Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 > > > 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. geo> When the drama is seen as what is, as the movement of consciousness, I am not.... - no sleep. 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 Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:48 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> Omkara is tim? The two words aren't the same, are they? ;-). sometimes i seem to see your email adress as omkaras 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: > > > 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- There is nothing wrong with a human being expressing emotional reactions or a sense of self. Krishnmurti, who popularized this idea about not having a psychological center, frequently expressed emotional reactions and a sense of self. For example, he often expressed irritation in his tone when talking about how his audience was missing points he was making, or would chastise people for being selfish, or enjoyed shopping for nice clothes, etc. There is nothing wrong with that. He was human, and human beings in their dealings with other human beings, express emotional reactions and patterns that can be interpreted as their personality. So, what I see as the difference in the views that you and I are expressing is this: you are looking at the organism as a unit of consciousness, and saying that it is possible for the unit of consciousness to operate with an organic center but no psychological sense of self and no personality. I am looking at awareness as not-a-unit, and viewing all body-minds without a center. I am looking at awareness as imaginarily one and many, and actually nameless, not definable, and without location. The imaginary aspect allows organisms to be constructed with their imaginary centers of consciousness (which Nis. called " I am. " ). Although consciousness can function in a body-mind unit to self-define (e.g., to respond to a name, to know its history, to have a sense of an " organic center " ), awareness isn't viewing the body-mind as a separable unit. It is, as you have said, a non-divided movement of arising/dissolving. The body-mind-consciousnesses are therefore not divided from awareness, and the sensing that is involved in organismic life is not separated from center-less awareness. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 > > geo> Except the drive to try to change :>(( It's just a habit, and can be kicked. One could say that to all habits.... I guess that is so indeed. After all the ME is just another habit ONCE IT HAS BEEN SEEN. 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 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- Yes, the sense of " I am " that is involved in organismic life, as you have said. The organismic center is operational. And I am capable of having selfish motives, too. I am not a saint. Yet, awareness is here, as it is there. And awareness is not centered on " I am, " nor on psychological motives. So, for awareness this organismic life is a play, a play of imagined oppositions, light and dark, life and death, all arising with/from awareness. And at its nameless heart, so to speak, awareness is not divided, never has been. Smiles, Dan 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: > > > > > 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. and is not the drama. - 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 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- > > > Yes, the sense of " I am " that is involved in organismic life, as you have said. The organismic center is operational. And I am capable of having selfish motives, too. I am not a saint. Yet, awareness is here, as it is there. And awareness is not centered on " I am, " nor on psychological motives. So, for awareness this organismic life is a play, a play of imagined oppositions, light and dark, life and death, all arising with/from awareness. And at its nameless heart, so to speak, awareness is not divided, never has been. > > Smiles, > > Dan your awareness is squarely and only focused and centered on 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 , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > There is nothing wrong with a human being expressing emotional reactions or a sense of self. Krishnmurti, who popularized this idea about not having a psychological center, frequently expressed emotional reactions and a sense of self. For example, he often expressed irritation in his tone when talking about how his audience was missing points he was making, or would chastise people for being selfish, or enjoyed shopping for nice clothes, etc. > The rumor is that Niz. frequently 'got angry' as well. Clearly, a psychological center isn't needed, and wasn't ever there. However, emotional reactivity of the type associated with having a self may disappear. For example, sitting alone and missing somebody, and crying about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > 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 If it's yes/and, then how can there be a " wrong " question? And does life need to be answered? I don't hear life asking any questions. I hear people asking questions, though. - D > > > > > -- 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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > your awareness is squarely and only focused and centered on Dan. > > .b b.b. Dan is a word, and he doesn't seem to be too focused on it. 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 Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:59 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor 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. > > 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- There is nothing wrong with a human being expressing emotional reactions or a sense of self. Krishnmurti, who popularized this idea about not having a psychological center, frequently expressed emotional reactions and a sense of self. For example, he often expressed irritation in his tone when talking about how his audience was missing points he was making, or would chastise people for being selfish, or enjoyed shopping for nice clothes, etc. There is nothing wrong with that. He was human, and human beings in their dealings with other human beings, express emotional reactions and patterns that can be interpreted as their personality. geo> I will not engage in a discussion about the self or no-self of K or Nis or any other, or analyse their doings. Now...human beings can live with or without the illusion of a self. Human beings can not live without recognising chairs, or feeling pain in the body (except in hospital maybe). To live with the illusion of a center is limiting - and a loss of possibilies. === So, what I see as the difference in the views that you and I are expressing is this: you are looking at the organism as a unit of consciousness, and saying that it is possible for the unit of consciousness to operate with an organic center but no psychological sense of self and no personality. geo> There is the chair...I walk over there and sit on it. There is feelings of touch in the body...there is no feelings in the chair, that is why " my " body is diferent from the chair although the human world is one movement. === I am looking at awareness as not-a-unit, and viewing all body-minds without a center. I am looking at awareness as imaginarily one and many, and actually nameless, not definable, and without location. geo>You are looking at awareness? === The imaginary aspect allows organisms to be constructed with their imaginary centers of consciousness (which Nis. called " I am. " ). Although consciousness can function in a body-mind unit to self-define (e.g., to respond to a name, to know its history, to have a sense of an " organic center " ), awareness isn't viewing the body-mind as a separable unit. It is, as you have said, a non-divided movement of arising/dissolving. The body-mind-consciousnesses are therefore not divided from awareness, and the sensing that is involved in organismic life is not separated from center-less awareness. geo> We both are " able " to look at this consciousness as one unit/event/movement. BTW, any other way is fragmentation. The seeing is not separate from consciusness. The nature of consciousness is space - time - plurality - light - oneness. - 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: > > > > > > your awareness is squarely and only focused and centered on Dan. > > > > .b b.b. > > Dan is a word, and he doesn't seem to be too focused on it. i'm not talking about the Word. i'm talking about Dan. flesh and blood and bullshit Dan. and that Dan is absolutely ONLY focused on that 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 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:52 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. 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? geo> everything is changing always 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. > > > > 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- Yes, the sense of " I am " that is involved in organismic life, as you have said. The organismic center is operational. And I am capable of having selfish motives, too. I am not a saint. Yet, awareness is here, as it is there. And awareness is not centered on " I am, " nor on psychological motives. So, for awareness this organismic life is a play, a play of imagined oppositions, light and dark, life and death, all arising with/from awareness. And at its nameless heart, so to speak, awareness is not divided, never has been. Smiles, Dan This egg of dynamic light is all movement... being seen. -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: > > > > > > > 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. > > geo> When the drama is seen as what is, as the movement of consciousness, I > am not.... - no sleep. The " I " is the drama that is being seen as what it is. The " I " is a feeling of existing, and a resulting set of preferences that create a division between " desired/feared " " wanted/not wanted " and so on, that results in emotionally charged drama. The One that knows that drama as drama, is not attached to any position in the drama. - 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 Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:07 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. 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- not just mine. all. yours too. there is no " you " or " me " separating this awareness/field. - d - The priest from the corner church has a permanent grin in his face and keeps saying that all is god - with the bible under his arms. -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> Except the drive to try to change :>(( > > It's just a habit, and can be kicked. > > One could say that to all habits.... I guess that is so indeed. After all > the ME is just another habit ONCE IT HAS BEEN SEEN. The desire or intention to kick a habit, is also the so-called " me. " The belief that it is better not to have a habit, than to have a habit, is the so-called " me. " - 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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > 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- > > > > > > Yes, the sense of " I am " that is involved in organismic life, as you have said. The organismic center is operational. And I am capable of having selfish motives, too. I am not a saint. Yet, awareness is here, as it is there. And awareness is not centered on " I am, " nor on psychological motives. So, for awareness this organismic life is a play, a play of imagined oppositions, light and dark, life and death, all arising with/from awareness. And at its nameless heart, so to speak, awareness is not divided, never has been. > > > > Smiles, > > > > Dan > > > your awareness is squarely and only focused and centered on Dan. > > .b b.b. awareness is not divided. - 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: > > > > There is nothing wrong with a human being expressing emotional reactions or a sense of self. Krishnmurti, who popularized this idea about not having a psychological center, frequently expressed emotional reactions and a sense of self. For example, he often expressed irritation in his tone when talking about how his audience was missing points he was making, or would chastise people for being selfish, or enjoyed shopping for nice clothes, etc. > > > > The rumor is that Niz. frequently 'got angry' as well. > > Clearly, a psychological center isn't needed, and wasn't ever there. > > However, emotional reactivity of the type associated with having a self may disappear. For example, sitting alone and missing somebody, and crying about it. From here, the whole endeavor to imagine that one person has no psychological self and another person does, is the endeavor of the psychological self. It's a meaningless distinction. You never met Niz., yet you imagine him as acting without a psychological center. This is a mind creation of an image of a human being along with a rationale for the motives of that human being. Such images are mind-created, and involve psychological choices in the formation of the image. Any human being forming such images is evidencing a so-called " psychological self. " Nonetheless, there never has been an actual psychological self for anyone. That is because there has never been any thing, including any organismic thing. And thus, there has never been a real center for an imagined thing. - 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: > > > > > > your awareness is squarely and only focused and centered on Dan. > > > > .b b.b. > > Dan is a word, and he doesn't seem to be too focused on it. Funny! 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: > > > > > > > > > your awareness is squarely and only focused and centered on Dan. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Dan is a word, and he doesn't seem to be too focused on it. > > > i'm not talking about the Word. > > i'm talking about Dan. > > flesh and blood and bullshit Dan. > > and that Dan is absolutely ONLY focused on that Dan. > > .b b.b. it's an image created in the mind of the poster. which you don't seem to get, because you believe there is no bob. yet, somehow, you impute motives and images to " others. " meanwhile saying that constructing these images and accusing them of things is entertainment for you. at the same time that you say you believe none of it exists. and so it goes round and round, unexamined. - 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> I will not engage in a discussion about the self or no-self of K or Nis > or any other, or analyse their doings. D: Great! So, it's a meaningless discussion, is it not? > Now...human beings can live with or without the illusion of a self. D: You just said you wouldn't discuss this. Now, you're discussing it. What is the benefit? If you are without any illusion of self, then what is your concern with " other human beings " and whether or not they have selves? Human > beings can not live without recognising chairs, or feeling pain in the body > (except in hospital maybe). To live with the illusion of a center is > limiting - and a loss of possibilies. > === So, if there is no center, then there is no " you " that has no center, correct? And if so, what is the concern with defining human beings and whether or not they have centers? There is no " you " to do this defining of human beings, no? > So, what I see as the difference in the views that you and I are expressing > is this: you are looking at the organism as a unit of consciousness, and > saying that it is possible for the unit of consciousness to operate with an > organic center but no psychological sense of self and no personality. > > geo> There is the chair...I walk over there and sit on it. There is feelings > of touch in the body...there is no feelings in the chair, that is why " my " > body is diferent from the chair although the human world is one movement. > === Do you see that you have learned this differentiation by application of memory? > I am looking at awareness as not-a-unit, and viewing all body-minds without > a center. I am looking at awareness as imaginarily one and many, and > actually nameless, not definable, and without location. > > geo>You are looking at awareness? > === As I noted above, " imaginarily. " In actuality, I cannot look at awareness, hence it can't be named nor defined. > > The imaginary aspect allows organisms to be constructed with their imaginary > centers of consciousness (which Nis. called " I am. " ). Although consciousness > can function in a body-mind unit to self-define (e.g., to respond to a name, > to know its history, to have a sense of an " organic center " ), awareness > isn't viewing the body-mind as a separable unit. It is, as you have said, a > non-divided movement of arising/dissolving. The body-mind-consciousnesses > are therefore not divided from awareness, and the sensing that is involved > in organismic life is not separated from center-less awareness. > > geo> We both are " able " to look at this consciousness as one > unit/event/movement. BTW, any other way is fragmentation. The seeing is not > separate from consciusness. The nature of consciousness is space - time - > plurality - light - oneness. And what is aware of " consciousness " one cannot speak of. Yet, here one rests. This " rest " involves no activity, ever. It is timeless and inexpressible. It is not what we are talking about, which are words. I rest here. No mentation, nothing to conceptualize. " Eternal rest " you could say. - 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> OK..I will try to put it in another way. The illusion of some inner > entity - self - is a desiese. The sense of being an organism that sees > colors, hears sounds, feels warms, recognises chairs...is not a desiese. If > we dare to consider " awareness " ....the moment there is seeing from > emptiness...the entity dispears as if sucked out from the world. But chairs > colors and tastes continue without harm done. The view I have of this issue is that the chairs, colors, tastes, disappear. And appear. Along with the one to whom they appear, and the world in which they appear. - 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: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:07 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > 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- > > not just mine. > > all. > > yours too. > > there is no " you " or " me " separating this awareness/field. > > - d - > > The priest from the corner church has a permanent grin in his face and keeps > saying that all is god - with the bible under his arms. > -geo- I am not taking my words as the truth, nor do I have a permanent grin. The actuality of the awareness doesn't involve " you " or " I " knowing about it, nor does it require any words or priests or bibles. - 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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > 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- > > > > > > > > > Yes, the sense of " I am " that is involved in organismic life, as you have said. The organismic center is operational. And I am capable of having selfish motives, too. I am not a saint. Yet, awareness is here, as it is there. And awareness is not centered on " I am, " nor on psychological motives. So, for awareness this organismic life is a play, a play of imagined oppositions, light and dark, life and death, all arising with/from awareness. And at its nameless heart, so to speak, awareness is not divided, never has been. > > > > > > Smiles, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > your awareness is squarely and only focused and centered on Dan. > > > > .b b.b. > > awareness is not divided. > > > - d - well you had to divide yourself off from the One.. in order to make a statement like that. you only zoom yourself danny. ..b b.b. 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.