Guest guest Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:07 PM Re: Question to bbb 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. -d- I am not basing awarenss in the organism either. This is what I am saying. Is it so actualy? If it is an actuality here and there there is not here and there, organisms are empty patterns and there is only that. But may happen that the words issuing from dan or geo show that it is not an actuality for one of them, or both. If it is both there is only confusion, and a " third " reader could tell eventually tell that. -geo- > 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. -d- That is what I am saying also. The belief that I am a separte person. That belief may or may not be there. Is it not? -geo- > 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. -geo- one is dealing with beliefs that affirm and negate. -d- Not nescessarily I say. I am all - it is not an affirmation or negation. It is a fact. Or, I am nothing. Not negating...just seeing. Both happen...and not concomitentely. -geo- 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 - If belief is not there, yes. If it is there, no. Belief may be or not be. -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 , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > it is not something the organism gets or knows. The organism does not feel or know anything. The organism is felt, and known. > Not nescessarily I say. I am all - it is not an affirmation or > negation. If " all " means a collection of parts, there is no " all " . > If belief is not there, yes. If it is there, no. Belief may be or not > be. > -geo- If there's a question about it, it's there. Belief is doubt. 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 Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:12 AM Re: Belief or not belief Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > it is not something the organism gets or knows. The organism does not feel or know anything. The organism is felt, and known. > Not nescessarily I say. I am all - it is not an affirmation or > negation. If " all " means a collection of parts, there is no " all " . geo> Correct. > If belief is not there, yes. If it is there, no. Belief may be or not > > be. > -geo- If there's a question about it, it's there. Belief is doubt. -tim- I am not sure of the context of this peace....but belief can be very very subtle and tricky. One may be sure of all, not doubting anything and belief is there present. BTW...usually a " person " with deep beliefs doesnt doubt himself - the very one that is not. So there is belief. -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 , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I am not sure of the context of this peace....but belief can be very very > subtle and tricky. One may be sure of all, not doubting anything and belief > is there present. Nothing is happening " in the background " , fer chrissakes. It only seems so, because to project " others " you have to place " yourself " in the background. In truth, there is no background. All is foreground. Or just Ground. Stop avoiding this empty, alone Ground by projecting 'others', and it's dead obvious! 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: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:12 AM > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > it is not something the organism gets or knows. > > The organism does not feel or know anything. > > The organism is felt, and known. > > > Not nescessarily I say. I am all - it is not an affirmation or > > negation. > > If " all " means a collection of parts, there is no " all " . > > geo> Correct. > > > If belief is not there, yes. If it is there, no. Belief may be or not > > > be. > > -geo- > > If there's a question about it, it's there. Belief is doubt. > -tim- > > I am not sure of the context of this peace....but belief can be very very > subtle and tricky. One may be sure of all, not doubting anything and belief > is there present. > BTW...usually a " person " with deep beliefs doesnt doubt himself - the very > one that is not. So there is belief. > -geo- belief is for the needy. in the know..no belief is needed. in fact..belief is ridiculous. do you believe you exist? do you need to believe that? ..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 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:02 AM Re: Belief or not belief Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:12 AM > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > it is not something the organism gets or knows. > > The organism does not feel or know anything. > > The organism is felt, and known. > > > Not nescessarily I say. I am all - it is not an affirmation or > > negation. > > If " all " means a collection of parts, there is no " all " . > > geo> Correct. > > > If belief is not there, yes. If it is there, no. Belief may be or not > > > be. > > -geo- > > If there's a question about it, it's there. Belief is doubt. > -tim- > > I am not sure of the context of this peace....but belief can be very very > subtle and tricky. One may be sure of all, not doubting anything and > belief > is there present. > BTW...usually a " person " with deep beliefs doesnt doubt himself - the very > one that is not. So there is belief. > -geo- belief is for the needy. in the know..no belief is needed. in fact..belief is ridiculous. do you believe you exist? do you need to believe that? ..b b.b. To believe is an affirmation of doubt -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 24/6/2009 11:36:16 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. 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: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:02 AM > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:12 AM > > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > it is not something the organism gets or knows. > > > > The organism does not feel or know anything. > > > > The organism is felt, and known. > > > > > Not nescessarily I say. I am all - it is not an affirmation or > > > negation. > > > > If " all " means a collection of parts, there is no " all " . > > > > geo> Correct. > > > > > If belief is not there, yes. If it is there, no. Belief may be or not > > > > be. > > > -geo- > > > > If there's a question about it, it's there. Belief is doubt. > > -tim- > > > > I am not sure of the context of this peace....but belief can be very very > > subtle and tricky. One may be sure of all, not doubting anything and > > belief > > is there present. > > BTW...usually a " person " with deep beliefs doesnt doubt himself - the very > > one that is not. So there is belief. > > -geo- > > belief is for the needy. > > in the know..no belief is needed. > > in fact..belief is ridiculous. > > do you believe you exist? > > do you need to believe that? > > .b b.b. > > To believe is an affirmation of doubt > -geo- that's what i was saying. if you know the unknown.. belief is like a fifth leg on a horse. not needed..in fact..a hindrance. where there is smoke there is fire and where there is belief..doubt. by thway.. have you seen the movie " Doubt? " ? great flick! leaves you full of doubt.... even unto the end...i believe. ..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 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:48 AM Re: Belief or not belief Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:02 AM > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:12 AM > > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > it is not something the organism gets or knows. > > > > The organism does not feel or know anything. > > > > The organism is felt, and known. > > > > > Not nescessarily I say. I am all - it is not an affirmation or > > > negation. > > > > If " all " means a collection of parts, there is no " all " . > > > > geo> Correct. > > > > > If belief is not there, yes. If it is there, no. Belief may be or not > > > > > > > be. > > > -geo- > > > > If there's a question about it, it's there. Belief is doubt. > > -tim- > > > > I am not sure of the context of this peace....but belief can be very > > very > > subtle and tricky. One may be sure of all, not doubting anything and > > belief > > is there present. > > BTW...usually a " person " with deep beliefs doesnt doubt himself - the > > very > > one that is not. So there is belief. > > -geo- > > belief is for the needy. > > in the know..no belief is needed. > > in fact..belief is ridiculous. > > do you believe you exist? > > do you need to believe that? > > .b b.b. > > To believe is an affirmation of doubt > -geo- that's what i was saying. if you know the unknown.. belief is like a fifth leg on a horse. not needed..in fact..a hindrance. where there is smoke there is fire and where there is belief..doubt. by thway.. have you seen the movie " Doubt? " ? great flick! leaves you full of doubt.... even unto the end...i believe. ..b b.b. No I havent. But I check wether they have it here in brazil yet.. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 24/6/2009 11:54:46 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. 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: > > by thway.. > > have you seen the movie " Doubt? " ? > > great flick! > > leaves you full of doubt.... even unto the end...i believe. > > .b b.b. > > No I havent. But I check wether they have it here in brazil yet.. > -geo- The more doubt, the better, eh? 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: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:48 AM > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:02 AM > > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:12 AM > > > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > it is not something the organism gets or knows. > > > > > > The organism does not feel or know anything. > > > > > > The organism is felt, and known. > > > > > > > Not nescessarily I say. I am all - it is not an affirmation or > > > > negation. > > > > > > If " all " means a collection of parts, there is no " all " . > > > > > > geo> Correct. > > > > > > > If belief is not there, yes. If it is there, no. Belief may be or not > > > > > > > > > be. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > If there's a question about it, it's there. Belief is doubt. > > > -tim- > > > > > > I am not sure of the context of this peace....but belief can be very > > > very > > > subtle and tricky. One may be sure of all, not doubting anything and > > > belief > > > is there present. > > > BTW...usually a " person " with deep beliefs doesnt doubt himself - the > > > very > > > one that is not. So there is belief. > > > -geo- > > > > belief is for the needy. > > > > in the know..no belief is needed. > > > > in fact..belief is ridiculous. > > > > do you believe you exist? > > > > do you need to believe that? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > To believe is an affirmation of doubt > > -geo- > > that's what i was saying. > > if you know the unknown.. > > belief is like a fifth leg on a horse. > > not needed..in fact..a hindrance. > > where there is smoke there is fire and where there is belief..doubt. > > by thway.. > > have you seen the movie " Doubt? " ? > > great flick! > > leaves you full of doubt.... even unto the end...i believe. > > .b b.b. > > No I havent. But I check wether they have it here in brazil yet.. > -geo- should be there soon. Meryl Streep..she was up for the Oscar..didn't win. Philip Seymour Hoffman..always a great thespian... Amy Adams...she was nominated this year too.. didn't win..should have though. it comes from the Broadway stage play of the same name. good stuff really. ..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 , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > by thway.. > > > > have you seen the movie " Doubt? " ? > > > > great flick! > > > > leaves you full of doubt.... even unto the end...i believe. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > No I havent. But I check wether they have it here in brazil yet.. > > -geo- > > The more doubt, the better, eh? you must be the best tim. ..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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > by thway.. > > > > > > have you seen the movie " Doubt? " ? > > > > > > great flick! > > > > > > leaves you full of doubt.... even unto the end...i believe. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > No I havent. But I check wether they have it here in brazil yet.. > > > -geo- > > > > The more doubt, the better, eh? > > > you must be the best tim. > > .b b.b. I'm terrible at being Tim. Failed miserably, so the habit dropped ;-). 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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > by thway.. > > > > > > > > have you seen the movie " Doubt? " ? > > > > > > > > great flick! > > > > > > > > leaves you full of doubt.... even unto the end...i believe. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > No I havent. But I check wether they have it here in brazil yet.. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > The more doubt, the better, eh? > > > > > > you must be the best tim. > > > > .b b.b. > > I'm terrible at being Tim. Failed miserably, so the habit dropped ;-). so.. " you " dropped the habit of being " you " . right. would " you " like your medications now? even though you're not around? ..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 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:15 PM Re: Belief or not belief Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:48 AM > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:02 AM > > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:12 AM > > > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > it is not something the organism gets or knows. > > > > > > The organism does not feel or know anything. > > > > > > The organism is felt, and known. > > > > > > > Not nescessarily I say. I am all - it is not an affirmation or > > > > negation. > > > > > > If " all " means a collection of parts, there is no " all " . > > > > > > geo> Correct. > > > > > > > If belief is not there, yes. If it is there, no. Belief may be or > > > > not > > > > > > > > > be. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > If there's a question about it, it's there. Belief is doubt. > > > -tim- > > > > > > I am not sure of the context of this peace....but belief can be very > > > very > > > subtle and tricky. One may be sure of all, not doubting anything and > > > belief > > > is there present. > > > BTW...usually a " person " with deep beliefs doesnt doubt himself - the > > > very > > > one that is not. So there is belief. > > > -geo- > > > > belief is for the needy. > > > > in the know..no belief is needed. > > > > in fact..belief is ridiculous. > > > > do you believe you exist? > > > > do you need to believe that? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > To believe is an affirmation of doubt > > -geo- > > that's what i was saying. > > if you know the unknown.. > > belief is like a fifth leg on a horse. > > not needed..in fact..a hindrance. > > where there is smoke there is fire and where there is belief..doubt. > > by thway.. > > have you seen the movie " Doubt? " ? > > great flick! > > leaves you full of doubt.... even unto the end...i believe. > > .b b.b. > > No I havent. But I check wether they have it here in brazil yet.. > -geo- should be there soon. Meryl Streep..she was up for the Oscar..didn't win. Philip Seymour Hoffman..always a great thespian... Amy Adams...she was nominated this year too.. didn't win..should have though. it comes from the Broadway stage play of the same name. good stuff really. ..b b.b. OK, although I dont like Meryl too much....dunno why. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 24/6/2009 12:24:04 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. 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: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:15 PM > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:48 AM > > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:02 AM > > > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Tim G. > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:12 AM > > > > Re: Belief or not belief > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is not something the organism gets or knows. > > > > > > > > The organism does not feel or know anything. > > > > > > > > The organism is felt, and known. > > > > > > > > > Not nescessarily I say. I am all - it is not an affirmation or > > > > > negation. > > > > > > > > If " all " means a collection of parts, there is no " all " . > > > > > > > > geo> Correct. > > > > > > > > > If belief is not there, yes. If it is there, no. Belief may be or > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > be. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > If there's a question about it, it's there. Belief is doubt. > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > I am not sure of the context of this peace....but belief can be very > > > > very > > > > subtle and tricky. One may be sure of all, not doubting anything and > > > > belief > > > > is there present. > > > > BTW...usually a " person " with deep beliefs doesnt doubt himself - the > > > > very > > > > one that is not. So there is belief. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > belief is for the needy. > > > > > > in the know..no belief is needed. > > > > > > in fact..belief is ridiculous. > > > > > > do you believe you exist? > > > > > > do you need to believe that? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > To believe is an affirmation of doubt > > > -geo- > > > > that's what i was saying. > > > > if you know the unknown.. > > > > belief is like a fifth leg on a horse. > > > > not needed..in fact..a hindrance. > > > > where there is smoke there is fire and where there is belief..doubt. > > > > by thway.. > > > > have you seen the movie " Doubt? " ? > > > > great flick! > > > > leaves you full of doubt.... even unto the end...i believe. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > No I havent. But I check wether they have it here in brazil yet.. > > -geo- > > should be there soon. > > Meryl Streep..she was up for the Oscar..didn't win. > > Philip Seymour Hoffman..always a great thespian... > > Amy Adams...she was nominated this year too.. > > didn't win..should have though. > > it comes from the Broadway stage play of the same name. > > good stuff really. > > .b b.b. > > OK, although I dont like Meryl too much....dunno why. > -geo- it's because of who she is or who she plays. she's not likable in this film either. that's why i didn't say she should have won the Oscar. for christ sakes she's won a dozen already! dirty bitch! ..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: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:07 PM > Re: Question to bbb > > > > > > 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. > -d- > > I am not basing awarenss in the organism either. This is what I am saying. > Is it so actualy? > If it is an actuality here and there there is not here and there, organisms > are empty patterns and there is only that. > But may happen that the words issuing from dan or geo show that it is not an > actuality for one of them, or both. If it is both there is only confusion, > and a " third " reader could tell eventually tell that. > -geo- Geo - As I look at/into/as this issue, I don't see anything or anyone attached onto " awareness " as an understander of awareness. If there could be such a separate one who could know or not know awareness, awareness would not be " what is " -- but would be a fragment, a conceptuality, something divided. There is no issue here whether Dan is a knower of it, or Geo is, or Dan isn't and Geo is, or Geo is and Dan isn't. By here, I simply mean here - not here as opposed to there. However " the experience of Geo arises, " or " the experience of Dan arises " ... the arising is equally of/from/as awareness. Because there is no separable knower of it, what is known also is not separable. The knower is the known. So the issue of knower and known and knowing, as if any separation could be involved, drops. And any feeling of a dropping, drops. There is no time, no history to this. " Geo " is a fictitious history. " Dan " is a fictitious history. Neither of them is here. There is neither one, nor the other, nor both. Here is here. Right here. Not some other here, some other way. Not for someone, and not someone else. There aren't any one's or else's involved. Just here. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:07 PM > > Re: Question to bbb > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > -d- > > > > I am not basing awarenss in the organism either. This is what I am saying. > > Is it so actualy? > > If it is an actuality here and there there is not here and there, organisms > > are empty patterns and there is only that. > > But may happen that the words issuing from dan or geo show that it is not an > > actuality for one of them, or both. If it is both there is only confusion, > > and a " third " reader could tell eventually tell that. > > -geo- > > Geo - > > As I look at/into/as this issue, I don't see anything or anyone attached onto " awareness " as an understander of awareness. > > If there could be such a separate one who could know or not know awareness, awareness would not be " what is " -- but would be a fragment, a conceptuality, something divided. > > There is no issue here whether Dan is a knower of it, or Geo is, or Dan isn't and Geo is, or Geo is and Dan isn't. > > By here, I simply mean here - not here as opposed to there. > > However " the experience of Geo arises, " or " the experience of Dan arises " ... the arising is equally of/from/as awareness. > > Because there is no separable knower of it, what is known also is not separable. > > The knower is the known. > > So the issue of knower and known and knowing, as if any separation could be involved, drops. And any feeling of a dropping, drops. > > There is no time, no history to this. > > " Geo " is a fictitious history. > > " Dan " is a fictitious history. > > Neither of them is here. There is neither one, nor the other, nor both. > > Here is here. > > Right here. > > Not some other here, some other way. > > Not for someone, and not someone else. > > There aren't any one's or else's involved. > > Just here. > > - Dan - the fiction is in what you wrote above. and it's bad pulp fiction too. ..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.