Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Hello to all, With so many posts in the history here, it's difficult for a new member to " get jiggy " with it such that a newbie knows --the various personalities, --the nuances of the posting policies of the group, --how trolls and flamers are handled, --if there's a tolerance for egoic spewings for the sake of superficial psychological therapy, --how much snarks are allowed, --how someone who is sincere-but-doesn't-get-it is handled, --how much deviation from speaking truly, necessarily and sweetly is " okay here, " --how often dogmatism is presented instead of reasoning-to-a-conclusion, --how much the posters here worship Nisargadatta's personality and words instead of honoring him/them by self inquiry. And on and on the questions could be listed. If anyone here would " clue me in " about the above and nutshell this group's " atmosphere, " I'd read the post intently. I want to contribute here, but I'm trying to avoid the bull-in-the-china-shop syndrome. I tend to come on too strongly, too attached to my emotional flows when concepts trigger me, use swear words if others are doing so also, nitpick about semantics and usage, snot back at someone who snarks at me, etc. I can throttle back a lot of my oomph without resentment and mood-make a socially acceptable mask, but if one is allowed to " do angst " then I'll probably dive into that realm from time to time. And, if I've already gotten off to an iffy start here by my peppering the post with " I, me, my, " then, sigh . . . Let me say that I think I get Advaita conceptually -- can get an A+ on the test -- but awareness of THAT which is beyond awareness itself is not an all time reality yet (says the twit, ego,) and, additionally those more resonant with the knowledge emotionally and spiritually may be just the folks I'd like to interact with -- or so I theorize -- so I think this may be a place for me to exercise my intellect to shore up motivation for inquiry. Yes? Thanks, Edg Duveyoung Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 - duveyoung Nisargadatta Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:19 AM A few questions from a new member Hello to all, With so many posts in the history here, it's difficult for a new member to " get jiggy " with it such that a newbie knows --the various personalities, --the nuances of the posting policies of the group, --how trolls and flamers are handled, --if there's a tolerance for egoic spewings for the sake of superficial psychological therapy, --how much snarks are allowed, --how someone who is sincere-but-doesn't-get-it is handled, --how much deviation from speaking truly, necessarily and sweetly is " okay here, " --how often dogmatism is presented instead of reasoning-to-a-conclusion, --how much the posters here worship Nisargadatta's personality and words instead of honoring him/them by self inquiry. And on and on the questions could be listed. If anyone here would " clue me in " about the above and nutshell this group's " atmosphere, " I'd read the post intently. I want to contribute here, but I'm trying to avoid the bull-in-the-china-shop syndrome. I tend to come on too strongly, too attached to my emotional flows when concepts trigger me, use swear words if others are doing so also, nitpick about semantics and usage, snot back at someone who snarks at me, etc. I can throttle back a lot of my oomph without resentment and mood-make a socially acceptable mask, but if one is allowed to " do angst " then I'll probably dive into that realm from time to time. And, if I've already gotten off to an iffy start here by my peppering the post with " I, me, my, " then, sigh . . . Let me say that I think I get Advaita conceptually -- can get an A+ on the test -- but awareness of THAT which is beyond awareness itself is not an all time reality yet (says the twit, ego,) and, additionally those more resonant with the knowledge emotionally and spiritually may be just the folks I'd like to interact with -- or so I theorize -- so I think this may be a place for me to exercise my intellect to shore up motivation for inquiry. Yes? Thanks, Edg Duveyoung Awareness beyond awareness? I tend to feel that there is this awareness that is the ground of what is. Something beyond? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 " geo " wrote: > Awareness beyond awareness? I tend to feel that there is this awareness that is the ground of what is. Something beyond? > -geo- Sigh . . . language sucks. To me, the Absolute is beyond awareness in that the act of the ego being " aware " and having an object in " its " consciousness must necessarily be a processing of the brain. THAT which is omnipresent necessarily by definition saturates (is present with) any manifestation, but the deluded ego assumes authorship of ideation and asserts that it is THAT when it is merely " a part of " awareness (ground state of being) -- solely a processing. The Absolute is relatively defined as beyond qualities, whereas amness (soul, being, small self, God) is the home of all qualities. Grasping the Absolute conceptually is impossible, but doing neti neti neti on processes (qualities) seems to be a worthy practice that leads to the ego finally identifying (attaching itself to perfect silence as a metaphor of itself.) I consider that technique as inferior to self inquiry, but it is a spiritual manipulation that has its rewards. Egoic attachment to a metaphor (amness) is not an act of identification because the Absolute is the only identity; whereas, the ego is not sentient. After reading Nisargadatta and Ramana for years, there was a transitional point for me where suddenly I got it that ego was not " alive, " but instead was merely a clockworks ticking. I felt like I'd finally taken a significant step towards intellectual clarity that would serve me as a tool for recognizing ego like I would a three-card Monty trickster plying his trade. The Absolute is beyond being or non-being, yes? Edg > > - > duveyoung > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:19 AM > A few questions from a new member > > > > > > Hello to all, > > With so many posts in the history here, it's difficult for a new member to > " get jiggy " with it such that a newbie knows > > --the various personalities, > > --the nuances of the posting policies of the group, > > --how trolls and flamers are handled, > > --if there's a tolerance for egoic spewings for the sake of superficial > psychological therapy, > > --how much snarks are allowed, > > --how someone who is sincere-but-doesn't-get-it is handled, > > --how much deviation from speaking truly, necessarily and sweetly is " okay > here, " > > --how often dogmatism is presented instead of reasoning-to-a-conclusion, > > --how much the posters here worship Nisargadatta's personality and words > instead of honoring him/them by self inquiry. > > And on and on the questions could be listed. > > If anyone here would " clue me in " about the above and nutshell this group's > " atmosphere, " I'd read the post intently. > > I want to contribute here, but I'm trying to avoid the > bull-in-the-china-shop syndrome. I tend to come on too strongly, too > attached to my emotional flows when concepts trigger me, use swear words if > others are doing so also, nitpick about semantics and usage, snot back at > someone who snarks at me, etc. I can throttle back a lot of my oomph without > resentment and mood-make a socially acceptable mask, but if one is allowed > to " do angst " then I'll probably dive into that realm from time to time. > > And, if I've already gotten off to an iffy start here by my peppering the > post with " I, me, my, " then, sigh . . . Let me say that I think I get > Advaita conceptually -- can get an A+ on the test -- but awareness of THAT > which is beyond awareness itself is not an all time reality yet (says the > twit, ego,) and, additionally those more resonant with the knowledge > emotionally and spiritually may be just the folks I'd like to interact > with -- or so I theorize -- so I think this may be a place for me to > exercise my intellect to shore up motivation for inquiry. > > Yes? > > Thanks, > Edg Duveyoung > > Awareness beyond awareness? I tend to feel that there is this awareness that > is the ground of what is. Something beyond? > -geo- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Edg: " Absolute conceptually is impossible, but doing neti neti neti on processes (qualities) seems to be a worthy practice that leads to the ego finally identifying (attaching itself to perfect silence as a metaphor of itself.)....and....suddenly I got it that ego was not " alive, " but instead.... " I prefer shorter messages for the sake of clarity....so... I picked a few sentences that I feel are relevant. You will never see/recognise/perceive the ego. The ego is a sense of an inner fixed entity/observer, but as there is no such inner observer the ego very simply is not. What is, is the organism (body/mind) acting " as if " it had some inner separate observer. The result is limitedness, time-bound-ness. So first: is there an inner observer separte from some outer universe? -geo- " geo " wrote: > Awareness beyond awareness? I tend to feel that there is this awareness > that is the ground of what is. Something beyond? > -geo- Sigh . . . language sucks. To me, the Absolute is beyond awareness in that the act of the ego being " aware " and having an object in " its " consciousness must necessarily be a processing of the brain. THAT which is omnipresent necessarily by definition saturates (is present with) any manifestation, but the deluded ego assumes authorship of ideation and asserts that it is THAT when it is merely " a part of " awareness (ground state of being) -- solely a processing. The Absolute is relatively defined as beyond qualities, whereas amness (soul, being, small self, God) is the home of all qualities. Grasping the Absolute conceptually is impossible, but doing neti neti neti on processes (qualities) seems to be a worthy practice that leads to the ego finally identifying (attaching itself to perfect silence as a metaphor of itself.) I consider that technique as inferior to self inquiry, but it is a spiritual manipulation that has its rewards. Egoic attachment to a metaphor (amness) is not an act of identification because the Absolute is the only identity; whereas, the ego is not sentient. After reading Nisargadatta and Ramana for years, there was a transitional point for me where suddenly I got it that ego was not " alive, " but instead was merely a clockworks ticking. I felt like I'd finally taken a significant step towards intellectual clarity that would serve me as a tool for recognizing ego like I would a three-card Monty trickster plying his trade. The Absolute is beyond being or non-being, yes? Edg > > - > duveyoung > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:19 AM > A few questions from a new member > > > > > > Hello to all, > > With so many posts in the history here, it's difficult for a new member to > " get jiggy " with it such that a newbie knows > > --the various personalities, > > --the nuances of the posting policies of the group, > > --how trolls and flamers are handled, > > --if there's a tolerance for egoic spewings for the sake of superficial > psychological therapy, > > --how much snarks are allowed, > > --how someone who is sincere-but-doesn't-get-it is handled, > > --how much deviation from speaking truly, necessarily and sweetly is " okay > here, " > > --how often dogmatism is presented instead of reasoning-to-a-conclusion, > > --how much the posters here worship Nisargadatta's personality and words > instead of honoring him/them by self inquiry. > > And on and on the questions could be listed. > > If anyone here would " clue me in " about the above and nutshell this > group's > " atmosphere, " I'd read the post intently. > > I want to contribute here, but I'm trying to avoid the > bull-in-the-china-shop syndrome. I tend to come on too strongly, too > attached to my emotional flows when concepts trigger me, use swear words > if > others are doing so also, nitpick about semantics and usage, snot back at > someone who snarks at me, etc. I can throttle back a lot of my oomph > without > resentment and mood-make a socially acceptable mask, but if one is allowed > to " do angst " then I'll probably dive into that realm from time to time. > > And, if I've already gotten off to an iffy start here by my peppering the > post with " I, me, my, " then, sigh . . . Let me say that I think I get > Advaita conceptually -- can get an A+ on the test -- but awareness of THAT > which is beyond awareness itself is not an all time reality yet (says the > twit, ego,) and, additionally those more resonant with the knowledge > emotionally and spiritually may be just the folks I'd like to interact > with -- or so I theorize -- so I think this may be a place for me to > exercise my intellect to shore up motivation for inquiry. > > Yes? > > Thanks, > Edg Duveyoung > > Awareness beyond awareness? I tend to feel that there is this awareness > that > is the ground of what is. Something beyond? > -geo- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , "geo" <inandor wrote:>> Edg: "Absolute conceptually is impossible, but doing neti neti neti on > processes (qualities) seems to be a worthy practice that leads to the ego > finally identifying (attaching itself to perfect silence as a metaphor of > itself.)....and....suddenly I got it that ego was not "alive," but > instead...."> > I prefer shorter messages for the sake of clarity....so... I picked a few > sentences that I feel are relevant.> > You will never see/recognise/perceive the ego. The ego is a sense of an > inner fixed entity/observer, but as there is no such inner observer the ego > very simply is not. The history of attachment is what the ego points to as a validation of its sense of livingness. At any point in time, the illusion of an inner and separate individuality is a product of the entire body/mind matrix, and the tendency of that matrix to produce yet another iteration of this "attachment to an illusion" is what neti neti neti impacts. A relative action affects relative actions. The ego is like a moire pattern; the ego is not an entity, isn't really there despite the mirage, but desiring that the matrix produces ideation that resonates with that "truth" seems to me to be a spiritual goal that is not as "sundering of the Gordian Knot" as inquiry. EdgWhat is, is the organism (body/mind) acting "as if" it > had some inner separate observer. The result is limitedness, > time-bound-ness.> So first: is there an inner observer separte from some outer universe?> > -geo-> > "geo" wrote:> > Awareness beyond awareness? I tend to feel that there is this awareness > > that is the ground of what is. Something beyond?> > -geo-> > Sigh . . . language sucks.> > To me, the Absolute is beyond awareness in that the act of the ego being > "aware" and having an object in "its" consciousness must necessarily be a > processing of the brain.> > THAT which is omnipresent necessarily by definition saturates (is present > with) any manifestation, but the deluded ego assumes authorship of ideation > and asserts that it is THAT when it is merely "a part of" awareness (ground > state of being) -- solely a processing.> > The Absolute is relatively defined as beyond qualities, whereas amness > (soul, being, small self, God) is the home of all qualities. Grasping the > Absolute conceptually is impossible, but doing neti neti neti on processes > (qualities) seems to be a worthy practice that leads to the ego finally > identifying (attaching itself to perfect silence as a metaphor of itself.) I > consider that technique as inferior to self inquiry, but it is a spiritual > manipulation that has its rewards. Egoic attachment to a metaphor (amness) > is not an act of identification because the Absolute is the only identity; > whereas, the ego is not sentient.> > After reading Nisargadatta and Ramana for years, there was a transitional > point for me where suddenly I got it that ego was not "alive," but instead > was merely a clockworks ticking. I felt like I'd finally taken a significant > step towards intellectual clarity that would serve me as a tool for > recognizing ego like I would a three-card Monty trickster plying his trade.> > The Absolute is beyond being or non-being, yes?> > Edg> > >> > - > > duveyoung> > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:19 AM> > A few questions from a new member> >> >> >> >> >> > Hello to all,> >> > With so many posts in the history here, it's difficult for a new member to> > "get jiggy" with it such that a newbie knows> >> > --the various personalities,> >> > --the nuances of the posting policies of the group,> >> > --how trolls and flamers are handled,> >> > --if there's a tolerance for egoic spewings for the sake of superficial> > psychological therapy,> >> > --how much snarks are allowed,> >> > --how someone who is sincere-but-doesn't-get-it is handled,> >> > --how much deviation from speaking truly, necessarily and sweetly is "okay> > here,"> >> > --how often dogmatism is presented instead of reasoning-to-a-conclusion,> >> > --how much the posters here worship Nisargadatta's personality and words> > instead of honoring him/them by self inquiry.> >> > And on and on the questions could be listed.> >> > If anyone here would "clue me in" about the above and nutshell this > > group's> > "atmosphere," I'd read the post intently.> >> > I want to contribute here, but I'm trying to avoid the> > bull-in-the-china-shop syndrome. I tend to come on too strongly, too> > attached to my emotional flows when concepts trigger me, use swear words > > if> > others are doing so also, nitpick about semantics and usage, snot back at> > someone who snarks at me, etc. I can throttle back a lot of my oomph > > without> > resentment and mood-make a socially acceptable mask, but if one is allowed> > to "do angst" then I'll probably dive into that realm from time to time.> >> > And, if I've already gotten off to an iffy start here by my peppering the> > post with "I, me, my," then, sigh . . . Let me say that I think I get> > Advaita conceptually -- can get an A+ on the test -- but awareness of THAT> > which is beyond awareness itself is not an all time reality yet (says the> > twit, ego,) and, additionally those more resonant with the knowledge> > emotionally and spiritually may be just the folks I'd like to interact> > with -- or so I theorize -- so I think this may be a place for me to> > exercise my intellect to shore up motivation for inquiry.> >> > Yes?> >> > Thanks,> > Edg Duveyoung> >> > Awareness beyond awareness? I tend to feel that there is this awareness > > that> > is the ground of what is. Something beyond?> > -geo-> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 To me, the Absolute is beyond awareness in that the act of the ego being "aware" and having an object in "its" consciousness must necessarily be a processing of the brain.-Edg- You have a good intelectual grasping of the whole thing, except the nature of "ego". It is not the ego being aware, as you say, it is the organism that is perceiving through the senses. It is a purely mechanical process. The ability to locate itself as an organism does not mean there is some inner separte entity - some ego. It is just the nature of the human world, the need for the body to survive. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 > Edg: " Absolute conceptually is impossible, but doing neti neti neti on > processes (qualities) seems to be a worthy practice that leads to the ego > finally identifying (attaching itself to perfect silence as a metaphor of > itself.)....and....suddenly I got it that ego was not " alive, " but > instead.... " > > I prefer shorter messages for the sake of clarity....so... I picked a few > sentences that I feel are relevant. > > You will never see/recognise/perceive the ego. The ego is a sense of an > inner fixed entity/observer, but as there is no such inner observer the > ego > very simply is not. The history of attachment is what the ego points to as a validation of its sense of livingness. At any point in time, the illusion of an inner and separate individuality is a product of the entire body/mind matrix, and the tendency of that matrix to produce yet another iteration of this " attachment to an illusion " is what neti neti neti impacts. A relative action affects relative actions. The ego is like a moire pattern; the ego is not an entity, isn't really there despite the mirage, but desiring that the matrix produces ideation that resonates with that " truth " seems to me to be a spiritual goal that is not as " sundering of the Gordian Knot " as inquiry. Edg You say " the illusion of an inner and separate individuality is a product of the entire body/mind matrix " . Not exactly. In fact it is just a small part of the psiche that is invoved in the validation of some fixed observer. Again: the ability of the organism to recognise time, space, huger, basic needs, does not nescessarily involves the need of the sense of a separte inner entity. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Tuesday, July 07, 2009 1:09 PM Re: Re: A few questions from a new member > Edg: " Absolute conceptually is impossible, but doing neti neti neti on > processes (qualities) seems to be a worthy practice that leads to the ego > finally identifying (attaching itself to perfect silence as a metaphor of > itself.)....and....suddenly I got it that ego was not " alive, " but > instead.... " > > I prefer shorter messages for the sake of clarity....so... I picked a few > sentences that I feel are relevant. > > You will never see/recognise/perceive the ego. The ego is a sense of an > inner fixed entity/observer, but as there is no such inner observer the > ego > very simply is not. The history of attachment is what the ego points to as a validation of its sense of livingness. At any point in time, the illusion of an inner and separate individuality is a product of the entire body/mind matrix, and the tendency of that matrix to produce yet another iteration of this " attachment to an illusion " is what neti neti neti impacts. A relative action affects relative actions. The ego is like a moire pattern; the ego is not an entity, isn't really there despite the mirage, but desiring that the matrix produces ideation that resonates with that " truth " seems to me to be a spiritual goal that is not as " sundering of the Gordian Knot " as inquiry. Edg You say " the illusion of an inner and separate individuality is a product of the entire body/mind matrix " . Not exactly. In fact it is just a small part of the psiche that is invoved in the validation of some fixed observer. Again: the ability of the organism to recognise time, space, huger, basic needs, does not nescessarily involves the need of the sense of a separte inner entity. There is a basic and fundamental mistake in the sense that the organic need for food, shelter, reproduction...and consequently time, space, or in other words the need to recognise and protect itself as a separate organism became entangled/confused/mixed with the sense of some inner separete entity - not jus in the organism field. -geo- -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 > Edg: " Absolute conceptually is impossible, but doing neti neti neti on > processes (qualities) seems to be a worthy practice that leads to the ego > finally identifying (attaching itself to perfect silence as a metaphor of > itself.)....and....suddenly I got it that ego was not " alive, " but > instead.... " > > I prefer shorter messages for the sake of clarity....so... I picked a few > sentences that I feel are relevant. > > You will never see/recognise/perceive the ego. The ego is a sense of an > inner fixed entity/observer, but as there is no such inner observer the > ego > very simply is not. The history of attachment is what the ego points to as a validation of its sense of livingness. At any point in time, the illusion of an inner and separate individuality is a product of the entire body/mind matrix, and the tendency of that matrix to produce yet another iteration of this " attachment to an illusion " is what neti neti neti impacts. A relative action affects relative actions. The ego is like a moire pattern; the ego is not an entity, isn't really there despite the mirage, but desiring that the matrix produces ideation that resonates with that " truth " seems to me to be a spiritual goal that is not as " sundering of the Gordian Knot " as inquiry. Edg You say " the illusion of an inner and separate individuality is a product of the entire body/mind matrix " . Not exactly. In fact it is just a small part of the psiche that is invoved in the validation of some fixed observer. Again: the ability of the organism to recognise time, space, hunger, basic needs, does not nescessarily involves the need of the sense of a separte inner entity. There is a basic and fundamental mistake in the sense that the organic need for food, shelter, reproduction...and consequently time, space, or in other words the need to recognise and protect itself as a separate organism became entangled/confused/mixed with the sense of some inner separete entity - not just in the " organic field " . But there is something more to it, isnt it? The trouble is that that sense of need to protect and defend the organism made a part of the psiche - thought - to feel that it was a sort of awareness - kind of stealing, making itself believe that it was aware of the bodily " functions " . It is not. The whole organic machine is just a mere provider of qualities...to the ultimate - the only one awareness there is. The body/mind/consciousness is just an objective provider of qualities to the one subject...and they are not separate. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:21 PM Re: Re: A few questions from a new member > Edg: " Absolute conceptually is impossible, but doing neti neti neti on > processes (qualities) seems to be a worthy practice that leads to the ego > finally identifying (attaching itself to perfect silence as a metaphor of > itself.)....and....suddenly I got it that ego was not " alive, " but > instead.... " > > I prefer shorter messages for the sake of clarity....so... I picked a few > sentences that I feel are relevant. > > You will never see/recognise/perceive the ego. The ego is a sense of an > inner fixed entity/observer, but as there is no such inner observer the > ego > very simply is not. The history of attachment is what the ego points to as a validation of its sense of livingness. At any point in time, the illusion of an inner and separate individuality is a product of the entire body/mind matrix, and the tendency of that matrix to produce yet another iteration of this " attachment to an illusion " is what neti neti neti impacts. A relative action affects relative actions. The ego is like a moire pattern; the ego is not an entity, isn't really there despite the mirage, but desiring that the matrix produces ideation that resonates with that " truth " seems to me to be a spiritual goal that is not as " sundering of the Gordian Knot " as inquiry. Edg You say " the illusion of an inner and separate individuality is a product of the entire body/mind matrix " . Not exactly. In fact it is just a small part of the psiche that is invoved in the validation of some fixed observer. Again: the ability of the organism to recognise time, space, hunger, basic needs, does not nescessarily involves the need of the sense of a separte inner entity. There is a basic and fundamental mistake in the sense that the organic need for food, shelter, reproduction...and consequently time, space, or in other words the need to recognise and protect itself as a separate organism became entangled/confused/mixed with the sense of some inner separete entity - not just in the " organic field " . But there is something more to it, isnt it? The trouble is that that sense of need to protect and defend the organism made a part of the psiche - thought - to feel that it was a sort of awareness - kind of stealing, making itself believe that it was aware of the bodily " functions " . It is not. The whole organic machine is just a mere provider of qualities...to the ultimate - the only one awareness there is. The body/mind/consciousness is just an objective provider of qualities to the one subject...and they are not separate. (to tim here)...What tim seems to miss is that although we all share awareness in the sense that each one of our separte bodies is a provider of qualities to a drop of awareness of the ocean of awareness, we dont share all qualities concerning details of our particular localized body/minds. Somewhere, somehow - we humans can not know how - a contract has been signed and this drop of awareness is tied to this particular organism till it decomposes/dies. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 At 11:02 AM 7/7/2009, Geo wrote: You have a good intelectual grasping of the whole thing, except the nature of " ego " . It is not the ego being aware, as you say, it is the organism that is perceiving through the senses. It is a purely mechanical process. The ability to locate itself as an organism does not mean there is some inner separte entity - some ego. It is just the nature of the human world, the need for the body to survive. -geo- I don't mind the poetry of your explanation. I use " ego " as a pointing-to-a-mirage that is a convenience in a practical workaday conversations. As soon as we try to nail down anything in the relative, e.g. " ego is this, " that's an act of trying to make some thing into an absolute, so defining our terms is fraught with the chance of slipping into dogma, and as a person who thinks that he's a pretty good writer, talking about the Absolute is an exercise in getting clarity about the limits of the intellect. It's humble pie I be eatin'. I think a specific instantiation of an egoic process is an almost insignificant artifact caught in a snapshot of a dynamic flowingness/system-organism that does not and never can " speak for that whole system. " But a history of those artifacts does have some prophetic power to predict the general characteristics of the " next incarnation of the ego. " Ego is a process of the brain that cherry picks the past and cobbles together a " personal " history which it bootstraps willynilly into entity-hood. As if, eh? And, um, I don't think that the ego is aware or even that the whole system is aware/alive, and instead, I think of the entire creation as the Cosmic Ego (Brahma on the lotus) which is but fractionally symbolized by the individual being a metaphor for " all this. " Brahma abandoned His reality and sought His identity by following the lotus stalk away from manifestation (the blossom, heaven) and towards the Absolute. He found the stalk is never-ending and gave up His search for the Absolute with His mind as the butterfly net. When we see an Asian artist's canvas of a lone monk wandering in a vast forest -- that's a metaphor of " being a saint. " Meaning: the monk is in accord with his matrix -- his mind in harmony with the entirety, but if his ego is a " burnt rope, " if no process within that monk's nervous system is saying " I am this monk " or " I am this whole system, " then I think enlightenment is afoot. I think the monk has to transcend the least nuance of the falsity that the relative is real, before it can be said that the Absolute is taking a jaunt. Ah, words...... Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 - Edg Nisargadatta Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:48 PM Re: Re: A few questions from a new member At 11:02 AM 7/7/2009, Geo wrote: You have a good intelectual grasping of the whole thing, except the nature of " ego " . It is not the ego being aware, as you say, it is the organism that is perceiving through the senses. It is a purely mechanical process. The ability to locate itself as an organism does not mean there is some inner separte entity - some ego. It is just the nature of the human world, the need for the body to survive. -geo- edg: I don't mind the poetry of your explanation. I use " ego " as a pointing-to-a-mirage that is a convenience in a practical workaday conversations. As soon as we try to nail down anything in the relative, e.g. " ego is this, " that's an act of trying to make some thing into an absolute, so defining our terms is fraught with the chance of slipping into dogma, and as a person who thinks that he's a pretty good writer, talking about the Absolute is an exercise in getting clarity about the limits of the intellect. It's humble pie I be eatin'. geo> Yes, there is no definition for ego...it is not per se....it is " as if " . edg:...I think a specific instantiation of an egoic process is an almost insignificant artifact caught in a snapshot of a dynamic flowingness/system-organism that does not and never can " speak for that whole system. " But a history of those artifacts does have some prophetic power to predict the general characteristics of the " next incarnation of the ego. " Ego is a process of the brain that cherry picks the past and cobbles together a " personal " history which it bootstraps willynilly into entity-hood. As if, eh? geo> Yes, exactly. Those could be my words. :>() edg:....And, um, I don't think that the ego is aware or even that the whole system is aware/alive, and instead, I think of the entire creation as the Cosmic Ego (Brahma on the lotus) which is but fractionally symbolized by the individual being a metaphor for " all this. " Brahma abandoned His reality and sought His identity by following the lotus stalk away from manifestation (the blossom, heaven) and towards the Absolute. He found the stalk is never-ending and gave up His search for the Absolute with His mind as the butterfly net. geo> No way to comment this because there are several words that would have to be cleared, but you start with " ...and, um, I don't think that the ego is aware.. " . Ego is non-exixtent as some unit or entity so obviously one can not say that it is aware or not...just is not any " it " . edg:....When we see an Asian artist's canvas of a lone monk wandering in a vast forest -- that's a metaphor of " being a saint. " Meaning: the monk is in accord with his matrix -- his mind in harmony with the entirety, but if his ego is a " burnt rope, " if no process within that monk's nervous system is saying " I am this monk " or " I am this whole system, " then I think enlightenment is afoot. I think the monk has to transcend the least nuance of the falsity that the relative is real, before it can be said that the Absolute is taking a jaunt. Ah, words...... geo> Yea.. words can be difficult. I have several questions at different times...If any...what would be yours now? Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Hello to all, Edg-the-knower: Sorry it's taken a couple weeks to get back to you. We don't love newbies here. They're burdensome, and it's no surprise that no one welcomed you here. No one here has the balls to ever be caught dead treating anyone as if they were real for fear of being spotlit by the group as STOOOOOOPID -- or, if they are one of the good-hearted here, they're so tired batting the trolls aside that they just don't have it in them to invest in helping a newbie find a comfort-zone here. With so many posts in the history here, it's difficult for a new member to " get jiggy " with it such that a newbie knows --the various personalities, Edg-the-knower: There's but few daily posters, and, of them, even a few of them are unfortunately enough to move the frustration-O-meter's needle far to the right by making the readers here have to scroll down page after page of the old text in order just to get to the place where they say something smarmy and hateful like " bullshit " or " fuck you " or " look who thinks he exists. " This " make them scroll " tactic is a " cost " of being a member here that's imposed by the trolls under the bridge to any who would cross, and so, to keep costs low, the mind of the newbie is going to be constantly tugged to stop reading certain posters who are known to abuse others with the scrolling ploy and who, largely and disappointingly, do not move the conversation forward and revel in that fact. In short, there be trolls in these waters, who despite the spiritual intent of the list-group, will be as angry as your typical skin-head at a hanging. --the nuances of the posting policies of the group, Edg-the-knower: There seems to be almost no limit on what is allowed here, so, of course, the typical post will have a vibe that's course and low and wearing. If you don't know about the lower 1/3 of the bell curve, you'll learn tons here about those who cannot or refuse to try to post true, necessary and sweet word bouquets. Instead, you get golf ball sized spitballs whizzed at you if you show the least clarity about anything. Those who are able to have polite conversation have to be prepared to have their best posts be treated like dog shit. Kindness is seen as weakness here. --how trolls and flamers are handled, Edg-the-knower: They aren't. --if there's a tolerance for egoic spewings for the sake of superficial psychological therapy, Edg-the-knower: No, Edg-the-newbie, your flood of words will be seen as showboating at best and derided as proof of attachment and thus one is categorized as a lower-being who just-doesn't-get-it, and this person can be targeted by anyone with a pea-shooter and no one, not even the best minds here, will step in and hold the newbie's hand to say something like: " You're welcome here, don't mind so-and-so, he's a troll who'll just waste your time and pretend he's helping you dissolve your ego by attacking it. " In short, finding out who's who here is entirely up to the newbie, and the newbie is as if forced to fight his way into this gang by running a spiritually brutal gauntlet. Not an ashram with open doors in the least. --how much snarks are allowed, Edg-the-knower: Any snark is allowed, and most often it's gift-packaged with a wisdom-bow -- but it's more like a surprise from the Unibomber. Wisdom, such as it is, is used like water -- as in the phrase: " waterboarding the intellect. " There is but scant attempt to teach or help anyone here. Those who need teaching have been so attacked that they've hardened their points of view into a sullen intractability and resist any approach, and those who would teach must do loudly to overcome the cacophony of catcalls. Only a Christ-whipping-the-money-lenders vibe can successfully begin to shove aside the trolls. Better eat your Wheaties to try to accomplish anything here. --how someone who is sincere-but-doesn't-get-it is handled, Edg-the-knower: Those less intellectually endowed are ridiculed without mercy. Those who have not studied Advaita enough to have a basic grasp yet are ridiculed. Those who do get it are ridiculed. It's ridicule-ous here. --how much deviation from speaking truly, necessarily and sweetly is " okay here, " Edg-the-knower: Pretty much anything goes, including legal slander. --how often dogmatism is presented instead of reasoning-to-a-conclusion, Edg-the-knower: Almost always. Any post will be hit by a shotgunning of key-words that seem to be a common jargon here, but no one will use these words as any other poster does, and everyone will ignore this goofy lack of scholarship like it simply isn't a dynamic. Each has a dogma of his own and never does east meet west. Daily you can find folks using keywords like " awareness, self, Absolute, ego, consciousness, spiritual, intent, witness " in such ways that must have Nisargadatta pulling out his astral hair. Yet, this vile conceptual anarchy is for the most part ignored, or if someone does try to get jiggy with another poster about the definition of a word, almost always the " I know better than you " dynamic is so odious as to ruin the tender feelings of all parties. In short: this classroom's teacher stepped out into the hall long ago, and the class-clowns and bullies are standing on their desks in triumph. --how much the posters here worship Nisargadatta's personality and words instead of honoring him/them by self inquiry. Edg-the-knower: No one here seems to revere Nisargadatta. Nisargadatta gave daily lectures even when he was dying from agonizing cancer of the jaw, but here we can find those who will say he was whiny or " small " and don't have an inkling of what kind of passion and dedication an enlightened person can bring to any moment without being in the least attached. It would be a breath of fresh air here if anyone spoke reverently about anything. And, Nisargadatta being the probably the most enlightened person to walk the planet in modern times just isn't enough to get anyone here to do even an angelim to his memory. And on and on the questions could be listed. If anyone here would " clue me in " about the above and nutshell this group's " atmosphere, " I'd read the post intently. Edg-the-knower: Hope the above helped, and again, sorry I'm late. Welcome, but beware. I want to contribute here, but I'm trying to avoid the bull-in-the-china-shop syndrome. I tend to come on too strongly, too attached to my emotional flows when concepts trigger me, use swear words if others are doing so also, nitpick about semantics and usage, snot back at someone who snarks at me, etc. I can throttle back a lot of my oomph without resentment and mood-make a socially acceptable mask, but if one is allowed to " do angst " then I'll probably dive into that realm from time to time. Edg-the-knower: Have at it. No one is really listening, and this place is as good as any to do quasi-blogging, cuz Google'll index it. And, if I've already gotten off to an iffy start here by my peppering the post with " I, me, my, " then, sigh . . . Let me say that I think I get Advaita conceptually -- can get an A+ on the test -- but awareness of THAT which is beyond awareness itself is not an all time reality yet (says the twit, ego,) and, additionally those more resonant with the knowledge emotionally and spiritually may be just the folks I'd like to interact with -- or so I theorize -- so I think this may be a place for me to exercise my intellect to shore up motivation for inquiry. Yes? Edg-the-knower: Good fucking luck. Ain't gunna happen. Reread " I Am that " -- even a couple pages will be more spiritually instructive than, on average, any 100 posts read here. This isn't some Bible thumping summer camp where good Christian kids memorize verses -- no one is lovingly trying to process Advaita through their nervous systems for the edifying burnishing of doing so. No one wants to be caught dead smelling the aromas from Advaitic flowers. Even though all agree that creation is but an image of the Absolute, anyone enjoying the creation and caught gazing at that image is scorned. In short: there are those who are very clear about the concepts but who each and all seem to have become bitter recluses who scream at everyone from inside their cramped damp cold stark little caves. Thanks, Edg Duveyoung Edg-the-knower: Don't thank anyone. Shove your " thank you " up your ass, you fucking twit -- who the hell are you to think you're a you -- what a clod, what a kiddie in knee pants, what dunderheaded short bus never'll-get-it 'tard. Take your " thank you " and your " hi I'm Edg " and your " silly smiling countenance " and cover them all with a Dick Cheney mask, and then you might have a chance at getting some respect here you fucking outer-validation freak. By never, never, never look like you're wanting anything in the least; and instead, always pose as a knower of reality, and never ever think friendliness can be an atmospheric basic here. It's Kali fucking yuga -- get the damned gang tee shirt -- you're embarrassing yourself with that scrawny nerd physiognomy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Well, Edg, If this is your farewell, I wish you the best, and it was fun to know you. Sorry, that it wasn't fun for you. The fact is that you came to teach, and we were unimpressed, and try to teach you back. Except, maybe for Bob, no one was overtly rude to you. You are offended that instead of accepting your words as a new revelation, we tried to teach you instead. Well, I have news for you, wherever you go, there will be people eager to teach you because you have a lot to learn. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Well, Edg, If this is your farewell, > I wish you the best, and it was fun to know you. > Sorry, that it wasn't fun for you. The fact > is that you came to teach, and we were > unimpressed, and try to teach you back. > > Except, maybe for Bob, no one was overtly > rude to you. You are offended that instead > of accepting your words as a new revelation, > we tried to teach you instead. > > Well, I have news for you, wherever you go, > there will be people eager to teach you > because you have a lot to learn. > > Pete Edg: Who's leaving? I might, I might not. I thought it was time to answer the questions to show my present " take " about what this group is all about. If anything personally " stung ya, " then, hey, I did you a solid in that you now have a personality-target to hone in on -- obviously ego is being challenged -- ya might benefit from looking at how you're triggered....by an non-being. But in case you missed it, I think your posts are aces. I answered my own questions as well as I could. I have had some fun here -- with you for starters. If you find that my summations about the group were incorrect, please correct if you have the time....I'll read it. If you think I've used jargon-dogma terms incorrectly, correct me, I'll read it. If I was trying to teach, please explain how that is a wrong intent. I have had no serious challenge from anyone here about how to harmoniously structure the concepts of enlightenment. Apparently I'm doing at least okay in that regard if the metric is " how often is Edg countered in a toe-to-toe fashion? " If I come off as a know-it-all, well, I do think I can pass the PhD orals on Advaita if Nisargadatta is on the PhD committee, but that's mostly insignificant, and I don't pose as one who is enlightened just cuz I can " make sense " to Nisargadatta, so that's a proof that I know my clarity is not 100%, and isn't that " humble enough " to have a conversation with me instead of trying to " stomp any showing of mind-at-work-trying-to-conclude? " If I cannot be a true teacher, can I at least be a teaching assistant? And, hey, fucking hey, I've posted some stuff here that was extraordinarily clever and only the sound of crickets was my reward, but yet I'm not railing about that lack of attention. I take disinterest in stride. I don't think the group is unimpressed by my posts. My stuff is well written, unique, conceptually adroit and poetically entertaining. Where does this amount to some sort of burden here? Where did I impose on anyone the task of enlightening me? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong -- there's no reason for you to suffer on that account. With my tsunami of words and narcissism and pomposity, yet I have gotten quite a few pats on the back here; so even if those who did the patting are unworthy in your eyes, they were not in mine, so where's the harm in my indulging in the delusion of " others? " I like to talk shop, sue me. You talked shop with me, and it was good, right? I haven't kept track on who's smacked at me -- depends on how you define " smack. " I have given up reading some posters because I am too lazy to scroll. But, Bob, someone who acts like a troll but isn't really, gave me one of the best heartful replies yet here. Others, by ignoring my direct responses and comments to their statements, will not defend their positions even though it is obvious that I have the passion and expertise to engage them for the mutual benefit of all. To which I say, " tsk tsk. " I thought I'd put that on the table for others to see. I have repeatedly underlined my fuzziness and willingness to be helped. I ask direct questions. I listen. I read everyone's posts. I try to grok the mindsets. I love to soar into the heights with the concepts. Rhetoric R Moi, sue me. And, I do have a heart, and I do try to see the pain behind the snarks, the life-failures that must have happened to create the intents of the trolls, the hearts that have given up. This place is much more like a " used to be Advaitic but now I'm just swigging on a brown paper bag on the curb and blasting anyone who still has a hope to find happiness " than it is a " Nisargadatta was the bomb and let's edify ourselves with his ego evaporation techniques " ashram. It's like the folks who post here couldn't even cut it in one of the many neo-Advaitic sects and ended up here. Everyone has a chip on their shoulder and is double-daring anyone to try to knock it off. Again, what's wrong with the " My Dinner With Andre " scenario? Those two guys couldn't agree on almost anything, but look at the cordiality of their being together -- it was fucking sweet! Thanks for the promise that everywhere I go there'll be someone to teach me. Sounded like a blessing not a curse. And if I pose as a teacher and someone kicks my pedestal out from under me, hey, isn't that wonderful? So, for a while longer, I think I'll tarry here, but if you have anything to teach me, let's have it now. Maybe you could answer my newbie questions to show me how you see this place differently than my take. That would be impressive perhaps, but, actually, I think you and I see things pretty much the same, so I'd be surprised if your take about this group markedly differs from my own. Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Well, Edg, If this is your farewell, > > I wish you the best, and it was fun to know you. > > Sorry, that it wasn't fun for you. The fact > > is that you came to teach, and we were > > unimpressed, and try to teach you back. > > > > Except, maybe for Bob, no one was overtly > > rude to you. You are offended that instead > > of accepting your words as a new revelation, > > we tried to teach you instead. > > > > Well, I have news for you, wherever you go, > > there will be people eager to teach you > > because you have a lot to learn. > > > > Pete > > Edg: Who's leaving? I might, I might not. P: Well, good, I'm glad that you are staying for a while. I thought it was time to answer the questions to show my present " take " about what this group is all about. If anything personally " stung ya, " then, hey, I did you a solid in that you now have a personality-target to hone in on P: No I didn't take you personally, in any way. > >E: I have had some fun here -- with you for starters. If you find that my summations about the group were incorrect, please correct if you have the time....I'll read it. P: There is no group. Only posts, and posters. This is an active unmoderated list, and as such, most posts are of little value, and some are offensive to more sensitive readers. After a while, one learns to ignore the posts of one stick posters. I moderate two lists, which are not that active: AdvaitatoZen NonDualPhil You are welcome there, if you want to join. > >E: If you think I've used jargon-dogma terms incorrectly, correct me, I'll read it. P: All jargon-dogma are incorrect. I have been telling you to use plain English to convey your insight. Are you a Hindu? > > Edg: If I was trying to teach, please explain how that is a wrong intent. P: Nothing wrong with that, if you don't get all work up when people take you for a Hindu parrot. Edg: hey, fucking hey, I've posted some stuff here that was extraordinarily clever and only the sound of crickets was my reward, but yet I'm not railing about that lack of attention. I take disinterest in stride. P: Big smile! Well, look at the bright side, clever parrots are seldom crucified. > >Edg: I don't think the group is unimpressed by my posts. My stuff is well written, unique, conceptually adroit and poetically entertaining. P: Except for unique, I agree. > > Edg: I like to talk shop, sue me. You talked shop with me, and it was good, right? P: Yes, I had fun. > > >Edg: So, for a while longer, I think I'll tarry here, but if you have anything to teach me, let's have it now. P: Concentrate in what you sense. What you think is not it. Try to communicate what you sense as directly and plainly as you can. Forget old myths. The label, is not the food. Edg: Maybe you could answer my newbie questions to show me how you see this place differently than my take. That would be impressive perhaps, but, actually, I think you and I see things pretty much the same, so I'd be surprised if your take about this group markedly differs from my own. P: This place is a good place for salesmen to face tough buyers. We are, probably, the hardest bunch to sell anything that you could ever face. What do they say about New York? If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. Good luck! Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > Well, Edg, If this is your farewell, > > > I wish you the best, and it was fun to know you. > > > Sorry, that it wasn't fun for you. The fact > > > is that you came to teach, and we were > > > unimpressed, and try to teach you back. > > > > > > Except, maybe for Bob, no one was overtly > > > rude to you. You are offended that instead > > > of accepting your words as a new revelation, > > > we tried to teach you instead. > > > > > > Well, I have news for you, wherever you go, > > > there will be people eager to teach you > > > because you have a lot to learn. > > > > > > Pete > > > > Edg: Who's leaving? I might, I might not. > > P: Well, good, I'm glad that you are staying for > a while. > > I thought it was time to answer the questions to show my present " take " about what this group is all about. If anything personally " stung ya, " then, hey, I did you a solid in that you now have a personality-target to hone in on > > P: No I didn't take you personally, in any way. > > > >E: I have had some fun here -- with you for starters. If you find that my summations about the group were incorrect, please correct if you have the time....I'll read it. > > P: There is no group. Only posts, and posters. This is > an active unmoderated list, and as such, most posts are > of little value, and some are offensive to more sensitive > readers. After a while, one learns to ignore the posts of > one stick posters. I moderate two lists, which are > not that active: > > AdvaitatoZen > > NonDualPhil > > You are welcome there, if you want to join. > > > > > >E: If you think I've used jargon-dogma terms incorrectly, correct me, I'll read it. > > P: All jargon-dogma are incorrect. I have been > telling you to use plain English to convey your > insight. Are you a Hindu? > > > > Edg: If I was trying to teach, please explain how that is a wrong intent. > > P: Nothing wrong with that, if you don't get all > work up when people take you for a Hindu parrot. > > Edg: hey, fucking hey, I've posted some stuff here that was extraordinarily clever and only the sound of crickets was my reward, but yet I'm not railing about that lack of attention. I take disinterest in stride. > > P: Big smile! Well, look at the bright side, > clever parrots are seldom crucified. > > > > > >Edg: I don't think the group is unimpressed by my posts. My stuff is well written, unique, conceptually adroit and poetically entertaining. > > P: Except for unique, I agree. > > > > > > Edg: I like to talk shop, sue me. You talked shop with me, and it was good, right? > > P: Yes, I had fun. > > > > > >Edg: So, for a while longer, I think I'll tarry here, but if you have anything to teach me, let's have it now. > > P: Concentrate in what you sense. What you think > is not it. Try to communicate what you sense as > directly and plainly as you can. Forget old myths. > The label, is not the food. > > > Edg: Maybe you could answer my newbie questions to show me how you see this place differently than my take. That would be impressive perhaps, but, actually, I think you and I see things pretty much the same, so I'd be surprised if your take about this group markedly differs from my own. > > P: This place is a good place for salesmen to face > tough buyers. We are, probably, the hardest bunch to > sell anything that you could ever face. What do they > say about New York? If you can make it here, you can > make it anywhere. > > Good luck! > > Pete > Well................... with my prior experience.... Edg is most likely, (quite highly) probably...... .b.b.b...... He likes multiple personalities. Sorry if I tagged you. ;-) ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Suggesting that I'm .b.b.b is one funny joke. Thanks for the laugh. I do have his ability to be cynical, caustic, and crass, but I hope I've been able to rein back some of those horses-to-ride. When he rides them, one senses the expertise of much practicing, but I'd be merely shoddy and cruel if I tried to trample anyone with those steeds. What other user names are you sure that .b.b.b has used? I like ceresoul's advice: " if you can make it here . . . " And, hey, look, ceresoul's just now given me spiritual chaw to chew up a lump 0'cud, and that's cool. All in all, I'd say my post got me some definite profit. It hurts like hell though when someone of ceresoul's clarity says I haven't been unique here. Conceptually, of course, I'm a thief if I say I've come up with anything that Nisargadatta or Ramana didn't teach me, but I do think my writing style is jazzy and light -- not a bad addition to this forem sez moi. Ouch, it's hard to pat yourself on the back, but it must be done. Edg Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, Edg, If this is your farewell, > > > > I wish you the best, and it was fun to know you. > > > > Sorry, that it wasn't fun for you. The fact > > > > is that you came to teach, and we were > > > > unimpressed, and try to teach you back. > > > > > > > > Except, maybe for Bob, no one was overtly > > > > rude to you. You are offended that instead > > > > of accepting your words as a new revelation, > > > > we tried to teach you instead. > > > > > > > > Well, I have news for you, wherever you go, > > > > there will be people eager to teach you > > > > because you have a lot to learn. > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > Edg: Who's leaving? I might, I might not. > > > > P: Well, good, I'm glad that you are staying for > > a while. > > > > I thought it was time to answer the questions to show my present " take " about what this group is all about. If anything personally " stung ya, " then, hey, I did you a solid in that you now have a personality-target to hone in on > > > > P: No I didn't take you personally, in any way. > > > > > >E: I have had some fun here -- with you for starters. If you find that my summations about the group were incorrect, please correct if you have the time....I'll read it. > > > > P: There is no group. Only posts, and posters. This is > > an active unmoderated list, and as such, most posts are > > of little value, and some are offensive to more sensitive > > readers. After a while, one learns to ignore the posts of > > one stick posters. I moderate two lists, which are > > not that active: > > > > AdvaitatoZen > > > > NonDualPhil > > > > You are welcome there, if you want to join. > > > > > > > > > >E: If you think I've used jargon-dogma terms incorrectly, correct me, I'll read it. > > > > P: All jargon-dogma are incorrect. I have been > > telling you to use plain English to convey your > > insight. Are you a Hindu? > > > > > > Edg: If I was trying to teach, please explain how that is a wrong intent. > > > > P: Nothing wrong with that, if you don't get all > > work up when people take you for a Hindu parrot. > > > > Edg: hey, fucking hey, I've posted some stuff here that was extraordinarily clever and only the sound of crickets was my reward, but yet I'm not railing about that lack of attention. I take disinterest in stride. > > > > P: Big smile! Well, look at the bright side, > > clever parrots are seldom crucified. > > > > > > > > > >Edg: I don't think the group is unimpressed by my posts. My stuff is well written, unique, conceptually adroit and poetically entertaining. > > > > P: Except for unique, I agree. > > > > > > > > > > Edg: I like to talk shop, sue me. You talked shop with me, and it was good, right? > > > > P: Yes, I had fun. > > > > > > > > >Edg: So, for a while longer, I think I'll tarry here, but if you have anything to teach me, let's have it now. > > > > P: Concentrate in what you sense. What you think > > is not it. Try to communicate what you sense as > > directly and plainly as you can. Forget old myths. > > The label, is not the food. > > > > > > Edg: Maybe you could answer my newbie questions to show me how you see this place differently than my take. That would be impressive perhaps, but, actually, I think you and I see things pretty much the same, so I'd be surprised if your take about this group markedly differs from my own. > > > > P: This place is a good place for salesmen to face > > tough buyers. We are, probably, the hardest bunch to > > sell anything that you could ever face. What do they > > say about New York? If you can make it here, you can > > make it anywhere. > > > > Good luck! > > > > Pete > > > > > Well................... with my prior experience.... Edg is > most likely, (quite highly) probably...... .b.b.b...... > > He likes multiple personalities. > > Sorry if I tagged you. ;-) > > ~A > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Well, you'll have to 'splain why bbb is suspiciously absent. For your edification, I never heard of Ramana & Niz except in passing before I started this journey of filling in the blanks. Perhaps, long after I'm gone... beyond the beyond, someone will, lo and behold, quote me and/or read my poems. I could only hope.. ;-) ~A Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Suggesting that I'm .b.b.b is one funny joke. Thanks for the laugh. > > I do have his ability to be cynical, caustic, and crass, but I hope I've been able to rein back some of those horses-to-ride. When he rides them, one senses the expertise of much practicing, but I'd be merely shoddy and cruel if I tried to trample anyone with those steeds. > > What other user names are you sure that .b.b.b has used? > > I like ceresoul's advice: " if you can make it here . . . " And, hey, look, ceresoul's just now given me spiritual chaw to chew up a lump 0'cud, and that's cool. > > All in all, I'd say my post got me some definite profit. > > It hurts like hell though when someone of ceresoul's clarity says I haven't been unique here. Conceptually, of course, I'm a thief if I say I've come up with anything that Nisargadatta or Ramana didn't teach me, but I do think my writing style is jazzy and light -- not a bad addition to this forem sez moi. > > Ouch, it's hard to pat yourself on the back, but it must be done. > > Edg > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Well, Edg, If this is your farewell, > > > > > I wish you the best, and it was fun to know you. > > > > > Sorry, that it wasn't fun for you. The fact > > > > > is that you came to teach, and we were > > > > > unimpressed, and try to teach you back. > > > > > > > > > > Except, maybe for Bob, no one was overtly > > > > > rude to you. You are offended that instead > > > > > of accepting your words as a new revelation, > > > > > we tried to teach you instead. > > > > > > > > > > Well, I have news for you, wherever you go, > > > > > there will be people eager to teach you > > > > > because you have a lot to learn. > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > Edg: Who's leaving? I might, I might not. > > > > > > P: Well, good, I'm glad that you are staying for > > > a while. > > > > > > I thought it was time to answer the questions to show my present " take " about what this group is all about. If anything personally " stung ya, " then, hey, I did you a solid in that you now have a personality-target to hone in on > > > > > > P: No I didn't take you personally, in any way. > > > > > > > >E: I have had some fun here -- with you for starters. If you find that my summations about the group were incorrect, please correct if you have the time....I'll read it. > > > > > > P: There is no group. Only posts, and posters. This is > > > an active unmoderated list, and as such, most posts are > > > of little value, and some are offensive to more sensitive > > > readers. After a while, one learns to ignore the posts of > > > one stick posters. I moderate two lists, which are > > > not that active: > > > > > > AdvaitatoZen > > > > > > NonDualPhil > > > > > > You are welcome there, if you want to join. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >E: If you think I've used jargon-dogma terms incorrectly, correct me, I'll read it. > > > > > > P: All jargon-dogma are incorrect. I have been > > > telling you to use plain English to convey your > > > insight. Are you a Hindu? > > > > > > > > Edg: If I was trying to teach, please explain how that is a wrong intent. > > > > > > P: Nothing wrong with that, if you don't get all > > > work up when people take you for a Hindu parrot. > > > > > > Edg: hey, fucking hey, I've posted some stuff here that was extraordinarily clever and only the sound of crickets was my reward, but yet I'm not railing about that lack of attention. I take disinterest in stride. > > > > > > P: Big smile! Well, look at the bright side, > > > clever parrots are seldom crucified. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Edg: I don't think the group is unimpressed by my posts. My stuff is well written, unique, conceptually adroit and poetically entertaining. > > > > > > P: Except for unique, I agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edg: I like to talk shop, sue me. You talked shop with me, and it was good, right? > > > > > > P: Yes, I had fun. > > > > > > > > > > > >Edg: So, for a while longer, I think I'll tarry here, but if you have anything to teach me, let's have it now. > > > > > > P: Concentrate in what you sense. What you think > > > is not it. Try to communicate what you sense as > > > directly and plainly as you can. Forget old myths. > > > The label, is not the food. > > > > > > > > > Edg: Maybe you could answer my newbie questions to show me how you see this place differently than my take. That would be impressive perhaps, but, actually, I think you and I see things pretty much the same, so I'd be surprised if your take about this group markedly differs from my own. > > > > > > P: This place is a good place for salesmen to face > > > tough buyers. We are, probably, the hardest bunch to > > > sell anything that you could ever face. What do they > > > say about New York? If you can make it here, you can > > > make it anywhere. > > > > > > Good luck! > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > Well................... with my prior experience.... Edg is > > most likely, (quite highly) probably...... .b.b.b...... > > > > He likes multiple personalities. > > > > Sorry if I tagged you. ;-) > > > > ~A > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Suggesting that I'm .b.b.b is one funny joke. Thanks for the laugh. > > I do have his ability to be cynical, caustic, and crass, but I hope I've been able to rein back some of those horses-to-ride. When he rides them, one senses the expertise of much practicing, but I'd be merely shoddy and cruel if I tried to trample anyone with those steeds. > > What other user names are you sure that .b.b.b has used? well let's see here... i've used Bob..Sweeny..Bodil.. .b bobji baba...good ol' .b b.b... and several and many others. in the days of old rock and roll.. there were a couple you might even vaguely kinda sorta remember. or not. a very very long time ago..i used to use God. but people started to quit believing in me. they never fucking listened to me either. many pretenders came along too.. Osiris..Vishnu..Jesus Christ..Chester Riley..Matt Dillon.. well heaven's there were so many claiming to be me.. and them..and you..and even that they weren't anybody... i just gave up on them like they gave up on me. now and then i come back to haunt them. that scares the hell out of me and keeps me home. it doesn't do anything to 'them " except piss them off. s'okay by me. man o'live were the fucking perch biting today.. hook..line...and tasty minnows. i must now go and multiply (filleting in two) and fry. wish i could have you all over for dinner. i mean even God can't eat 130 perch. :-) sincerely though Edg.. thank you for the compliments..and the roasting too. few there are that know the heart within the grouch. you should see how i talk to the grandchildren. grandma sometimes slaps me for that.. but those babies love old gramps.. and funny thing here.. (of course they see the eyes and feel the touch).. they squeal with delight.. and never take fright.. like the concrete adults that hang around. they aren't defending anything and they shoot me right back. it's gleefully fun... an art attack! most big folks can't see the picture. gotta go.. this old bastard has to get some chips ready to go with the fish.. and maybe some ice cream and chocolate sauce for after. oh boy..their mom and dad are gonna get pissed about that... and tell the old man off. well screw them. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 ..b.b.b, I suppose no one here's been brave enough to tell you that when you emit posts like the below response, you're downright sweet and intimate and real. Who here gets it that your presentation to us is packed with passion and attachment and mysterious wonderment about the stream of consciousness and that these dynamics are bliss? A drug, but, man what a drug, eh? Ask Indra about how he clings to his mirage. Ask him how hard it is to do inquiry when it requires that he closes his eyes and no longer can gaze upon infinite splendor. .b.b.b, is your inner Indra swathed in glory too? You should see mine strut like John Astor on opening night on Broadway. To me the Hindu pantheon are like the Sefirot in Jewish Kabbalah -- each symbolizes a dynamic of my individual persona. Each an " I " chart with which to measure consciousness' clarities. How well do I see my clockworks? If one cannot translate the Sefirot or the Hindu pantheon into " Yeah this reminds me of how my mind works, " then typically some other tool is turned to; like: " Father, Son, Holy Ghost, " or " Confucius says, " or ? What does ya use .b.b.b? What's your self-talk got for jargon? Edg At 05:03 PM 7/22/2009, you wrote: --- In Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Suggesting that I'm .b.b.b is one funny joke. Thanks for the laugh. > > I do have his ability to be cynical, caustic, and crass, but I hope I've been able to rein back some of those horses-to-ride. When he rides them, one senses the expertise of much practicing, but I'd be merely shoddy and cruel if I tried to trample anyone with those steeds. > > What other user names are you sure that .b.b.b has used? well let's see here... i've used Bob..Sweeny..Bodil.. .b bobji baba...good ol' .b b.b... and several and many others. in the days of old rock and roll.. there were a couple you might even vaguely kinda sorta remember. or not. a very very long time ago..i used to use God. but people started to quit believing in me. they never fucking listened to me either. many pretenders came along too.. Osiris..Vishnu..Jesus Christ..Chester Riley..Matt Dillon.. well heaven's there were so many claiming to be me.. and them..and you..and even that they weren't anybody... i just gave up on them like they gave up on me. now and then i come back to haunt them. that scares the hell out of me and keeps me home. it doesn't do anything to 'them " except piss them off. s'okay by me. man o'live were the fucking perch biting today.. hook..line...and tasty minnows. i must now go and multiply (filleting in two) and fry. wish i could have you all over for dinner. i mean even God can't eat 130 perch. :-) sincerely though Edg.. thank you for the compliments..and the roasting too. few there are that know the heart within the grouch. you should see how i talk to the grandchildren. grandma sometimes slaps me for that.. but those babies love old gramps.. and funny thing here.. (of course they see the eyes and feel the touch).. they squeal with delight.. and never take fright.. like the concrete adults that hang around. they aren't defending anything and they shoot me right back. it's gleefully fun... an art attack! most big folks can't see the picture. gotta go.. this old bastard has to get some chips ready to go with the fish.. and maybe some ice cream and chocolate sauce for after. oh boy..their mom and dad are gonna get pissed about that... and tell the old man off. well screw them. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 ..b.b.b, I suppose no one here's been brave enough to tell you that when you emit posts like the below response, you're downright sweet and intimate and real. Who here gets it that your presentation to us is packed with passion and attachment and mysterious wonderment about the stream of consciousness and that these dynamics are bliss? A drug, but, man what a drug, eh? Ask Indra about how he clings to his mirage. Ask him how hard it is to do inquiry when it requires that he closes his eyes and no longer can gaze upon infinite splendor. .b.b.b, is your inner Indra swathed in glory too? You should see mine strut like John Astor on opening night on Broadway. To me the Hindu pantheon are like the Sefirot in Jewish Kabbalah -- each symbolizes a dynamic of my individual persona. Each an " I " chart with which to measure consciousness' clarities. How well do I see my clockworks? If one cannot translate the Sefirot or the Hindu pantheon into " Yeah this reminds me of how my mind works, " then typically some other tool is turned to; like: " Father, Son, Holy Ghost, " or " Confucius says, " or ? What does ya use .b.b.b? What's your self-talk got for jargon? Edg i really don't know. like Will said.. all the worlds a stage.. and something about sound and fury and what it signifies... and what it doesn't by inference. i mean i guess... i just follow the flow. like any dead fish can and does. but what it is that flows.. who knows? certainly not me or any me i can think of. ..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.