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 , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dan prefers DannyWorld. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything is possible there and he and his funny ears is GOD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob don't prefer Bobbyworld? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's nowheresville. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. is without preferences. > > > > > > > > > > > > baba is here gracing your presence with the True Word. > > > > > > > > > > > > this dynamic presentation while being manifested through .b bobji.. > > > > > > > > > > > > who in and of his own humble self is nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > is of Great Significance and is Unutterable in Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Blessings flow like refreshing tropic breezes... > > > > > > > > > > > > towards he who attends to .b b.b.'s transmission. > > > > > > > > > > > > for it comes not from BobbyWorld but directly from God. > > > > > > > > > > > > BobbyWorld is God's amusement park. > > > > > > > > > > > > lit up like a carnival circus at night. > > > > > > > > > > > > i live but for His pleasure. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > and you sure hate being a guru, too. > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > i hate nothing. > > > > > > > > i love nothing. > > > > > > > > you love yourself. > > > > > > > > the chasm between these states is vast and deep. > > > > > > > > i don't know how to inform you. > > > > > > > > it won't help in any event. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > i am so pitiful and you are so wise. > > > > > > so beyond the opposites and all. > > > > > > no self-aggrandisement that I've ever heard. > > > > > > not from you. > > > > > > you are that special. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > you find this difficult i know. > > > > there is no you nor me. > > > > these judgments that you judge others to have.. > > > > are mere sickness..disease. > > > > relax..take it easy. > > > > don't be so afraid of losing something you don't possess. > > > > this is told to you with kindness. > > > > .b b.b. > > plus, it's very original. > > i've never heard that one before. > > i'll have to ponder it deeply. > > while i'm attending to those important things i mentioned. > > - d - this is the third time you've talked about " important " stuff. and in just the last three posts. seems as though you're taking you sweet ass time to get to it. you're such a lying loser. don't try and ponder anything. that would only hurt you in it's futile attempt. rather just sit around and keep on imagining you have important stuff. and of course it takes important people like you.. to have important stuff to do. ROFLMAO! ..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 , " 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > no shit. > > > > > > ya think? > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > took you awhile. > > > > why the dumb posting before? > > > > .b b.b. > > before what? > > - d - before you stuck around answering posts after you found out.. that you had important things to handle. 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 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:34 PM > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 - > > > > The now of no-perception of a body-mind.? > > -geo- > > Yes. HEY! what about that important stuff? get off you lazy pontifical ass. ..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: > > > > > > > > took you awhile. > > > > > > why the dumb posting before? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > before what? > > > > - d - > > Doh. > > These fellers have some strange ideas, like there's something to be before, or something to be after. > > Maybe that's why the hostility and endless focus on " you " or " other " . what " fellows " ? there is no one here but for " me " . ..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: > > > > > > > ah ha! > > > > > > > > the little green eyed monster sticks his puny little dickhead out. > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > i've had enough for now. > > > > > > as wonderful as you are, i have important matters to attend to. > > > > > > i've enjoyed our little chat, as always. > > > > > > - d - > > > > ^^ Now, that *does* sound sanctimonious. > > thank you! > > > - d - danny..danny..danny.. that important stuff kid! c'mon get on with it before you shit your pants. :-) ..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: > > > > > > no, the most tragic truth in my life is the financial morass that > > > is the state of California. > > > > > > and the greedy, nasty bastards that made it this way. > > > > Turn off the TV, and it all goes away ;-). > > you mean that TV of my life experience? > > okay. > > nice metaphor - > > gotta run though > > - d - what is this now? 5-6-9 times? the only thing that's got to run evidently is your mouth. see i told you you were confused. ..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: > > > > > > > > > ah ha! > > > > > > > > > > the little green eyed monster sticks his puny little dickhead out. > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > i've had enough for now. > > > > > > > > as wonderful as you are, i have important matters to attend to. > > > > > > > > i've enjoyed our little chat, as always. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > ^^ Now, that *does* sound sanctimonious. > > > > thank you! > > > > > > - d - > > LOL... you're welcome, sweetie ;-). ah cute. now i see those wedding bells you sweets were talking about. don't worry about that mess in California boys. Prop 8 will never stop you hons. ..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: > > > > > > > > no, the most tragic truth in my life is the financial morass that > > > > is the state of California. > > > > > > > > and the greedy, nasty bastards that made it this way. > > > > > > Turn off the TV, and it all goes away ;-). > > > > you mean that TV of my life experience? > > Your life experience isn't a fixed thing. > > Turn off the TV. Quit your job. Listen to different people instead of the ones who gab about 'greedy, nasty bastards'. Or don't. Your call. > > I rarely watch the news, as it's so heavily processed through " the human mind " as to bear little resemblance to actual events. > > > okay. > > > > nice metaphor - > > > > gotta run though > > > > - d - > > So run... who's stopping ya? the stopping factor is called " danny " . ..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 9:54 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > 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. > > > > > > " 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. > > would you like to hear again that you're way cool? > > okay, dude, you're way cool. > > plus, you have no ego. > > that is beyond VIP status, as far as I'm concerned. > > - d - > > He doesnt have ONE ego, but some. One before, another after, and another > while lit. LOL > -geo- children have a tough time with actual recognition. this will improve for you with time. maybe. ..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 , " omkara " <fewtch wrote: > > omkaradatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Of course... that's obvious. > > > > " The guard " ('me') is rarely let down. > > > > Probably due to the fantasy that something is being protected. > > > > Something 'there' 'behind the walls'. > > > > > > > I don't think it's just the nuns, either. > > > > > > Some real darkness this dude has gone through. > > > > Sure, that's likely. > > > > > So, allow me to be the one who concedes. > > > > Can I stop ya? > > > > Not that I want to... > > BTW, is it worth noting that I went through some 'real darkness' myself? > > Or, so it was imagined. > > " Gone, never having been " ;-). > > I was the darkness I went through. > > Without me, it seems only light everywhere. > > Which is dark, too. leave dan alone. he's got to run. 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 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:24 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:47 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > geo> Then what is wrong when I say: " You can be simple and say. All is > > consciousness and its doing. It is perfectly OK. And you can dissecate > > consciousness in infinite ways, in organisms, in brains, minds, heart, > > chacras, qui energies, yin, yang......etc......etc.....take your candy. > > Your > > choice and skill. " ? > > Let me be simple and say, as I see it, there isn't any finally correct way > to say what is so. > > So, we're just conversing. It's a foregone conclusion that neither of us > will finally say the one true thing about it, finally, once and for all. > > And right now I'm reading what you posted above. > > And I'm not looking at something wrong, or right, just what you wrote. > > I take in the words, and understand you're saying consciousness is all. It > has infinite ways of appearing, being understood, and appreciated. > > All good. > > And allow me to be simple, and just say: " consciousness is transcended. " > > As I write this, I don't see it as contradicting what you said. > > - D - > > You see dan, I went through all this rigamole...and I could go further - > because you are too fast to contradict. Whom am I contradicting? Only now after all this you realize > that there is nothing wrong with my statement. So, there is " you " over there and " me " over here. And " you " felt that " I " was saying that something was wrong with your statement. And yet, there is no " I " you said, no " self-center " ? This is what you do over and > over and over again. You sort of wake up in the morning and go quickly > through the posts adding fast absolute comments of wisdom. They are fast because " what is " is immediate. There is no " you " or " me " here separated. There is what is, and comments appearing on a screen. I am quite stupid > but not that much and not always. It is irritating. To whom? What is the irritation about? What expectation has been violated? An more...when there is > the true desire or inclination to converse about something that really > interests me - yes me - the door is closed because you are so absolutely > right, so totaly convinced of your wisdom. Is the door closed? Are you sure? It seems to me we have been conversing and a worthwhile exchange occurred. Is that just here, and not there? Or can it be that here and there are not separated? Am I posting to prove something? Or is that a way of interpreting the words offered? > I could point dozens of times you went back to read and realize: ....ohhh > yeah that is correct... I dont see nothing wrong with that...let me clear > what I said.... > Like the need for the " I " to walk in the streets.... LIke your absolute > conviction about the absurdity of truth " opening " and " closing " etc.... > > buuuuaaaahhhh.....I feel so humiliated... On the other hand, maybe that is the point. Interpretations change. There is no absolute way to state the truth. The observer is imagined (imaged) along with the observed. The Geo observer and the Dan observer seem to interact across a distance. That distance allows perceptions of information being exchanged. Yet, no real distance is involved. No actual separation of one observer apart from a different observer. These centers (for observation) are not actually there. ? Is this possible? - D - It is -geo- 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? awareness. awareness doesn't depend on consciousness existing. that which neither exists nor doesn't exist, doesn't depend on something existing. geo> Awareness is the seeing of body/consciousness. No body, no consciusness as this. ===== > 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. *this* is not about " you " doing anything. you are not dissolving anything. you are dissolving. consciousness, the body, the world - none of it has a hold here. it doesn't mean you can't see, feel, or type. geo>That is my point!! The fact that awareness is the seeing this consciusness/body means there is no localized ME, or I, nonetheless the chair is there and the keyboard also. ===== The body/consciousness together as one movement see chairs, > tables, trees, stars, planets, the moon. Where is the need of an " I " ?? the " I " is a patterning, as are chairs, tables, trees, etc. why would you single out one pattern to be gotten rid of? in trying to do so, " you " are affirming yourself as the doer, the one who is able to get rid of " I " - and have a special organically centered body-mind experience. geo> Not getting rid off at all. It is not there/here. I think it is just a matter of nomeclature. The problem for comunication purposes is that what you are calling an " I " has two totally different meanings. One is the psichological imagined inner separate entity and the other is just an organic center. === 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. > === It doesn't matter if you stop using the label " I " - there still is a center for the mental associations that give the sense of an object being contacted. And there is a center for emotional reactions, such as frustration or irritation. And there is nothing wrong with that. It's part of the picture. Nothing needs to be remedied! Nothing needs to be gotten rid of or fixed!!!!! geo> These center of emotional feelings you talk about is subjetive, we can not talk about it. We can not qutify it. === > > 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. There isn't any real entity getting offended. There is the conditioned response of taking offense. There is also conditioning when recognizing a chair. Conditioning is conditioning. The unconditioned is not subject to conditioning. The unconditioned is not entering into states of being. The unconditioned (that is your being) is not in a trance. The unconditioned has never been conditioned, and there is nothing for it (who is one's being) to get rid of. It is neither being nor not-being. There is no conditioning involved, ever. - D - geo> You call it the second ME, I call it organic center. === Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 no, the most tragic truth in my life is the financial morass that is the state of California. and the greedy, nasty bastards that made it this way. but don't worry, I'm getting over it. i just have to get this damn little psychological entity to calm the fuck down. calm down, you little bastard. whew. sometimes it helps to give myself a good talking to. gotta run, later ... - d - You may calm it down...but at one point it is not there at all. This is the " I " . You may or may not have it. In the other hand being an organic center that sits on chairs is common ground to all. They are not the same. -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 10:23 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > no, the most tragic truth in my life is the financial morass that > > is the state of California. > > > > and the greedy, nasty bastards that made it this way. > > Turn off the TV, and it all goes away ;-). you mean that TV of my life experience? okay. nice metaphor - gotta run though - d - Exactly...your history. But you will know how to drive and eat and run. -geo- 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 10:30 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Well, yes. The amount of interpreting is subjective. I desagree about > " there is no objective behavior " . There is as clear as light when all is > one, and I am nothing and everything. But I am not able to " do it " often. > I > tend to fall asleep with people around. I feel bored, or anxious, or > insatisfied, or angry.....many times. Try to look at people from silence. > You will see what I mean. Its like looking at walking robots. > -geo- Then you, yourself feel like a walking robot. You still haven't realized that what you see in 'others' is a reflection of you. geo> " My " walking robot is there also, and that is clear the moment I wake up. But that is not me I have realized that there is only this, never was another and never will be. No time. Said nothing. Have you seen the permanent fixed " smille " in the priests faces? They say they are in gods arms - always, forever and ever. 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 10:37 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:59 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > 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- > > Nothing needs to happen. > > Nothing needs to refrain from happening. > > geo> Nothing. Ufa...what a relief! Neither something nor nothing. Words don't do the trick. Words are the trick. geo> Except the drive to try to change :>(( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 - omkara Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 16, 2009 10:50 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. omkaradatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Of course... that's obvious. > > " The guard " ('me') is rarely let down. > > Probably due to the fantasy that something is being protected. > > Something 'there' 'behind the walls'. > > > > I don't think it's just the nuns, either. > > > > Some real darkness this dude has gone through. > > Sure, that's likely. > > > So, allow me to be the one who concedes. > > Can I stop ya? > > Not that I want to... BTW, is it worth noting that I went through some 'real darkness' myself? Or, so it was imagined. " Gone, never having been " ;-). I was the darkness I went through. Without me, it seems only light everywhere. Which is dark, too. geo> Omkara is tim? 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 9:48 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > 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 - > > Well, yes. The amount of interpreting is subjective. I desagree about > " there is no objective behavior " . There is as clear as light when all is > one, and I am nothing and everything. But I am not able to " do it " often. I > tend to fall asleep with people around. I feel bored, or anxious, or > insatisfied, or angry.....many times. Try to look at people from silence. > You will see what I mean. Its like looking at walking robots. > -geo- boredom, anxiety, dissatisfaction, anger are emotional responses. emotional responses can be viewed " from silence " as well. who is viewing? is it the person viewing, or is the person being viewed? - 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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:48 PM > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 - > > > > Well, yes. The amount of interpreting is subjective. I desagree about > > " there is no objective behavior " . There is as clear as light when all is > > one, and I am nothing and everything. But I am not able to " do it " often. I > > tend to fall asleep with people around. I feel bored, or anxious, or > > insatisfied, or angry.....many times. Try to look at people from silence. > > You will see what I mean. Its like looking at walking robots. > > -geo- > > boredom, anxiety, dissatisfaction, anger are emotional responses. > > emotional responses can be viewed " from silence " as well. > > who is viewing? > > is it the person viewing, or is the person being viewed? > > - d - 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 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > Well, yes. The amount of interpreting is subjective. I desagree about > > " there is no objective behavior " . There is as clear as light when all is > > one, and I am nothing and everything. But I am not able to " do it " often. I > > tend to fall asleep with people around. I feel bored, or anxious, or > > insatisfied, or angry.....many times. Try to look at people from silence. > > You will see what I mean. Its like looking at walking robots. > > -geo- > > boredom, anxiety, dissatisfaction, anger are emotional responses. > > emotional responses can be viewed " from silence " as well. > > who is viewing? > > is it the person viewing, or is the person being viewed? > > - d - From here, there's always 'drama' possible with people around. This can be mistaken as 'sleep'. As you've noted, one 'is' the drama. 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: > *this* is not about " you " doing anything. > > you are not dissolving anything. > > you are dissolving. > > consciousness, the body, the world - none of it has a hold here. > > it doesn't mean you can't see, feel, or type. > > geo>That is my point!! The fact that awareness is the seeing this > consciusness/body means there is no localized ME, or I, nonetheless the > chair is there and the keyboard also. > ===== D: Let's look at this carefully for a moment. This chair is there, the keyboard " with " the body-mind-consciousness, inseparable, as one movement, yes? Not because there is a " me " in the body-mind-consciousness that is recognizing this fact. But because it is a fact that the body-mind-consciousness arises with the present moment of experience, including the keyboard and typing -- and no actual separation is involved, yes? This is how it arises now, as experience - experiencer not separable from experience, typing happening ... Now, this isn't the way it is happening for a particular body-mind unit, and not for another body-mind unit. It is a unicity of movement, a unicity of arising/dissolving. All body-minds co-arising dissolving with their " objects of consciousness " -- so there is never a case of a separately existing observer apart from the observed, correct? There is never any " me " separately existing anywhere, because there is no division in the movement we are calling arising/dissolving. > The body/consciousness together as one movement see chairs, > > tables, trees, stars, planets, the moon. Where is the need of an " I " ?? > > the " I " is a patterning, as are chairs, tables, trees, etc. > > why would you single out one pattern to be gotten rid of? > > in trying to do so, " you " are affirming yourself as the doer, the one who is > able to get rid of " I " - and have a special organically centered body-mind > experience. > > geo> Not getting rid off at all. It is not there/here. I think it is just a > matter of nomeclature. The problem for comunication purposes is that what > you are calling an " I " has two totally different meanings. One is the > psichological imagined inner separate entity and the other is just an > organic center. > === D: Well, that is just it. I don't think what you are calling two meanings are really very different. The psychological center develops choicelessly, automatically, just as does the " organic center. " They involve conceptuality. There isn't any actual center. There isn't any separated organism existing on its own apart from the environment. The perception of the organism, the perception of the environment is the same, nondivided, centerless movement. > 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. > > === > > It doesn't matter if you stop using the label " I " - there still is a center > for the mental associations that give the sense of an object being > contacted. > > And there is a center for emotional reactions, such as frustration or > irritation. > > And there is nothing wrong with that. > > It's part of the picture. > > Nothing needs to be remedied! > > Nothing needs to be gotten rid of or fixed!!!!! > > geo> These center of emotional feelings you talk about is subjetive, we can > not talk about it. We can not qutify it. > === You've been talking a lot about a " psychological center. " Can that be quantified? We've both talked about " awareness, " can that be quantified? And with things that can be measured, the measurement depends on an observer, and a group of observers, who have agreed on how to measure. So measurement always includes a subjective aspect. The subject is never actually separate from the object. The object always involves a " subjective " aspect (i.e., the object is always in some way perceived/experienced), and the subject always involves an " objective " aspect (i.e., the subject arises aware of an object). - 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 , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> " My " walking robot is there also, and that is clear the moment I wake > up. But that is not me > I have realized that there is only this, never was another and never will > be. No time. Said nothing. > > Have you seen the permanent fixed " smille " in the priests faces? They say > they are in gods arms - always, forever and ever. I don't hang around people that much... but it seems to be increasing. I see all sorts of funny stuff. Endless variety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Well there you go, ask the wrong question, you'll get the wrong answer. ;-) Life is not answered in either/or. It's always " Yes " ~ " And " . ~A -- In Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > boredom, anxiety, dissatisfaction, anger are emotional responses. > > emotional responses can be viewed " from silence " as well. > > who is viewing? > > is it the person viewing, or is the person being viewed? > > - d - > > > It is the person being wiewed. > Over there, with you, are all emotional responses wiewed from silence? > -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 , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> Omkara is tim? The two words aren't the same, are they? ;-). 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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > geo> Except the drive to try to change :>(( > > It's just a habit, and can be kicked. Inquire - what is it that's changing? Memory is being added to (maybe). What else is changing? 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.