Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:45 AM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Before the very first thought is already awareness > > Before the first thought, before the first sight, sound, smell, taste or > touch; > > In the beginning was the word. > > Prior to the beginning, no word ever was. > > geo>Prior to the beguining? before the beginning of after the ending of outside the inside Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:22 PM > > it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > awareness is not found on the " other side " .. > > > > through any process or meditation. > > > > the very first thought.. > > > > happens already in awareness. > > > > any journey from that thought foreward.. > > > > can only happen in awareness. > > > > it cannot be taking " you " towards awareness. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Before the very first thought is already awareness > > > why the need to repeat what was said in the post you reply to? > > refresher? > > .b b.b. it's not in the words or the thought you can repeat the words ad infinitum an endless echo echo into stillness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Before the very first thought is already awareness > > > > Before the first thought, before the first sight, sound, smell, taste or touch; > > > > In the beginning was the word. > > > > Prior to the beginning, no word ever was. > > > there was no beginning. > > the notion " prior " is error. > > .b b.b. there was no error the notion " error " is absurd there was no absurdity the notion " absurd " is a mind fart there is no mind fart there is no mind there is only jello the raspberry flavor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:45 AM > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Before the very first thought is already awareness > > > > Before the first thought, before the first sight, sound, smell, taste or > > touch; > > > > In the beginning was the word. > > > > Prior to the beginning, no word ever was. > > > > geo>Prior to the beguining? > > before the beginning of after the ending of outside the inside Prior to the beguining, begins the beguine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an > > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it? > > I dont know > > Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation. > > Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such. > > There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject to > interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation. > > geo> The only way you can get away with this is if you say that > interpretation is the same as consciousness or the same as the world. > Any implication of something being interpreted to a subject receiver of some > interpretation is conceptual. > > I think what is is absense of any interpretation. There is living as > orgnism/consciousness. none so blind ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an > > > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it? > > > I dont know > > > > Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation. > > > > Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such. > > > > There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject to > > interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation. > > > > geo> The only way you can get away with this is if you say that > > interpretation is the same as consciousness or the same as the world. > > Any implication of something being interpreted to a subject receiver of some > > interpretation is conceptual. > > > > I think what is is absense of any interpretation. There is living as > > orgnism/consciousness. > > none so blind ... " I think " indeed so :-p. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:35 PM > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an > > > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it? > > > I dont know > > > > Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation. > > > > Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such. > > > > There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject to > > interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation. > > > > geo> The only way you can get away with this is if you say that > > interpretation is the same as consciousness or the same as the world. > > Any implication of something being interpreted to a subject receiver of some > > interpretation is conceptual. > > once you understand that the world you experience is a description > > a translation > > you know > > without anything being known It isn't subject ('I') to (interpretation). It's just (very just) absence of interpretation ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, June 08, 2009 4:18 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an > > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it? > > I dont know > > Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation. > > Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such. > > There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject > to > interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation. > > geo> The only way you can get away with this is if you say that > interpretation is the same as consciousness or the same as the world. > Any implication of something being interpreted to a subject receiver of > some > interpretation is conceptual. > > I think what is is absense of any interpretation. There is living as > orgnism/consciousness. none so blind ... ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, June 08, 2009 4:22 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:35 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an > > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it? > > I dont know > > Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation. > > Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such. > > There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject > to > interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation. > > geo> The only way you can get away with this is if you say that > interpretation is the same as consciousness or the same as the world. > Any implication of something being interpreted to a subject receiver of > some > interpretation is conceptual. once you understand that the world you experience is a description a translation you know without anything being known geo> There is no me experiencing the world. The world is not a description nor a translation of another world. The human world IS as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> There is no me experiencing the world. The world is not a description > nor a translation of another world. > The human world IS as it is. The human world is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, June 08, 2009 4:54 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> There is no me experiencing the world. The world is not a description > nor a translation of another world. > The human world IS as it is. The human world is not. geo> The color of the sky is a description? The sound of thunder is a description? The sense of heat, the teste of sweet...are translations? The human world is where the human organism can live. No human world, no human organsim, no human consciousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, June 08, 2009 4:54 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> There is no me experiencing the world. The world is not a description > nor a translation of another world. > The human world IS as it is. The human world is not. geo> The human world is a patterning of the one that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:22 PM > > > it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > awareness is not found on the " other side " .. > > > > > > through any process or meditation. > > > > > > the very first thought.. > > > > > > happens already in awareness. > > > > > > any journey from that thought foreward.. > > > > > > can only happen in awareness. > > > > > > it cannot be taking " you " towards awareness. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Before the very first thought is already awareness > > > > > > why the need to repeat what was said in the post you reply to? > > > > refresher? > > > > .b b.b. > > it's not in the words > > or the thought > > you can repeat the words ad infinitum > > an endless echo > > echo > > into stillness oh i see. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Before the very first thought is already awareness > > > > > > Before the first thought, before the first sight, sound, smell, taste or touch; > > > > > > In the beginning was the word. > > > > > > Prior to the beginning, no word ever was. > > > > > > there was no beginning. > > > > the notion " prior " is error. > > > > .b b.b. > > there was no error > > the notion " error " is absurd > > there was no absurdity > > the notion " absurd " is a mind fart > > there is no mind fart > > there is no mind > > there is only jello > > the raspberry flavor uh huh. sure. you bet. how 'bout those Red Wings eh? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before the very first thought is already awareness > > > > > > > > Before the first thought, before the first sight, sound, smell, taste or touch; > > > > > > > > In the beginning was the word. > > > > > > > > Prior to the beginning, no word ever was. > > > > > > > > > there was no beginning. > > > > > > the notion " prior " is error. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > I stand corrected. > > I sit genuflected. you bend your ass? how droll. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:35 PM > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an > > > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it? > > > I dont know > > > > Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation. > > > > Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such. > > > > There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject to > > interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation. > > > > geo> The only way you can get away with this is if you say that > > interpretation is the same as consciousness or the same as the world. > > Any implication of something being interpreted to a subject receiver of some > > interpretation is conceptual. > > once you understand that the world you experience is a description > > a translation > > you know > > without anything being known and ah.. " you " : " know " .. " understand " .. a..ah..a ahhhahaahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaa! ok. LOL! ..b b..b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> There is no me experiencing the world. The world is not a description > > nor a translation of another world. > > The human world IS as it is. > > The human world is not. tell that to every serviceman in Iraq and Afghanastan maybe the gents riding with you on the bus believe your bullshit. the real human world thinks.. you're a fucking lost wannabe philosophy nerd. but fuck that human world is not. so alone as a nonhuman observer you can feel at ease. how fucking stupid. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Before the very first thought is already awareness > > > > Before the first thought, before the first sight, sound, smell, taste or touch; > > > > In the beginning was the word. > > > > Prior to the beginning, no word ever was. > > > " the b'bird's the word " > > Trashmen I swear there's a morning bird around here that goes " you... you... you... ME! you... you... you... ME! " The bird really is the word ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:51 AM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Before the very first thought is already awareness > > > > Before the first thought, before the first sight, sound, smell, taste or > > touch; > > > > In the beginning was the word. > > > > Prior to the beginning, no word ever was. > > > " the b'bird's the word " > > Trashmen I swear there's a morning bird around here that goes " you... you... you... ME! you... you... you... ME! " The bird really is the word ;-). -tim- There is a funny bird here also, sitting in front of a screen... -geo-. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:35 PM > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an > > > > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it? > > > > I dont know > > > > > > Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation. > > > > > > Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such. > > > > > > There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject to > > > interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation. > > > > > > geo> The only way you can get away with this is if you say that > > > interpretation is the same as consciousness or the same as the world. > > > Any implication of something being interpreted to a subject receiver of some > > > interpretation is conceptual. > > > > once you understand that the world you experience is a description > > > > a translation > > > > you know > > > > without anything being known > > It isn't subject ('I') to (interpretation). It's just (very just) absence of interpretation ;-). Yes, one's interpretive template becomes what is known as reality: me/you inside/outside yesterday/today/tomorrow We go from the template (thought) to reality (we think), applying our changing template (which we consider learning, life experience, survival. With no movement to template, and no template to apply, there is no activity of thought. Often, this is expressed in negative terms: no template, no I or you, no time, no becoming But it isn't a negation There isn't anything missing or not happening that needs to happen One understands clearly, without anything being known or needing to be known It is resolved, without anything having to be resolved. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, June 08, 2009 4:18 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an > > > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it? > > > I dont know > > > > Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation. > > > > Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such. > > > > There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject > > to > > interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation. > > > > geo> The only way you can get away with this is if you say that > > interpretation is the same as consciousness or the same as the world. > > Any implication of something being interpreted to a subject receiver of > > some > > interpretation is conceptual. > > > > I think what is is absense of any interpretation. There is living as > > orgnism/consciousness. > > none so blind ... > > ?? be those question marks no movement to " something " to " anything " or even to " nothing " ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, June 08, 2009 4:22 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:35 PM > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an > > > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it? > > > I dont know > > > > Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation. > > > > Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such. > > > > There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject > > to > > interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation. > > > > geo> The only way you can get away with this is if you say that > > interpretation is the same as consciousness or the same as the world. > > Any implication of something being interpreted to a subject receiver of > > some > > interpretation is conceptual. > > once you understand that the world you experience is a description > > a translation > > you know > > without anything being known > > geo> There is no me experiencing the world. The world is not a description > nor a translation of another world. > The human world IS as it is. it's nice for you to know that so definitely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Monday, June 08, 2009 4:54 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> There is no me experiencing the world. The world is not a description > > nor a translation of another world. > > The human world IS as it is. > > The human world is not. > > geo> The human world is a patterning of the one that is. you and your patternings ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Tim G. > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:35 PM > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an > > > > > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it? > > > > > I dont know > > > > > > > > Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation. > > > > > > > > Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such. > > > > > > > > There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject to > > > > interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation. > > > > > > > > geo> The only way you can get away with this is if you say that > > > > interpretation is the same as consciousness or the same as the world. > > > > Any implication of something being interpreted to a subject receiver of some > > > > interpretation is conceptual. > > > > > > once you understand that the world you experience is a description > > > > > > a translation > > > > > > you know > > > > > > without anything being known > > > > It isn't subject ('I') to (interpretation). It's just (very just) absence of interpretation ;-). > > Yes, one's interpretive template becomes what is known as reality: me/you inside/outside yesterday/today/tomorrow > > We go from the template (thought) to reality (we think), applying our changing template (which we consider learning, life experience, survival. > > With no movement to template, and no template to apply, there is no activity of thought. > > Often, this is expressed in negative terms: no template, no I or you, no time, no becoming > > But it isn't a negation Indeed so. " Absence " isn't a quality, isn't the presence of absence. > There isn't anything missing or not happening that needs to happen > > One understands clearly, without anything being known or needing to be known > > It is resolved, without anything having to be resolved. > > - d - Yup yup, sez the muppet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:43 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, June 08, 2009 4:22 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:35 PM > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an > > > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it? > > > I dont know > > > > Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation. > > > > Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such. > > > > There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject > > to > > interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation. > > > > geo> The only way you can get away with this is if you say that > > interpretation is the same as consciousness or the same as the world. > > Any implication of something being interpreted to a subject receiver of > > some > > interpretation is conceptual. > > once you understand that the world you experience is a description > > a translation > > you know > > without anything being known > > geo> There is no me experiencing the world. The world is not a description > nor a translation of another world. > The human world IS as it is. it's nice for you to know that so definitely geo> I dont understand what you mean...or maybe there is nothing to understand anyway... 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.