Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I will never know a rock in itself, just a > > perception labeled rock > > -p- > > > > You are not getting it... > > There is no other rock aside from the rock perceived. > > There is nothing else: a world of perceptions. > > The idea of a world apart from perceptions is conceptual, imagination, the essence of duality. > > Be-ing the world of perceptions, wholy. > > -geo- > > P: What are you? An idiot? A student of English > 101? Why do you cut a sentence in half and > disagree with it, when as a whole it says exactly > what you said. Here is what I wrote in its > entirety: > > Then, it's easy to get lost in explanations, and > lose track that I will never know a rock in itself, > just a perception labeled rock. > > Should I waste my time with you? Nah! Bye! Aww c'mon, Pete, getting pissed over cutting a sentence in half? Nobody is 'in your head', everyone is in their own, and are not in touch with 'you' and your intended meanings. Yet, few are aware of this, as everyone feels both subject and object to be with them somehow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Thought is itself "sensed", is it not? We're normally not in touch with this fact, because thought tends to be obsessive/ceaseless with most of us. But it is sensed, just as sound and light are sensed. Its absence can be sensed, just as the absence of light can be sensed. -tim- Of course. Once thought is sensed in its entirety, fully, one is out of it, there is no more identification with the thinking field, the thinking process. When thoughts are not sensed there is identification with them. In fact there is nothing more to it - it is the full story of the thinking process. The "idea" of some inner entity is like a shadowing process upon the thinking processs - the very shadowed part is the aspect of the mind that is considered the observer. Being non-observed it can be taken as the observer. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Thought is itself " sensed " , is it not? We're normally not in touch with this fact, because thought tends to be obsessive/ceaseless with most of us. But it is sensed, just as sound and light are sensed. Its absence can be sensed, just as the absence of light can be sensed. > -tim- > > Of course. Once thought is sensed in its entirety, fully, one is out of it, there is no more identification with the thinking field, the thinking process. When thoughts are not sensed there is identification with them. In fact there is nothing more to it - it is the full story of the thinking process. The " idea " of some inner entity is like a shadowing process upon the thinking processs - the very shadowed part is the aspect of the mind that is considered the observer. Being non-observed it can be taken as the observer. > -geo- Nicely said, except the idea of an inner entity is not continuous. For example, when deeply involved in a movie or some certain music, it is forgotten altogether. The " I " is just a thought that arises, like all the rest, except some special importance is attached to it due to a belief that it is " the thinker " . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Sunday, July 12, 2009 4:54 PM Re: This Morning At Niz Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I will never know a rock in itself, just a > perception labeled rock > -p- > > You are not getting it... > There is no other rock aside from the rock perceived. > There is nothing else: a world of perceptions. > The idea of a world apart from perceptions is conceptual, imagination, the > essence of duality. > Be-ing the world of perceptions, wholy. > -geo- It's the notion of a separate perceiver and perceived that's the essential illusion, no? " Me here " , " rock there " . -tim- It is the same process, tim. The same movement. When p. says that there is rock itself out there besides the perceived rock he is very simply redimensioning the " inside " and there is still an " outside " . What he is doing is creating another more-outer-world then the inner one he calls the perceived, but that more outer world is just conceptual. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 - cerosoul Nisargadatta Sunday, July 12, 2009 5:41 PM Re: This Morning At Niz > >p: All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? > > > > > > > >G: All we perceive is perception, we can not perceive non-perception. > . > > -geo- > > P: Are you sure? How do you know that? > > geo> Perception is perceivable through the senses. Thename is not the > issue, > is it? But perhaps you see it otherwise... P: There are perceptions that are not perceived through the senses. Through what sense do you feel confused, or angry, or calm? geo> Confusion is sensed partly in the intellectual mind that is searching non-confusion and partly through emotions, insatisfaction, and if the confusion is very marked one may sense it through the nerves as tactil sensation of discomfort. ...etc... You said, we can not perceive non-perception. Can you perceive your wallet missing? Can you perceive silence? Any absence? all perceptions absent? If you fall sleep, do you perceive that? I want you to think for a while about perception, and don't rush to answer with whatever comes to your head. If you reread my questions above: are you sure? How do you know that? You could see that what you gave as answer doesn't match those questions, yet the questions were simple, clear and specific. But you jumped with a false, and naive assertion: " Perception is perceivable through the senses. Thename is not the issue. " Only a Martian, or one who really doesn't understand the meaning of the word perception would answer that: Perception: 1 a : a result of perceiving : observation b : a mental image : concept 2 obsolete : consciousness 3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception> b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience 4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : appreciation b : a capacity for comprehension You got to do your home work to play, OK? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Sunday, July 12, 2009 4:54 PM > Re: This Morning At Niz > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I will never know a rock in itself, just a > > perception labeled rock > > -p- > > > > You are not getting it... > > There is no other rock aside from the rock perceived. > > There is nothing else: a world of perceptions. > > The idea of a world apart from perceptions is conceptual, imagination, the > > essence of duality. > > Be-ing the world of perceptions, wholy. > > -geo- > > It's the notion of a separate perceiver and perceived that's the essential > illusion, no? " Me here " , " rock there " . > -tim- > > It is the same process, tim. The same movement. When p. says that there is > rock itself out there besides the perceived rock he is very simply > redimensioning the " inside " and there is still an " outside " . What he is > doing is creating another more-outer-world then the inner one he calls the > perceived, but that more outer world is just conceptual. > -geo- Will take your word for it, as I wasn't paying attention to what Pete said at all... just addressing what you said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:38 PM Re: This Morning At Niz Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Thought is itself " sensed " , is it not? We're normally not in touch with > this fact, because thought tends to be obsessive/ceaseless with most of > us. But it is sensed, just as sound and light are sensed. Its absence can > be sensed, just as the absence of light can be sensed. > -tim- > > Of course. Once thought is sensed in its entirety, fully, one is out of > it, there is no more identification with the thinking field, the thinking > process. When thoughts are not sensed there is identification with them. > In fact there is nothing more to it - it is the full story of the thinking > process. The " idea " of some inner entity is like a shadowing process upon > the thinking processs - the very shadowed part is the aspect of the mind > that is considered the observer. Being non-observed it can be taken as the > observer. > -geo- Nicely said, except the idea of an inner entity is not continuous. For example, when deeply involved in a movie or some certain music, it is forgotten altogether. The " I " is just a thought that arises, like all the rest, except some special importance is attached to it due to a belief that it is " the thinker " . -tim- Yes. The shadowed part is always changing. That is why the " I " is changing also. The funny part is that we know that we change, we even want to change - to better preferably - but we consider the observer as fixed. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > >p: All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >G: All we perceive is perception, we can not perceive non-perception. > > > . > > > > -geo- > > > > > > P: Are you sure? How do you know that? > > > > > > geo> Perception is perceivable through the senses. Thename is not the issue, > > > is it? But perhaps you see it otherwise... > > > > P: There are perceptions that are not perceived > > through the senses. Through what sense do you feel > > confused, or angry, or calm? > >T: Thought is itself " sensed " , is it not? We're normally not in touch with this fact, because thought tends to be obsessive/ceaseless with most of us. But it is sensed, just as sound and light are sensed. Its absence can be sensed, just as the absence of light can be sensed. P: Do you understand what through the senses means? It's basic English. The eye is a sense. Calmness although sensed as in perceived, is not sensed through one of the sense organs. The word sense has several meanings. I'm not pissed at Geo, or you, but these kind of discussions can get too tedious, if people need basic words explained. I have no time for that. You where born here, you should know I was referring to # 2 below 1: a meaning conveyed or intended : import, signification ; especially : one of a set of meanings a word or phrase may bear especially as segregated in a dictionary entry 2 a: the faculty of perceiving by means of sense organs b: a specialized function or mechanism (as sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch) by which an animal receives and responds to external or internal stimuli c: the sensory mechanisms constituting a unit distinct from other functions (as movement or thought) 3: conscious awareness or rationality —usually used in plural <finally came to his senses>4 a: a particular sensation or kind or quality of sensation <a good sense of balance> b: a definite but often vague awareness or impression <felt a sense of insecurity> <a sense of danger> c: a motivating awareness <a sense of shame> d: a discerning awareness and appreciation <her sense of humor> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >p: All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >G: All we perceive is perception, we can not perceive non-perception. > > > > . > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > P: Are you sure? How do you know that? > > > > > > > > geo> Perception is perceivable through the senses. Thename is not the issue, > > > > is it? But perhaps you see it otherwise... > > > > > > P: There are perceptions that are not perceived > > > through the senses. Through what sense do you feel > > > confused, or angry, or calm? > > > >T: Thought is itself " sensed " , is it not? We're normally not in touch with this fact, because thought tends to be obsessive/ceaseless with most of us. But it is sensed, just as sound and light are sensed. Its absence can be sensed, just as the absence of light can be sensed. > > P: Do you understand what through the senses means? It's > basic English. The eye is a sense. Calmness although sensed > as in perceived, is not sensed through one of the sense > organs. The word sense has several meanings. I'm not pissed > at Geo, or you, but these kind of discussions can get too > tedious, if people need basic words explained. I have no > time for that. You where born here, you should know I was > referring to # 2 below If ya wanna play with dictionary definitions, Pete, call Webster's and chat with 'em. Tedious is indeed the word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 - cerosoul Nisargadatta Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:56 PM Re: This Morning At Niz Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > >p: All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >G: All we perceive is perception, we can not perceive non-perception. > > > . > > > > -geo- > > > > > > P: Are you sure? How do you know that? > > > > > > geo> Perception is perceivable through the senses. Thename is not the > > > issue, > > > is it? But perhaps you see it otherwise... > > > > P: There are perceptions that are not perceived > > through the senses. Through what sense do you feel > > confused, or angry, or calm? > >T: Thought is itself " sensed " , is it not? We're normally not in touch with >this fact, because thought tends to be obsessive/ceaseless with most of us. >But it is sensed, just as sound and light are sensed. Its absence can be >sensed, just as the absence of light can be sensed. P: Do you understand what through the senses means? It's basic English. The eye is a sense. Calmness although sensed as in perceived, is not sensed through one of the sense organs. The word sense has several meanings. I'm not pissed at Geo, or you, but these kind of discussions can get too tedious, if people need basic words explained. I have no time for that. You where born here, you should know I was referring to # 2 below geo> Pete, me an tim understood perfectly well what you meant. Thoughts are sensed as a kind of movement in the head. If you pay attention you will notice that the whole thinking process is " perceivable " . In fact when you think you are sensing your thoughts otherwise you would not know what you are thinking, or when you are thinking. Thoughts may be sensed as " meaning " or as " energy " - and the best is to sense both. How do you know you are thinking? -geo- 1: a meaning conveyed or intended : import, signification ; especially : one of a set of meanings a word or phrase may bear especially as segregated in a dictionary entry 2 a: the faculty of perceiving by means of sense organs b: a specialized function or mechanism (as sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch) by which an animal receives and responds to external or internal stimuli c: the sensory mechanisms constituting a unit distinct from other functions (as movement or thought) 3: conscious awareness or rationality -usually used in plural <finally came to his senses>4 a: a particular sensation or kind or quality of sensation <a good sense of balance> b: a definite but often vague awareness or impression <felt a sense of insecurity> <a sense of danger> c: a motivating awareness <a sense of shame> d: a discerning awareness and appreciation <her sense of humor> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > >p: All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >G: All we perceive is perception, we can not perceive non-perception. > > > . > > > > -geo- > > > > > > P: Are you sure? How do you know that? > > > > > > geo> Perception is perceivable through the senses. Thename is not the issue, > > > is it? But perhaps you see it otherwise... > > > > P: There are perceptions that are not perceived > > through the senses. Through what sense do you feel > > confused, or angry, or calm? > > Thought is itself " sensed " , is it not? We're normally not in touch with this fact, because thought tends to be obsessive/ceaseless with most of us. But it is sensed, just as sound and light are sensed. Its absence can be sensed, just as the absence of light can be sensed. > thought is not a sense. there are five senses hear see touch taste and smell. if you feel thought is sensed you might want to stop right there. ego be trying to be finding a place for it to survive. watch out! you could fall into that awakened snake pit that could take you lifetimes to crawl your way out of. it ain't in the details. people get so fucking hung up in trying to understand it. Ain't that right Pete? So superego is born to save the day. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > P: I'm not pissed. You guys don't pay attention > to what you read because you are just interested > in having your say. I don't see this sort of " you're this way, you're that way " sort of conversation having any value whatsoever... particularly considering the fact that the individuals you're referring to are imaginary, whether one is aware of the fact or not. Cheers... enjoy the forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 The problem for contemplatives and mystics is thetemptation to objectify "divine" sensations. So if Irefer to an absolute I am talking only of an absolutesensation. What sensation is that? It varies with eachbrain. Some label love as the absolute, others labelawareness itself as the absolute, for others is theconcept of self. Awareness without perceptions dissolvesinto unawareness. There is a point in meditation whereawareness and unawareness become the same unknown. Thatis the door which exits the verbal maze. Can we uselanguage without casting the long shadow of entification?All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? Pete geo> Sometimes I feel you are right..sometimes I dont...now I just dont know. I agree with you that what we loosely call "awareness" trying to point to the absolute is a non-sensation. Strange question, is it not? How are we to "know" about the absolute subjective? It is not knowledge of the mind, or sensations....but a fucking obvious "fact". But then you say "so if I refer to an absolute I am talking only of an absolute sensation" . Absolute as a sensation? Then you go on saying "there is a point in meditation where awareness and unawareness become the same unknown". Now this is correct from here too. Are there two absolutes, one as sensation and other as non-sensation or unknown? Only because "wareness without perceptions dissolves into unawareness" means there is not the absolute? ....so I dont know... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 - marktimmins60 Nisargadatta Sunday, July 12, 2009 8:15 PM Re: This Morning At Niz Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > >p: All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >G: All we perceive is perception, we can not perceive non-perception. > > > . > > > > -geo- > > > > > > P: Are you sure? How do you know that? > > > > > > geo> Perception is perceivable through the senses. Thename is not the > > > issue, > > > is it? But perhaps you see it otherwise... > > > > P: There are perceptions that are not perceived > > through the senses. Through what sense do you feel > > confused, or angry, or calm? > > Thought is itself " sensed " , is it not? We're normally not in touch with > this fact, because thought tends to be obsessive/ceaseless with most of > us. But it is sensed, just as sound and light are sensed. Its absence can > be sensed, just as the absence of light can be sensed. > thought is not a sense. there are five senses hear see touch taste and smell. if you feel thought is sensed you might want to stop right there. ego be trying to be finding a place for it to survive. watch out! you could fall into that awakened snake pit that could take you lifetimes to crawl your way out of. it ain't in the details. people get so fucking hung up in trying to understand it. Ain't that right Pete? So superego is born to save the day. Mark Correct. It is not in the datails. If you can count ONE - that is enough. Details show when someone is counting much more then that. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Geo is a master of simplistic mystification andmisunderstanding. That we are only aware ofperception neither negates, nor affirm externalobjects. It simply means we can not say theyexist, we can not say the don't, we cannot evensay that they neither exist, nor not exist. Nothingcan be say about their existence, except that pragmatically speaking they do appear to exist.-p- I agree with you here. (not the mystification and misunderstanding part though...). Let me put it my way and lets see where we agree or not. There is the world of perceptions. These perceptions are "givers" of quality. And there is awarenes of the world. The world is not else but waves in awareness.................and words seem pretty stupid trying to describe this. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Geo is a master of simplistic mystification and > misunderstanding. What's interesting (from here) is that if one sees that " persons " are imaginary, why the compulsive need to knock them? Whatever comes out of Pete's computer seems to have this repetitive " you're wrong, you're wrong " thingie happening toward projected others. This is, of course, self-judgment and self-condemnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Geo is a master of simplistic mystification and > > misunderstanding. > > What's interesting (from here) is that if one sees that " persons " are imaginary, why the compulsive need to knock them? > > Whatever comes out of Pete's computer seems to have this repetitive " you're wrong, you're wrong " thingie happening toward projected others. This is, of course, self-judgment and self-condemnation. > Pete does provide an essential element however. He teaches who you are not. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Geo is a master of simplistic mystification and > > > misunderstanding. > > > > What's interesting (from here) is that if one sees that " persons " are imaginary, why the compulsive need to knock them? > > > > Whatever comes out of Pete's computer seems to have this repetitive " you're wrong, you're wrong " thingie happening toward projected others. This is, of course, self-judgment and self-condemnation. > > > Pete does provide an essential element however. > He teaches who you are not. > Mark Afaic, none of us add or take anything away whatsoever. We are all included in the situation -- none of us are apart from it. Nothing to add, nothing to remove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Geo is a master of simplistic mystification and > > > > misunderstanding. > > > > > > What's interesting (from here) is that if one sees that " persons " are imaginary, why the compulsive need to knock them? > > > > > > Whatever comes out of Pete's computer seems to have this repetitive " you're wrong, you're wrong " thingie happening toward projected others. This is, of course, self-judgment and self-condemnation. > > > > > Pete does provide an essential element however. > > He teaches who you are not. > > Mark > > Afaic, none of us add or take anything away whatsoever. We are all included in the situation -- none of us are apart from it. Nothing to add, nothing to remove. > and yet another one bites the dust into mortality. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > The problem for contemplatives and mystics is the > temptation to objectify " divine " sensations. So if I > refer to an absolute I am talking only of an absolute > sensation. What sensation is that? It varies with each > brain. Some label love as the absolute, others label > awareness itself as the absolute, for others is the > concept of self. Awareness without perceptions dissolves > into unawareness. There is a point in meditation where > awareness and unawareness become the same unknown. That > is the door which exits the verbal maze. Can we use > language without casting the long shadow of entification? > > All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? > > Pete > > geo> Sometimes I feel you are right..sometimes I dont...now I just dont know. I agree with you that what we loosely call " awareness " trying to point to the absolute is a non-sensation. Strange question, is it not? How are we to " know " about the absolute subjective? It is not knowledge of the mind, or sensations....but a fucking obvious " fact " . P: Define a fucking fact. If we are in agreement that all we are aware of are perceptions, then how can you know an absolute as a fact? You are projecting and objectifying a perception that you label absolute. But then you say " so if I refer to an absolute I am talking only of an absolute sensation " . Absolute as a sensation? Then you go on saying " there is a point in meditation where awareness and unawareness become the same unknown " . Now this is correct from here too. Are there two absolutes, one as sensation and other as non-sensation or unknown? Only because " wareness without perceptions dissolves into unawareness " means there is not the absolute? P: That's right. Absolute is only a concept. There is no such a thing outside sensation. > geo...so I dont know... P: Yes, that's where all searches end, I don't know, no one knows, it can't be known. Just rest in the unknown that is. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Geo is a master of simplistic mystification and > > misunderstanding. > > What's interesting (from here) is that if one sees that " persons " are imaginary, why the compulsive need to knock them? > > Whatever comes out of Pete's computer seems to have this repetitive " you're wrong, you're wrong " thingie happening toward projected others. This is, of course, self-judgment and self-condemnation. P: Don't you understand after all these years that one can only show the false as the false. Truth can not be discussed, or shown, or given. Once you eliminate everything that is false. Neti, neti. Then, everything one sees is truth. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Geo is a master of simplistic mystification and > > > misunderstanding. > > > > What's interesting (from here) is that if one sees that " persons " are imaginary, why the compulsive need to knock them? > > > > Whatever comes out of Pete's computer seems to have this repetitive " you're wrong, you're wrong " thingie happening toward projected others. This is, of course, self-judgment and self-condemnation. > > > Pete does provide an essential element however. > He teaches who you are not. > Mark P: Ha! And who wants to hear that? People rather want to hear they are an immortal soul, or Awareness, or the Self, or the Absolute. Anything except having no known identification. Right? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Geo is a master of simplistic mystification and > > > > misunderstanding. > > > > > > What's interesting (from here) is that if one sees that " persons " are imaginary, why the compulsive need to knock them? > > > > > > Whatever comes out of Pete's computer seems to have this repetitive " you're wrong, you're wrong " thingie happening toward projected others. This is, of course, self-judgment and self-condemnation. > > > > > Pete does provide an essential element however. > > He teaches who you are not. > > Mark > > P: Ha! And who wants to hear that? People rather > want to hear they are an immortal soul, or Awareness, > or the Self, or the Absolute. Anything except having > no known identification. Right? > > > Yes, Pete, That is the whole point. And some of them rather will kill you or will go after you with all their hate and contempt than questioning those believes or identifications. And these identification are also the base and origin of their vulnerability. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Yes, Pete, > > That is the whole point. > > And some of them rather will kill you or will go after you with all > their hate and contempt than questioning those believes or > identifications. Hate and contempt are misunderstandings, and all that happens is nonvolitional. One who understands this will not hate or contempt those who appear to show hate and contempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Yes, Pete, > > > > That is the whole point. > > > > And some of them rather will kill you or will go after you with all > > their hate and contempt than questioning those believes or > > identifications. > > Hate and contempt are misunderstandings, and all that happens is nonvolitional. > > One who understands this will not hate or contempt those who appear to show hate and contempt. > Do you have children, Tim ? I know that you are so proud of your little thing that all is in one's head but will you tell a parent whose child has died and who now is full of grief and who is shedding tears all day long, that his child is just a phantom in his head ? Or will you respect the reality and functioning of the human psyche which is suffering because an important base of its daily rountines have been taken away ? Your little 'all is in one's head' which you are so proud of will lead nowhere because the conditioned routines of the psyche are much more powerful than your little Advaita argumentation. Much more powerful, Tim. Werner 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.