Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > There is the time measured by the watch and there is psychological > time like past and future. And there is apparently an (artificial, arbitrary) separation of the two... fair enough ;-). > The 'Now' does not exist, it is a concept. You can't say the " Now " is a concept, right after asserting that clock-time is real. It makes no sense. Either clock time is (and there is now), or it isn't, and there is no now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > There is the time measured by the watch and there is psychological > time like past and future. > > And there is apparently an (artificial, arbitrary) separation of the two... fair enough ;-). > > > The 'Now' does not exist, it is a concept. > > You can't say the " Now " is a concept, right after asserting that clock-time is real. It makes no sense. Either clock time is (and there is now), or it isn't, and there is no now. > Fwiw, the way I'd put it is that " Now " is the absence of conceptualizing past and future. Yes, in truth there is no Now, but it's one of those nondual pointers or indicators. If it makes people feel all cool and nondual to say " there is no Now " , it's all good :-p. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The human being cannot get outside itself to know it's a human > > > > > > > being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, the human being is not a human being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reality is. Nothing more can be said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Allow me please to add a bit more: > > > > > > > > > > > > There are as many realities as ther are human beings. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > True, as there are no human beings ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get your nose out of all those Advaita books and forget all that bull. Get > > > > a live, Tim. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > I am Life. > > > > > > Reality is artificially split by thought and imagination. > > > > > > Reality imagines itself a human being. > > > > > > Imagines there's a " Tim " . > > > > > > geo> There is difference between " Tim " and " human being " . > > > Tim may leave right now....the human being will remain till the body kicks - > > > without Tim. > > > > " The human being " is a verbal/conceptual definition. It's imaginary. > > > > > No, Tim, > > " Human being " is a spezifying category like for example insects, birs, snakes etc ... > > When we speak of human beings we don't mean insects, or do we ? > > Werner when we speak of the human being werner we mean that yes. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > And if you get bitten by such a conceptual skane (which God might > > fobid) the you will suffer from conceptual pain, right Tim ? > > Right, Werner ;-). what the hell is werner trying to say? i've read the full rendition too. is it me? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Got life? > > > > ~A > > Life is what I am, not what I " have " . it will improve. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > There is the time measured by the watch and there is psychological > time like past and future. > > And there is apparently an (artificial, arbitrary) separation of the two... fair enough ;-). > > > The 'Now' does not exist, it is a concept. > > You can't say the " Now " is a concept, right after asserting that clock-time is real. It makes no sense. Either clock time is (and there is now), or it isn't, and there is no now. > Where did I write that the time measured by the watch is resl ? Can you plesase show it to me, Tim ? The time by watch is just a convenience, an agreement within society not to miss an appointment or it is technically used by the stop watch etc ... But as already explained the philosophical 'now' does not exist. It is a concept. So many so called spiritual people are riding the horse of the 'now' and are so proud of this horse but it won't bring them anywhere besides into day-dreaming of a spiritual career as a guru Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Where did I write that the time measured by the watch is resl ? Can > you plesase show it to me, Tim ? Stop calling me Tim... I'm Werner ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > And if you get bitten by such a conceptual skane (which God might > > > fobid) the you will suffer from conceptual pain, right Tim ? > > > > Right, Werner ;-). > > > what the hell is werner trying to say? He's trying to say about hell, but can't express it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > There is the time measured by the watch and there is psychological > time like past and future. > > > > And there is apparently an (artificial, arbitrary) separation of the two... fair enough ;-). > > > > > The 'Now' does not exist, it is a concept. > > > > You can't say the " Now " is a concept, right after asserting that clock-time is real. It makes no sense. Either clock time is (and there is now), or it isn't, and there is no now. > > > > > Where did I write that the time measured by the watch is resl ? Can you plesase show it to me, Tim ? > > The time by watch is just a convenience, an agreement within society not to miss an appointment or it is technically used by the stop watch etc ... > > But as already explained the philosophical 'now' does not exist. It is a concept. So many so called spiritual people are riding the horse of the 'now' and are so proud of this horse but it won't bring them anywhere besides into day-dreaming of a spiritual career as a guru > > Werner why the fuck are you obsessed with what is and what isn't real? what kind of phony fucking doctor science are you? here i had thought you were saying something about nothing.. but you're actually saying nothing about something. you don't know what you're talking about. you don't even know why you're talking. i want a refund! time doesn't come cheap. $.b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > Got life? > > > > > > ~A > > > > Life is what I am, not what I " have " . > > > it will improve. > > .b b.b. It will (wills, wants to) improve. It does? Whazzit? What's 'it'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > why the fuck are you obsessed with what is and what isn't real? Same reason Pete's obsessed about the brain, I'd think. Attachment, looking for something to cling to in a conceptual universe of uncertainty. All they gotta do is exit that universe, but they're scared to. > what kind of phony fucking doctor science are you? > > here i had thought you were saying something about nothing.. > > but you're actually saying nothing about something. > > you don't know what you're talking about. > > you don't even know why you're talking. Now *that* is true ;-). Then again, I dunno either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > why the fuck are you obsessed with what is and what isn't real? > > Same reason Pete's obsessed about the brain, I'd think. Attachment, looking for something to cling to in a conceptual universe of uncertainty. > > All they gotta do is exit that universe, but they're scared to. > > > what kind of phony fucking doctor science are you? > > > > here i had thought you were saying something about nothing.. > > > > but you're actually saying nothing about something. > > > > you don't know what you're talking about. > > > > you don't even know why you're talking. > > Now *that* is true ;-). Then again, I dunno either. pete's like werner? it was wonder wernie i was referring to. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Where did I write that the time measured by the watch is resl ? Can > > you plesase show it to me, Tim ? > > Stop calling me Tim... I'm Werner ;-). > Tim, I have read that nonsense you are pointing at already a hundred times before. Please be serious and do no longer offer me such stale shit. I doesn't impress me but rather shows me that eventually it is a waste of time to go on conversing with you. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > pete's like werner? Pete likes werner? Does anyone like anyone around here? (LOL). > it was wonder wernie i was referring to. > > .b b.b. I know... I was just putting in a foot-note. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Where did I write that the time measured by the watch is resl ? Can > > > you plesase show it to me, Tim ? > > > > Stop calling me Tim... I'm Werner ;-). > > > > > Tim, > > I have read that nonsense you are pointing at already a hundred > times before. Yes, that must be the issue... reading the same thing over and over, and nothing changing. Eh? > Please be serious and do no longer offer me such stale shit. I'm going to offer what I like. You're going to take it, if you believe you and I exist. And that's final. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:03 PM Re: The human being Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Saturday, June 13, 2009 3:35 PM > Re: The human being > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Neither has any nature, as far as I can see, other than the nature of > > concept. > > > > geo> They are concepts (as their nature) conceived by different > > minds. > > The notion of " different minds " is also a concept. > > One cannot onceptualize themselves out of concept. > > Give up, let go of all of it. > > There's nothing else to do. > > geo> Dear tim, I dont need to let go of anything at all. I have already > mastigated, swllowed and digested this stuff some time ago. if there's still a " someone " who has " experienced " anything at all.. if there is still a present " feeling " of having " suffered " .. if there is a single thought of " i am beyond all that " .. if it is believed that " stuff " has been 'digested " ... there is an incalculable vastness to be abolished. it paints the false world it boasts within. it doesn't want to lose it's audience. it fears the true Vastness. it is not other. ha ha ho ho! ..b b.b. geo> Nah.... Just said that it is not conceptual at all. It is fact. The human robe is not weared on directly....there are some layers of underwear. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > > Please be serious and do no longer offer me such stale shit. > > I'm going to offer what I like. You're going to take it, if you > believe you and I exist. And that's final. The opposite is true also -- You're going to offer what you like, and I'm going to take it if there's a belief here in " you and me " . Such are the rules of falsehood. They don't change. It's called " dependency " and it means you need others, can't live without them, because a self is considered to exist. That's the way it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:03 PM > Re: The human being > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, June 13, 2009 3:35 PM > > Re: The human being > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Neither has any nature, as far as I can see, other than the nature of > > > concept. > > > > > > geo> They are concepts (as their nature) conceived by different > > > minds. > > > > The notion of " different minds " is also a concept. > > > > One cannot onceptualize themselves out of concept. > > > > Give up, let go of all of it. > > > > There's nothing else to do. > > > > geo> Dear tim, I dont need to let go of anything at all. I have already > > mastigated, swllowed and digested this stuff some time ago. > > if there's still a " someone " who has " experienced " anything at all.. > > if there is still a present " feeling " of having " suffered " .. > > if there is a single thought of " i am beyond all that " .. > > if it is believed that " stuff " has been 'digested " ... > > there is an incalculable vastness to be abolished. > > it paints the false world it boasts within. > > it doesn't want to lose it's audience. > > it fears the true Vastness. > > it is not other. > > ha ha ho ho! > > .b b.b. > > geo> Nah.... Just said that it is not conceptual at all. It is fact. The > human robe is not weared on directly....there are some layers of underwear. > LOL saying that it is not conceptual is conceptual. " fact " itself is conceptual. got to lose that shit. then there's no under where for underwear to be worn. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 > > > > > > Neither has any nature, as far as I can see, other than the nature of > > > concept. > > > > > > geo> They are concepts (as their nature) conceived by different > > > minds. > > > > The notion of " different minds " is also a concept. > > > > One cannot onceptualize themselves out of concept. > > > > Give up, let go of all of it. > > > > There's nothing else to do. > > > > geo> Dear tim, I dont need to let go of anything at all. I have already > > mastigated, swllowed and digested this stuff some time ago. > > if there's still a " someone " who has " experienced " anything at all.. > > if there is still a present " feeling " of having " suffered " .. > > if there is a single thought of " i am beyond all that " .. > > if it is believed that " stuff " has been 'digested " ... > > there is an incalculable vastness to be abolished. > > it paints the false world it boasts within. > > it doesn't want to lose it's audience. > > it fears the true Vastness. > > it is not other. > > ha ha ho ho! > > .b b.b. > > geo> Nah.... Just said that it is not conceptual at all. It is fact. The > human robe is not weared on directly....there are some layers of > underwear. > LOL saying that it is not conceptual is conceptual. " fact " itself is conceptual. got to lose that shit. then there's no under where for underwear to be worn. ..b b.b. There is only the under...and its waves. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:04 PM Re: Re: The human being > > > > > > Neither has any nature, as far as I can see, other than the nature of > > > concept. > > > > > > geo> They are concepts (as their nature) conceived by different > > > minds. > > > > The notion of " different minds " is also a concept. > > > > One cannot onceptualize themselves out of concept. > > > > Give up, let go of all of it. > > > > There's nothing else to do. > > > > geo> Dear tim, I dont need to let go of anything at all. I have already > > mastigated, swllowed and digested this stuff some time ago. > > if there's still a " someone " who has " experienced " anything at all.. > > if there is still a present " feeling " of having " suffered " .. > > if there is a single thought of " i am beyond all that " .. > > if it is believed that " stuff " has been 'digested " ... > > there is an incalculable vastness to be abolished. > > it paints the false world it boasts within. > > it doesn't want to lose it's audience. > > it fears the true Vastness. > > it is not other. > > ha ha ho ho! > > .b b.b. > > geo> Nah.... Just said that it is not conceptual at all. It is fact. The > human robe is not weared on directly....there are some layers of > underwear. > LOL saying that it is not conceptual is conceptual. " fact " itself is conceptual. got to lose that shit. then there's no under where for underwear to be worn. ..b b.b. There is only the under...and its waves. ....and before the obvious is stated, the under is not other. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > then there's no under where for underwear to be worn. > > .b b.b. > > There is only the under...and its waves. > ...and before the obvious is stated, the under is not other. > -geo- Under-where? ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Neither has any nature, as far as I can see, other than the nature of > > > > concept. > > > > > > > > geo> They are concepts (as their nature) conceived by different > > > > minds. > > > > > > The notion of " different minds " is also a concept. > > > > > > One cannot onceptualize themselves out of concept. > > > > > > Give up, let go of all of it. > > > > > > There's nothing else to do. > > > > > > geo> Dear tim, I dont need to let go of anything at all. I have already > > > mastigated, swllowed and digested this stuff some time ago. > > > > if there's still a " someone " who has " experienced " anything at all.. > > > > if there is still a present " feeling " of having " suffered " .. > > > > if there is a single thought of " i am beyond all that " .. > > > > if it is believed that " stuff " has been 'digested " ... > > > > there is an incalculable vastness to be abolished. > > > > it paints the false world it boasts within. > > > > it doesn't want to lose it's audience. > > > > it fears the true Vastness. > > > > it is not other. > > > > ha ha ho ho! > > > > .b b.b. > > > > geo> Nah.... Just said that it is not conceptual at all. It is fact. The > > human robe is not weared on directly....there are some layers of > > underwear. > > LOL > > saying that it is not conceptual is conceptual. > > " fact " itself is conceptual. > > got to lose that shit. > > then there's no under where for underwear to be worn. > > .b b.b. > > There is only the under...and its waves. > -geo- as long as they stay being waves in the wave/particle duality. particular particles in underwear are unbearable nuisances. or at the very least a seeming nuance of a nuisance. and who wants to go about picking at the back of their pants... whilst participating in a past pluperfect performance program? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:12 PM Re: The human being Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > then there's no under where for underwear to be worn. > > .b b.b. > > There is only the under...and its waves. > ...and before the obvious is stated, the under is not other. > -geo- Under-where? ;-). geo> Yes...where else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Please be serious and do no longer offer me such stale shit. > > > > I'm going to offer what I like. You're going to take it, if you > > believe you and I exist. And that's final. > > The opposite is true also -- You're going to offer what you like, and I'm going to take it if there's a belief here in " you and me " . > > Such are the rules of falsehood. They don't change. It's called " dependency " and it means you need others, can't live without them, because a self is considered to exist. So what, Tim ? That is the way we tick - yawn. And all that Advaita babbling won't change it an Jota. Why always declaring the self (ego) as an enemy ? The self is a survival tool. Without it you quickly will end up in a mental asylum. There is only what is and not what should be. And the self with all its deficiencies is part of what is. By contemptfully turning your back at the self you stop learning about it and you will become a hypocrite who just got stuck in proud contempt. And please again, don't offer me all that stale and boring non-dual rubbish - I know all that stuff already. Werner > > That's the way it is. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Please be serious and do no longer offer me such stale shit. > > > > > > I'm going to offer what I like. You're going to take it, if you > > > believe you and I exist. And that's final. > > > > The opposite is true also -- You're going to offer what you like, and I'm going to take it if there's a belief here in " you and me " . > > > > Such are the rules of falsehood. They don't change. It's called " dependency " and it means you need others, can't live without them, because a self is considered to exist. > > > So what, Tim ? > > That is the way we tick - yawn. > > And all that Advaita babbling won't change it an Jota. > > Why always declaring the self (ego) as an enemy ? The self is a survival tool. Without it you quickly will end up in a mental asylum. > > There is only what is and not what should be. And the self with all its deficiencies is part of what is. By contemptfully turning your back at the self you stop learning about it and you will become a hypocrite who just got stuck in proud contempt. > > And please again, don't offer me all that stale and boring non-dual rubbish - I know all that stuff already. > > Werner and you won't change being a frightened ignoramus. you don't know anything worthwhile wernie. you're full to the brim with bullshit. and you can't reply because you can't deny. and that's the bottom line asshole. that's the way it is. LOL! ..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.