Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > bitch bitch bitch... > > > > cry and whine and complain. > > Quit bitching about bitching. you're trying to be a bitch. but honey.. i wasn't bitching. i was pointing out a fact. don't try and tell me what or what not to do. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > d: i agree. that's all it is. and the personality being referred to or labeled, isn't there. so, if that's understood, why put out words that refer to that personality and characterize that person (who supposedly isn't being seen as having a reality)? > > > > as you've pointed out, the world shows a great deal of hurt inflicted in the service of what you have been calling " the inner entity " or what I might call something like " the investment in maintaining a separate self-sense. " so, it's surprising to see personalizing words of condescension used on a list devoted to seeing through the imagined (the " inner psychological entity " ). i tend to associate that kind of speech with actions that i have seen occur that result in hurt, such as associated with the maintenance of separate self-sense, or what you have called " ego " or " inner psychological entity " or " disease. " > > > > Quite a paradox, eh? " There is no I, and *I* know more about it than *you* do! " (chuckling)... > > " Let's give 'em something to talk about " - Bonnie Raitt a self-contradiction, rather than a paradox. " there is no I, no you, and nothing is happening, so therefore I can do what I want. " - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > bitch bitch bitch... > > > > > > cry and whine and complain. > > > > Quit bitching about bitching. > > > you're trying to be a bitch. > > but honey.. > > i wasn't bitching. > > i was pointing out a fact. > > don't try and tell me what or what not to do. > > .b b.b. Try re-reading what was said above, this way: > i'm trying to be a bitch. > > but honey.. > > you weren't bitching. > > you were pointing out a fact. > > don't try and tell you what or what not to do. > > .t t.t. Interesting how all the " confusion " departs the scene... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:56 PM Re: Question to bbb Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > ...does this mean i am a saint who has no reactivity? no, i'm not claiming > that. in terms of being a person, i have faults like any other person. but > the person is a label in a world that labels, and the world is formed by > labels (concepts) of the person. > -dan- > > This is the point I was adressing when you said that I was figgurin it all > out (hipocrisy and the rest....). That is the way usually happens with > stuff that really should matter with us. We escape. This is not personal. > A person is ONLY just a label for onlookers, never > for us ourselves. If there is no " us, ourselves " , there are no 'onlookers'. -tim- You are imagining, lie-ing., pure hipocrisy What are you doing in a list? Masturbating? Writing posts, waiting for them to came back, and reading them yourself and enjoing the act? Ignorance generating lies - as is the norm. Impersonal norm for the case. -ego- Nobody is 'looking at you', Geo. Nobody has ever seen you. You have never seen anyone else. This is a fact. -tim- You can not stay in such " position " for more then an instant, becasue you must breathe - it is the turning of the pendulum, but you are trying to cary the bag of that conviction and the result is this. -ego- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > You are imagining, lie-ing., pure hipocrisy > What are you doing in a list? Masturbating? Writing posts, waiting > for them > to came back, and reading them yourself and enjoing the act? Yes, that's more or less the case. > Ignorance generating lies - as is the norm. Impersonal norm for the > case. > -ego- So much hostility. What's being protected/defended here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > d: i agree. that's all it is. and the personality being referred to or labeled, isn't there. so, if that's understood, why put out words that refer to that personality and characterize that person (who supposedly isn't being seen as having a reality)? > > > > > > as you've pointed out, the world shows a great deal of hurt inflicted in the service of what you have been calling " the inner entity " or what I might call something like " the investment in maintaining a separate self-sense. " so, it's surprising to see personalizing words of condescension used on a list devoted to seeing through the imagined (the " inner psychological entity " ). i tend to associate that kind of speech with actions that i have seen occur that result in hurt, such as associated with the maintenance of separate self-sense, or what you have called " ego " or " inner psychological entity " or " disease. " > > > > > > > Quite a paradox, eh? " There is no I, and *I* know more about it than *you* do! " (chuckling)... > > > > " Let's give 'em something to talk about " - Bonnie Raitt > > a self-contradiction, rather than a paradox. Thanks, indeed a better word 'choice'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > if there is no self.. > > how the hell can there be " self-contradiction " ? The fact that a word or action is self-contradictory does not suggest a self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > Interesting how all the " confusion " departs the scene... > > > that's not interesting. > > that's just an uncreative copy-cat piece of shit. OK, well maybe this is interesting: Given all the pieces of shit posted around here, it's interesting how roberibus continues to eat them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > if there is no self.. > > > > how the hell can there be " self-contradiction " ? > > The fact that a word or action is self-contradictory does not suggest a self. oh???? pray tell then.. what does it suggest? why use the term if it suggests nothing realting to " self " . you are behind the clouds. and you are beginning to sound as asinine as your pal. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 ....does this mean i am a saint who has no reactivity? no, i'm not claiming > that. in terms of being a person, i have faults like any other person. but > the person is a label in a world that labels, and the world is formed by > labels (concepts) of the person. > -dan- > > This is the point I was adressing when you said that I was figgurin it all > out (hipocrisy and the rest....). That is the way usually happens with > stuff that really should matter with us. We escape. This is not personal. > A person is ONLY just a label for onlookers, never for us ourselves. If we > react like a person it is because there was some kind of a contraction and > the consequent fragmentation. I am looking at myself. I can never react > like a person who feels ofended..or anything else, without the imagined > dark spot. The dark spot of observation. One CAN NOT see that dark spot - > but our reactions betray us. I dont know what you make of this.....so i > will stop. > -geo- what i make of it is that it's good stuff. also this: i am looking at the contraction, so to speak, at the fragementation. it is not " my " contraction, or someone else's, there is not a possessor of it. the contraction, fragmentation, is the attempt to possess, the attempt to have a location from which to possess. what is looking is not fragmentable. i am not looking from the contraction, or within the contraction. the contraction is the result of memory, of experience, and is memory, is the past. what is looking, is not the past. labels, word meanings, are the past. - d - That is not the way it happens! When the contraction happens there is blindness. We are unable to see it!. There is light or no light at all. There is no dimed light in this issue, only courage to see. What happens is that right after the contraction, when there is the remembering of it we say: oh...I wasnt really in darkness BECAUSE light is always here - but that is already in the conceptual field....the looking that is not from the past is conceptual at that time....then maybe some time later we wake up. All this talk of nobady here, there..is the same thing: it has been seen some time before...probably will be sen later...but most of the time is just a kind of wannabe. -ego- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > Interesting how all the " confusion " departs the scene... > > > > > > that's not interesting. > > > > that's just an uncreative copy-cat piece of shit. > > OK, well maybe this is interesting: Given all the pieces of shit posted around here, it's interesting how roberibus continues to eat them. no.. i point that shit out. you eat it. and tell your boyfriend how sweet it is as you eat his fecal posts. ain't love grand! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > OK, well maybe this is interesting: Given all the pieces of shit posted around here, it's interesting how roberibus continues to eat them. > > > > no.. > > i point that shit out. > > you eat it. > > and tell your boyfriend how sweet it is as you eat his fecal posts. > > ain't love grand! > > LOL! > > .b b.b. Love between two thought-entities, both 'here', is actually quite silly ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:27 PM Re: Question to bbb Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > d: i agree. that's all it is. and the personality being referred to or > > labeled, isn't there. so, if that's understood, why put out words that > > refer to that personality and characterize that person (who supposedly > > isn't being seen as having a reality)? > > > > as you've pointed out, the world shows a great deal of hurt inflicted in > > the service of what you have been calling " the inner entity " or what I > > might call something like " the investment in maintaining a separate > > self-sense. " so, it's surprising to see personalizing words of > > condescension used on a list devoted to seeing through the imagined (the > > " inner psychological entity " ). i tend to associate that kind of speech > > with actions that i have seen occur that result in hurt, such as > > associated with the maintenance of separate self-sense, or what you have > > called " ego " or " inner psychological entity " or " disease. " > > > > Quite a paradox, eh? " There is no I, and *I* know more about it than *you* > do! " (chuckling)... > > " Let's give 'em something to talk about " - Bonnie Raitt a self-contradiction, rather than a paradox. " there is no I, no you, and nothing is happening, so therefore I can do what I want. " - d - I was going to say something but I am not sure wethere you are being satiric or serious...up to what point.. There is people in this fucking world. Perhaps not as " before " but sorrow is real. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > no.. > > i point that shit out. > > you eat it. Exactly... just as stated above. I point that shit out, you eat it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I was going to say something but I am not sure wethere you are being satiric > or serious...up to what point.. There is people in this fucking world. > Perhaps not as " before " but sorrow is real. > -geo- Yes. Your sorrow, which is the only sorrow there is. You refuse to see that others are yourself, and you are them. Your sorrow brings sorrow to their doorstep. Stop it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > OK, well maybe this is interesting: Given all the pieces of shit posted around here, it's interesting how roberibus continues to eat them. > > > > > > > > no.. > > > > i point that shit out. > > > > you eat it. > > > > and tell your boyfriend how sweet it is as you eat his fecal posts. > > > > ain't love grand! > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > Love between two thought-entities, both 'here', is actually quite silly ;-). you're breaking dan's heart. you're cracking me up. you're making a laughing stock out of Tim. thanks silly. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > oh shit kid.. > > you can call this wonder anything you like. > > it doesn't matter and has no effect. > > and..i don't call myself Bob. > > but what the hell that's me not you. The contradiction above isn't obvious? First saying " I don't call myself Bob " , then saying " that's me (not you)? " Is there anything around right now but a solid mass of conflict, contradiction and confusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > no.. > > > > i point that shit out. > > > > you eat it. > > Exactly... just as stated above. I point that shit out, you eat it. timmy.. grow up. this is like pin the tail on the donkey. you're fucked up kid. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > no.. > > > > > > i point that shit out. > > > > > > you eat it. > > > > Exactly... just as stated above. I point that shit out, you eat it. > > > timmy.. > > grow up. Good suggestion. Now, if only applied to the right imaginary entity... but that's hoping for too much. > this is like pin the tail on the donkey. > > you're fucked up kid. Indeed. I am. I'm a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > oh shit kid.. > > > > > > you can call this wonder anything you like. > > > > > > it doesn't matter and has no effect. > > > > > > and..i don't call myself Bob. > > > > > > but what the hell that's me not you. > > > > The contradiction above isn't obvious? First saying " I don't call myself Bob " , then saying " that's me (not you)? " > > > i didn't say that's Bob not you. > > what the hell is wrong with you? Confusion, obviously. Almost dizziness. About to fall out the computer chair. Trying so hard to be a separate entity, I'm almost dying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 > You are imagining, lie-ing., pure hipocrisy > What are you doing in a list? Masturbating? Writing posts, waiting > for > them > to came back, and reading them yourself and enjoing the act? Yes, that's more or less the case. > Ignorance generating lies - as is the norm. Impersonal norm for the > > case. > -ego- So much hostility. What's being protected/defended here? -tim- Not a tinge of hostility here. What you are interpreting as hostility is a certain discomfort about being shaken to awaken. We are lazy. You want convictions to carry as a bag because you think that is safer and you may sit back and relax. Also you are discomfortable with the idea that you are upset with the words that you think you are writing to yourself - so there is conflict. We must wake up many times...many times....times...time..time. Dont fool yourself. -ego- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > no.. > > > > > > > > i point that shit out. > > > > > > > > you eat it. > > > > > > Exactly... just as stated above. I point that shit out, you eat it. > > > > > > timmy.. > > > > grow up. > > Good suggestion. Now, if only applied to the right imaginary entity... but that's hoping for too much. > > > this is like pin the tail on the donkey. > > > > you're fucked up kid. > > Indeed. I am. I'm a mess. yes you are. how does anything apply to an imaginary entity? i think you're trying to display imaginary wisdom. it fails miserably. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > d: i agree. that's all it is. and the personality being referred to or > labeled, isn't there. so, if that's understood, why put out words that refer > to that personality and characterize that person (who supposedly isn't being > seen as having a reality)? > > geo> First I want to say that I said " just words in the net " as a reaction, a joke, not meaning it in fact. > What is there, behind the words? Either no-person, or a person INDEED! The sequence of words shows that there is a person there somewhere! It may be mixed with more or less imagination but there is. Or none - but then there is complete agreement and the two organisms feel that agreement as the isness. Sounds stupid and vain I know. you are basing this awareness in the organism, i am not. it is not something the organism sees or knows. it is how the organism is known as such, but it is how everything that is known as anything, is known. it is indivisible. it is not something the organism gets or knows. > as you've pointed out, the world shows a great deal of hurt inflicted in the > service of what you have been calling " the inner entity " or what I might > call something like " the investment in maintaining a separate self-sense. " > > geo> So it has a certain importance doesn it? I can hardly bear hearing ideas that there is nobady here there and everywhere. There is suffering and hurt in the world, there are persons, and there are persons behind the lines that you read. All ideas in the contrary are...sorry..hipocrisy. > == or a misunderstanding of what is being said. it isn't only that none of this can be determined to exist. it is equally that none of this can be determined to not exist. in other words, it is not affirmed as having an existence, and it is not negated as not having any existence. therefore, it is simply understood as what is. the suffering and the hurt, much of it, are the result of belief. not the result of persons, but the result of belief in having an existence as persons, separated entities, in other words. > so, it's surprising to see personalizing words of condescension used on a > list devoted to seeing through the imagined (the " inner psychological > entity " ). i tend to associate that kind of speech with actions that i have > seen occur that result in hurt, such as associated with the maintenance of > separate self-sense, or what you have called " ego " or " inner psychological > entity " or " disease. " > -dan- > > So we are dealing with persons and not just imagination. I was referring to this problem when talking about rithm. If you dont see it right now doesnt mean I am inventing it. Either we are all and love or we are nothing and are wise. This movement is part of what is. Maybe one can see it maybe not...but that will not change the fact. This movement is interpreted in one way by persons and " felt " in another way by wholeness. Not conceptual.....but maybe just new to some..I dont know. one is dealing with beliefs that affirm and negate. and one understands as what is. there isn't any attaching to a belief, either positive or negative, either in favor of existing or against existing, nor in favor of nonexistence or against it. in terms of living: not affirming self as existing through living, not negating that one exists, not needing to have existence or attention, not looking to end existence or looking not to be noticed. if belief isn't there, it isn't noticed as a lack of anything, nor is anything (such as pain, hurt, or suffering) negated. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:46 PM Re: Question to bbb Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > if there is no self.. > > > > > > how the hell can there be " self-contradiction " ? > > > > The fact that a word or action is self-contradictory does not suggest a > > self. > > > oh???? > > pray tell then.. > > what does it suggest? The words " self " and " contradiction " , used in a particular way. But then, you take yourself to be the word " Bob " , so... words can be pretty dangerous, I guess ;-). -tim tim- words can be pretty dangerous, I guess ;-). (???) Your own words that you say that only you have writen all over the list? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > no.. > > > > > > > > > > i point that shit out. > > > > > > > > > > you eat it. > > > > > > > > Exactly... just as stated above. I point that shit out, you eat it. > > > > > > > > > timmy.. > > > > > > grow up. > > > > Good suggestion. Now, if only applied to the right imaginary entity... but that's hoping for too much. > > > > > this is like pin the tail on the donkey. > > > > > > you're fucked up kid. > > > > Indeed. I am. I'm a mess. > > > yes you are. > > how does anything apply to an imaginary entity? The imaginary entity *is* the mess. I am that mess. I need to look at it, take a good, hard look. > i think you're trying to display imaginary wisdom. > > it fails miserably. Yes, it does. Miserably. 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.