Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 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. > > Funny! it's so logical that a comment about you.. needs to be commented on by yourself.. in a form of critical praise.. about the astuteness and humor found in.. any discussion involving your sacred self. you're so self depreciating in a satirical way. 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 , " 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 - if there is an examiner and examined danny.. there is delusion. ..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 , " 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. no, you didn't have to divide yourself. you don't have that power, never did. - 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 , " 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! > > > it's so logical that a comment about you.. > > needs to be commented on by yourself.. > > in a form of critical praise.. > > about the astuteness and humor found in.. > > any discussion involving your sacred self. > > you're so self depreciating in a satirical way. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. you continue to make personalized comments about entities you say don't exist. yet, that is where your energy goes. a contradiction. - 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 , " 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. > > > no, you didn't have to divide yourself. > > you don't have that power, never did. > > > > - d - i didn't. you did. you made that stupid statement. if you say awareness is not divided.. you've divided it before you say it that way. how fucking dense are you? don't give us any bullshit about how you aren't conscious.. of yourself as a separate entity called DAN-I. it's so fucking obvious that you are not only caught up in Danny.. but that you think that " Dan " .. is outside the bounds of " common human experience " . you're not Danny. you're just a dumb ass like everyone else me included. your shit stinks. and no matter how that disgusts you.. God makes shit..made the word for it.. and YOU daniel do not judge God. sorry to let you in on this my child. ..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 , " 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! > > > > > > it's so logical that a comment about you.. > > > > needs to be commented on by yourself.. > > > > in a form of critical praise.. > > > > about the astuteness and humor found in.. > > > > any discussion involving your sacred self. > > > > you're so self depreciating in a satirical way. > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > you continue to make personalized comments about entities you say don't exist. > > yet, that is where your energy goes. > > a contradiction. > > - d - no. statements reflecting the paradoxical. however.. it's no paradox that you're a dumb ass. it's wholly fitting. and dan..psst..hint hint: " you " are not the " general you " . it is not now nor has it ever been.. all about Dan as " you " . get over yourself. suck it up and grow up. ..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 , " 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 - > > > > > > if there is an examiner and examined danny.. > > > > there is delusion. > > > > .b b.b. > > correct. > > and if there is a commentator and someone commented about, there is delusion. > > - d - this is just the Voicing from the Wilderness. i but a poor lowly trumpet. an empty tube through which Wisdom's Siren sings. no comment nor commentator be. these are but parts and parcels of your delusional impulses. bless you.. for the misunderstanding sheep shall inherit the breezy buffalo fart. ..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 Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:42 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. 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 - How would you tackle say.....smoking habit? It is not a good habit. Or heroin. -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 Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:51 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. 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 - What is this now?... Amnesia, or I miss-read something? It was you who wrote " Krishnmurti, who popularized this idea about not having a psychological center, frequently expressed emotional reactions and a sense of self " - was it not? Then you say: " nonetheless, there never has been an actual psychological self for anyone " . That is nonsense. The issue is not to find some spot like a center, but the illusion of the feeling of an entity inside looking at an outside world. Do you meet people dan? Then ask one of them if he/she feels as if looking out through the eyes....or ask him if he feels there is a ME inside. Ask him!. Do it. 99,999999% feels there is someone inside. That is the self!! It is not actual, but he feels 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 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? geo> Of course it is. We dont know them, never met them. geo said> Now...human beings can live with or without the illusion of a self. It is a fact. I know it in myself. D: You just said you wouldn't discuss this. geo> Ks or Nis or Buddhas or Jesus selfs 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 2:10 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. 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 - OK..I give up. -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 Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:15 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. 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 - Awareness is actual as long as there is seeing/being THERE/HERE. Otherwise is like the the priest: a belief. -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: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > no, you didn't have to divide yourself. > > > > you don't have that power, never did. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > i didn't. > > you did. > > you made that stupid statement. > > if you say awareness is not divided.. > > you've divided it before you say it that way. > > how fucking dense are you? > > don't give us any bullshit about how you aren't conscious.. > > of yourself as a separate entity called DAN-I. > > it's so fucking obvious that you are not only caught up in Danny.. > > but that you think that " Dan " .. > > is outside the bounds of " common human experience " . > > you're not Danny. > > you're just a dumb ass like everyone else me included. > > your shit stinks. > > and no matter how that disgusts you.. > > God makes shit..made the word for it.. > > and YOU daniel do not judge God. > > sorry to let you in on this my child. > > .b b.b. i didn't read this post all the way through. i lost interest very quickly. probably that's because you're posting negative personal reactions in almost every post, apparently oblivious to points being made, and repeating this reactive pattern over and over. it's difficult for me to see what that has to do with what Nisargadatta addressed, or how it's appropriate to a list like this, but that's just me. the list is pretty much unmoderated, so you will do your self-gratifying thing. apparently, you get something out of it. - 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 1:42 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > 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 - > > How would you tackle say.....smoking habit? It is not a good habit. Or > heroin. > -geo- by presupposing someone who would benefit from changing the self-destructive habit. - 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 1:51 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > 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 - > > What is this now?... Amnesia, or I miss-read something? It was you who wrote > " Krishnmurti, who popularized this idea about not having a psychological > center, frequently expressed emotional reactions and a sense of self " - was > it not? Then you say: " nonetheless, there never has been an actual > psychological self for anyone " . That is nonsense. The issue is not to find > some spot like a center, but the illusion of the feeling of an entity inside > looking at an outside world. Aha! When you say it that way, it makes much more sense to me. Do you meet people dan? Then ask one of them if > he/she feels as if looking out through the eyes....or ask him if he feels > there is a ME inside. Ask him!. Do it. 99,999999% feels there is someone > inside. That is the self!! It is not actual, but he feels it is. I agree with you on this. Yes, most people apparently have the presupposition that awareness is on one side of the eyeballs looking out at a world that is separate from their awareness. The way I was taking the term " psychological center " was as a center from which emotional reactions or desires of the self stem from. It makes a lot more sense the way you put it above, although I would call that a divided sense of being aware, or a separative sense of being aware - something like that. - 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? > > geo> Of course it is. We dont know them, never met them. > > geo said> Now...human beings can live with or without the illusion of a > self. > It is a fact. I know it in myself. > > D: You just said you wouldn't discuss this. > > geo> Ks or Nis or Buddhas or Jesus selfs If we are talking about the distorted belief of a separately existing awareness, it makes a lot more sense to me. And I would look at it this way: A human being is a construction appearing in and through awareness. Awareness is not something in a human being. Being awake may be construed in the human community as something that a person does, or a quality belonging to a person. But that is not so. The entirety of the human community, and the world that human relate to, appears in and through 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 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:09 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:42 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > 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 - > > How would you tackle say.....smoking habit? It is not a good habit. Or > heroin. > -geo- by presupposing someone who would benefit from changing the self-destructive habit. - d - Would you mind elaborating this? -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: > > > > > > 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 - > > Awareness is actual as long as there is seeing/being THERE/HERE. Otherwise > is like the the priest: a belief. > -geo- the priest and his belief are a construction appearing in/through awareness. the priest is not a center for knowing. it doesn't matter whether or not the priest knows this. because the priest can't know this. the knowing of this is only as awareness, undivided. awareness has never lost awareness, nor has awareness ever diminished awareness. the actuality of this is not a theory nor dependent on any words about it. - 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 2:10 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > 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 - > > OK..I give up. > -geo- I'm not sure what you're giving up on, but ok. - 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 6:14 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:51 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > 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 - > > What is this now?... Amnesia, or I miss-read something? It was you who > wrote > " Krishnmurti, who popularized this idea about not having a psychological > center, frequently expressed emotional reactions and a sense of self " - > was > it not? Then you say: " nonetheless, there never has been an actual > psychological self for anyone " . That is nonsense. The issue is not to find > some spot like a center, but the illusion of the feeling of an entity > inside > looking at an outside world. Aha! When you say it that way, it makes much more sense to me. -d- JEEEEZZZzzzzzz....I said that at least 28 times just this week. -geo- Do you meet people dan? Then ask one of them if > he/she feels as if looking out through the eyes....or ask him if he feels > there is a ME inside. Ask him!. Do it. 99,999999% feels there is someone > inside. That is the self!! It is not actual, but he feels it is. I agree with you on this. Yes, most people apparently have the presupposition that awareness is on one side of the eyeballs looking out at a world that is separate from their awareness. The way I was taking the term " psychological center " was as a center from which emotional reactions or desires of the self stem from. It makes a lot more sense the way you put it above, although I would call that a divided sense of being aware, or a separative sense of being aware - something like that. - D - It is plainly, simply the sense of inner entity. (29) -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: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:09 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:42 PM > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 - > > > > How would you tackle say.....smoking habit? It is not a good habit. Or > > heroin. > > -geo- > > by presupposing someone who would benefit from changing the self-destructive > habit. > > - d - > > Would you mind elaborating this? > -geo- I take a position as a person speaking with another person. I presuppose someone there to whom I'm speaking, and vice versa. Through those assumptions, we carry on a conversation about changing a habit of which the person is aware. We work on this change together over time. - 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 6:16 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. 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? > > geo> Of course it is. We dont know them, never met them. > > geo said> Now...human beings can live with or without the illusion of a > self. > It is a fact. I know it in myself. > > D: You just said you wouldn't discuss this. > > geo> Ks or Nis or Buddhas or Jesus selfs If we are talking about the distorted belief of a separately existing awareness, it makes a lot more sense to me. And I would look at it this way: A human being is a construction appearing in and through awareness. Awareness is not something in a human being. Being awake may be construed in the human community as something that a person does, or a quality belonging to a person. But that is not so. The entirety of the human community, and the world that human relate to, appears in and through awareness. -- D -- The entirety of the human community, the whole human history, the entirety of time span...is just a bubble. Probably there are infinite different bubbles - who can tell? 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 , " 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. > > > > > > > > > no, you didn't have to divide yourself. > > > > > > you don't have that power, never did. > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > i didn't. > > > > you did. > > > > you made that stupid statement. > > > > if you say awareness is not divided.. > > > > you've divided it before you say it that way. > > > > how fucking dense are you? > > > > don't give us any bullshit about how you aren't conscious.. > > > > of yourself as a separate entity called DAN-I. > > > > it's so fucking obvious that you are not only caught up in Danny.. > > > > but that you think that " Dan " .. > > > > is outside the bounds of " common human experience " . > > > > you're not Danny. > > > > you're just a dumb ass like everyone else me included. > > > > your shit stinks. > > > > and no matter how that disgusts you.. > > > > God makes shit..made the word for it.. > > > > and YOU daniel do not judge God. > > > > sorry to let you in on this my child. > > > > .b b.b. > > i didn't read this post all the way through. > > i lost interest very quickly. > > probably that's because you're posting negative personal reactions in almost every post, apparently oblivious to points being made, and repeating this reactive pattern over and over. > > it's difficult for me to see what that has to do with what Nisargadatta addressed, or how it's appropriate to a list like this, but that's just me. > > the list is pretty much unmoderated, so you will do your self-gratifying thing. > > apparently, you get something out of it. > > - d - i'm not interested in what you think 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: > > 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. You mean, you imagine. I didn't imagine that. > 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. " Well, congratulations then ;-). Enjoy 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 , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > 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 - Indeed so... one could name it as an 'infant state' prior to naming, although there's little point to that. Objects are not seen (at least not here). 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.