on memories of > > > > > distance. > > > > > > > > > > The same with the person who is angry. > > > > > > > > > > The same with any experience, any perception that involves recognizable > > > > > qualities. > > > > > > > > > > Any experience that involves time (duration) and space (location). > > > > > > > > > > geo> The human world dan, that is the human world. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > dan prefers DannyWorld. > > > > > > > > everything is possible there and he and his funny ears is GOD. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > no, you are god > > > > > > because you have the divine right to label other people as assholes. > > > > > > and to say that they don't exist. > > > > > > and to call them names again. > > > > > > and to say that nothing exists. > > > > > > and to tell others that they think they are god. > > > > > > and they are spouting bullshit. > > > > > > only god could be doing that. > > > > > > thank you, your holiness. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i know who i am. > > > > i find worship and worshipers equally insignificant. > > > > .b b.b. > > i know who you are, so I worship you. > > you are way cool, dude. > > you are the light of this list. > > but since you don't post enough, I'll have to double my output just to hold a little candle to your magnificence. > > - d- ah ha! the little green eyed monster sticks his puny little dickhead out. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:43 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Otherwise, it would perhaps have linear logic to it, and someone would see > it, and immediately die, because their body-mind isn't there. > > But it's not linear logic, and not someone's possession. > > So, the body-mind not being here doesn't mean that the body-mind- > world dies physically. It is more that the body-mind-self dies in > terms of having any grasp, or existence here. In a way, it does mean that. Don't we all die? geo> How is that? (not challenging) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > geo> Do I need an " I " to see the color of her hair or skin? Do I need an I to recognise when a person is so angry that is about to shoot? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > Call it " I " or call it " the observer, " whatever you wish. > > > > > Yes. > > > > > You are located as a subject to which an object can appear and be > > > > > understood. > > > > > You understand that you are looking at someone with red hair. > > > > > That experience is of the past. > > > > > Redness is based on memories of red. > > > > > Hair is based on memories of hair. > > > > > The distance between you and the one you observe is based on memories of > > > > > distance. > > > > > The same with the person who is angry. > > > > > The same with any experience, any perception that involves recognizable > > > > > qualities. > > > > > Any experience that involves time (duration) and space (location). > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > Following the logic of your own words dan, there is not the slightest possibility that you have ever " experienced " directly, or " realized " directly what atemporality is, what awareness is, what selflessness is, what absense of " I " is, unless we are supposed to beleive that you are in a state of complete non-recognition all the time - or for any lengh of time for the matter. All you know is states where there is the " I " , " the observer, " or whatever you wish to call it - as you said. > > > > > Now, If you perhaps say that sometimes you enter a state where you dont recognise time and space and any objects, then what about the other periods of the day or week of month? Just memories? You must admit that I have the " right " to not understand what you are saying. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > in simpler more earthy terms.. > > > > > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > yes, great. > > > > > > dan is full of shit. > > > > > > thanks for letting us all know. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > everyone already knows dan. > > > > funny how you're always the last to know. > > > > .b b.b. > > it's more fun when it comes as a surprise. > > hey, I know I'm going to hell for being selfish. > > when I get there, I'll be the one smirking at you, while you throw more kerosene on the fire. > > - d - dan there is no hell. worse yet.. there is no you. for " you " that is likely the most tragic truth in life. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > calling people " asshole, " is something Nisargadatta would have appreciated. > > > > > > > > he wasted so much time talking about awareness. > > > > > > > > he could have just told people what assholes they are constantly. > > > > > > > > why didn't he think of that? > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > how the fuck am i supposed to know. > > > > > > ask him. > > > > > > he had his problems.. > > > > Yeah, like being dead. How the fuck is Dan supposed to ask him? > > > > > i got mine..few though they seem to be. > > > > You got one problem... everyone else got many. > > > > Except everyone else is you, and you is everyone else. > > > yes daniel you have all the answers. > > no matter how stupid they are.. > > you'll use them in order to maintain your belief.. > > that you know what the fuck your even talking about. > > i kind of am beginning to feel sorrow for you. > > .b b.b. I thought you would never show that soft, caring side. finally. my work here is done. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > you hit everyone with your crutches.. > > post after post. > > .b b.b. i know. but that's the only way I can get you to bestow your wisdom upon me. hey, look, i even cleared off the rest of the message so you wouldn't have to scroll down. that will save you some time, so you can get on to my next post. - d - 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.