Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > i don't care about words or terms or you. P.S. Bobby obviously cares desperately about 'others'. That's all he ever talks about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > i don't care about words or terms or you. > > P.S. Bobby obviously cares desperately about 'others'. That's all he ever talks about. uh huh. and when you talk about that dead pedophile mikey jackson.. does that mean you care about him? you're fucking getting to be stupid creepy kid. get a clue. non-desperately: ..b b.b. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > i don't care about words or terms or you. > > > > P.S. Bobby obviously cares desperately about 'others'. That's all he ever talks about. > > > uh huh. > > and when you talk about that dead pedophile mikey jackson.. > > does that mean you care about him? > > you're fucking getting to be stupid creepy kid. Who talks about him? Tim never mentioned him. Is Bob externalizing so intensely that he actually believes he's " out there " away from himself somehow? And bob refers to himself as " you " most of the time, when talking to people on the Internet? That can get crazy, ya know... twisted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > i don't care about words or terms or you. > > > > > > P.S. Bobby obviously cares desperately about 'others'. That's all he ever talks about. > > > > > > uh huh. > > > > and when you talk about that dead pedophile mikey jackson.. > > > > does that mean you care about him? > > > > you're fucking getting to be stupid creepy kid. > > Who talks about him? Tim never mentioned him. > > Is Bob externalizing so intensely that he actually believes he's " out there " away from himself somehow? And bob refers to himself as " you " most of the time, when talking to people on the Internet? That can get crazy, ya know... twisted. don't be a jerk. the comparison was about: " caring " ( " desperately " hee hee!) and talking about.. ANYTHING or ANYONE. and timmy.. you are in need of a psychiatrist. i know scientology buffs don't like them.. but the way you talk about what you believe.. it's an urgent situation kid. you sound as if you're really buying your horseshit. rest son. then get that shrink. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > don't be a jerk. > > the comparison was about: > > " caring " ( " desperately " hee hee!) and talking about.. > > ANYTHING or ANYONE. > > and timmy.. > > you are in need of a psychiatrist. > > i know scientology buffs don't like them.. > > but the way you talk about what you believe.. > > it's an urgent situation kid. > > you sound as if you're really buying your horseshit. > > rest son. > > then get that shrink. > > .b b.b. Ya wouldn't know a thing about Tim, having never met him, never talked to him on the phone, never seen a thing but a few of his messages. Bobby wouldn't even know what Tim had for breakfast this morning, but he wants to diagnose him already, eh? ;-). Physician, heal thyself ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > don't be a jerk. > > > > the comparison was about: > > > > " caring " ( " desperately " hee hee!) and talking about.. > > > > ANYTHING or ANYONE. > > > > and timmy.. > > > > you are in need of a psychiatrist. > > > > i know scientology buffs don't like them.. > > > > but the way you talk about what you believe.. > > > > it's an urgent situation kid. > > > > you sound as if you're really buying your horseshit. > > > > rest son. > > > > then get that shrink. > > > > .b b.b. > > Ya wouldn't know a thing about Tim, having never met him, never talked to him on the phone, never seen a thing but a few of his messages. > > Bobby wouldn't even know what Tim had for breakfast this morning, but he wants to diagnose him already, eh? ;-). > > Physician, heal thyself ;-). timmy.. baba really really doesn't want to know you or talk to you. ..b b.b. could not care less what you had for breakfast.. or when you have an after breakfast shit. but if it looks like a duck..walks like a duck..talks like a duck.. it's either donald duck or a damn good impersonator. i don't give you credit for that much talent. so it must be presumed that you're not impersonating. you're the real mccoy kid. and i find donald ducks hilarious. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > don't be a jerk. > > > > > > the comparison was about: > > > > > > " caring " ( " desperately " hee hee!) and talking about.. > > > > > > ANYTHING or ANYONE. > > > > > > and timmy.. > > > > > > you are in need of a psychiatrist. > > > > > > i know scientology buffs don't like them.. > > > > > > but the way you talk about what you believe.. > > > > > > it's an urgent situation kid. > > > > > > you sound as if you're really buying your horseshit. > > > > > > rest son. > > > > > > then get that shrink. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Ya wouldn't know a thing about Tim, having never met him, never talked to him on the phone, never seen a thing but a few of his messages. > > > > Bobby wouldn't even know what Tim had for breakfast this morning, but he wants to diagnose him already, eh? ;-). > > > > Physician, heal thyself ;-). > > > timmy.. > > baba really really doesn't want to know you or talk to you. What a stupid thing to say, when addressing the person one supposedly doesn't want to know or talk to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > don't be a jerk. > > > > > > > > the comparison was about: > > > > > > > > " caring " ( " desperately " hee hee!) and talking about.. > > > > > > > > ANYTHING or ANYONE. > > > > > > > > and timmy.. > > > > > > > > you are in need of a psychiatrist. > > > > > > > > i know scientology buffs don't like them.. > > > > > > > > but the way you talk about what you believe.. > > > > > > > > it's an urgent situation kid. > > > > > > > > you sound as if you're really buying your horseshit. > > > > > > > > rest son. > > > > > > > > then get that shrink. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Ya wouldn't know a thing about Tim, having never met him, never talked to him on the phone, never seen a thing but a few of his messages. > > > > > > Bobby wouldn't even know what Tim had for breakfast this morning, but he wants to diagnose him already, eh? ;-). > > > > > > Physician, heal thyself ;-). > > > > > > timmy.. > > > > baba really really doesn't want to know you or talk to you. > > What a stupid thing to say, when addressing the person one supposedly doesn't want to know or talk to. what a stupid thing to say to someone of whom one has not: talked to(on the phone)... seen(in person)... and all that crap. we are one timmy. just because. there it is. relax. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > What a stupid thing to say, when addressing the person one > supposedly doesn't want to know or talk to. > > > what a stupid thing to say to someone of whom one has not: > > talked to(on the phone)... > > seen(in person)... > > and all that crap. Not at all. Saying to someone: " I don't want to talk to you " is really dumb. Just don't talk to them. Doh. > we are one timmy. No, Bob and Tim are not one. Bob and Tim are not. But if there's a belief that Bob is, Tim will be seen as " existing as a person " too. If there's no belief that Bob is, Tim won't appear to be " existing as a person " either. As long as there's a holding on, a clinging to " Bob " as a person with a name and past history, the past history will continue to be the painful, unwanted thing it is. It's much like a drug addiction. One can't live without it, yet one can't live WITH it either. I'll bet this really 'rings a bell' for the reader. One must get to the point where one just can't live WITH it, period, where the pain of it is greater than the fear of letting go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 No, Bob and Tim are not one.Bob and Tim are not.But if there's a belief that Bob is, Tim will be seen as "existing as a person" too.If there's no belief that Bob is, Tim won't appear to be "existing as a person" either.As long as there's a holding on, a clinging to "Bob" as a person with a name and past history, the past history will continue to be the painful, unwanted thing it is.It's much like a drug addiction. One can't live without it, yet one can't live WITH it either. I'll bet this really 'rings a bell' for the reader.One must get to the point where one just can't live WITH it, period, where the pain of it is greater than the fear of letting go.-tim- I like what you wrote here. But consider. Indeed Bob and Tim are not entities - if that is the case. Bob and Tim are names that point to two different organisms. One could couple Bob with his fingerprints and Tim to his. If there is the beleif that there is a ME (Tim) separte from the outside world then there is the belief that there is a Bob as a nother ME also separate from the world - so those two entities fight. Now..there is not the beleif that there is a ME as Tim, that means that there are no other entities nowhere, but Bob may still believe he is a ME and a separet entity. So Tim (no ME) sees that Bob believes and behaves like if he was some inner separate entity inside his body. Tim seeing this may (or may not) show the organism Bob (because that is all he is in fact) that he is mistaken to beleive that he is an entity. ONly without the ego, without the belief that there is a ME can Tim try to help Bob. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:19 PM Re: This Morning At Niz (deleted II) P.S. 2 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > What a stupid thing to say, when addressing the person one > supposedly doesn't want to know or talk to. > > > what a stupid thing to say to someone of whom one has not: > > talked to(on the phone)... > > seen(in person)... > > and all that crap. Not at all. Saying to someone: " I don't want to talk to you " is really dumb. Just don't talk to them. Doh. > we are one timmy. No, Bob and Tim are not one. Bob and Tim are not. But if there's a belief that Bob is, Tim will be seen as " existing as a person " too. If there's no belief that Bob is, Tim won't appear to be " existing as a person " either. -tim- Then Tim and Bob will appear as organisms used as tools by nothingness-intelligence. -geo- As long as there's a holding on, a clinging to " Bob " as a person with a name and past history, the past history will continue to be the painful, unwanted thing it is. It's much like a drug addiction. One can't live without it, yet one can't live WITH it either. I'll bet this really 'rings a bell' for the reader. One must get to the point where one just can't live WITH it, period, where the pain of it is greater than the fear of letting go. -tim- Agreed. But this letting go doesnt seem to be " final " in many cases and then there is hte conceptual letting go. the person acts as if he did let go when in fact has not. So one must not trust some " past episode, crisis " as a sure sign of something acomplished. Maybe the letting go must go on...and on....and on...again...and again. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > I like what you wrote here. But consider. Indeed Bob and Tim are > not entities - if that is the case. Of course not. They are memories, composed entirely of thought. Thought-constructs. The " person " is " built " from memory, constructed by the mind and " held together " by attachment. > Bob and Tim are names that point to two different organisms. The names actually don't point to anything. They're just words, and the sense as if they 'point to' something real or important is all due to attachment. > If there is the beleif that there is a ME (Tim) separte from the > outside world then there is the belief that there is a Bob as a > nother ME also separate from the world - so those two entities > fight. The persons " exist " in whatever locations they're thought of, wherever attachment is located. If they're not thought about, they just aren't there. This is why the whole world can see an 'enlightened one' as existing as an entity, when they actually don't. > Now..there is not the beleif that there is a ME as Tim, that means > that there are no other entities nowhere, but Bob may still believe > he is a ME and a separet entity. So Tim (no ME) sees that Bob > believes and behaves like if he was some inner separate entity > inside his body. Tim " no me " doesn't see a Bob at all. What he sees is a thread of memory and habit. It may sound very cold, emotionless, unfeeling or whatever, but it really doesn't work that way in reality. But what way it *does* work can't really be described. There's just no continuity to refer to in order to describe something -- i.e., " Tim no me " is just doing whatever arises in the moment, now, non-volitionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Agreed. But this letting go doesnt seem to be " final " in many cases > and then > there is hte conceptual letting go. the person acts as if he did let > go when > in fact has not. Sure, that can happen. If it's not quite certain, chances are it's a 'conceptual letting go'. There's nothing uncertain about actual 'letting go'... the " I " is composed of doubt, uncertainty, and its absence is absence of doubt and uncertainty. > So one must not trust some " past episode, crisis " as a sure > sign of something acomplished. Maybe the letting go must go on...and > on....and on...again...and again. Maybe. But it's the desire for something to " go on " , for continuity, that indicates it hasn't happened completely. There's very much a 'finality' about 'the real thing', a sense of completeness and lack of desire for any " future " , for any continuing on of anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:51 PM Re: This Morning At Niz (deleted II) P.S. 2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > I like what you wrote here. But consider. Indeed Bob and Tim are > not entities - if that is the case. Of course not. They are memories, composed entirely of thought. Thought-constructs. The " person " is " built " from memory, constructed by the mind and " held together " by attachment. > Bob and Tim are names that point to two different organisms. The names actually don't point to anything. They're just words, and the sense as if they 'point to' something real or important is all due to attachment. geo> One could couple Bob with his fingerprints and Tim to his. Dont you recognise a friend called Manoel in a party???!!!!!! Must you know his inner history???????!!!!!! > If there is the beleif that there is a ME (Tim) separte from the > outside world then there is the belief that there is a Bob as a > nother ME also separate from the world - so those two entities > fight. The persons " exist " in whatever locations they're thought of, wherever attachment is located. If they're not thought about, they just aren't there. This is why the whole world can see an 'enlightened one' as existing as an entity, when they actually don't. geo> Yes, both feel they are separate persons. > Now..there is not the beleif that there is a ME as Tim, that means > that > there are no other entities nowhere, but Bob may still believe > he is a > ME and a separet entity. So Tim (no ME) sees that Bob > believes and behaves like if he was some inner separate entity > inside his body. Tim " no me " doesn't see a Bob at all. What he sees is a thread of memory and habit. geo> Dont you recognise a friend called Bob in a party (suppose you have met him)? Must you know his inner history? Must you ask Bob to tell you his history in order to know he is Bob? It may sound very cold, emotionless, unfeeling or whatever, but it really doesn't work that way in reality. But what way it *does* work can't really be described. There's just no continuity to refer to in order to describe something -- i.e., " Tim no me " is just doing whatever arises in the moment, now, non-volitionally. -tim- Sometime yes - I believe. Other times obviously not. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> One could couple Bob with his fingerprints and Tim to his. If you mean the body/minds referred to as these two, sure. All I'm saying is that the name is just a label, and doesn't really describe anything. It's like living in apartment #5... saying " I live in a 5 " wouldn't make any sense, and saying " I am Tim " makes no more sense than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:58 PM Re: This Morning At Niz (deleted II) P.S. 2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Agreed. But this letting go doesnt seem to be " final " in many cases > and then > there is hte conceptual letting go. the person acts as if he did let > go > when > in fact has not. Sure, that can happen. If it's not quite certain, chances are it's a 'conceptual letting go'. There's nothing uncertain about actual 'letting go'... the " I " is composed of doubt, uncertainty, and its absence is absence of doubt and uncertainty. geo> No way pall!! It is also a feeling of certainty, absolute lack of doubt. The later is just as common as the former. Just look at the priest preaching, and the " guru " masterbating. > So one must not trust some " past episode, crisis " as a sure > sign of something acomplished. Maybe the letting go must go on...and > on....and on...again...and again. Maybe. But it's the desire for something to " go on " , for continuity, that indicates it hasn't happened completely. There's very much a 'finality' about 'the real thing', a sense of completeness and lack of desire for any " future " , for any continuing on of anything. -tim- geo> Can not tell form here. May include all you say...or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:07 PM Re: This Morning At Niz (deleted II) P.S. 2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> One could couple Bob with his fingerprints and Tim to his. If you mean the body/minds referred to as these two, sure. All I'm saying is that the name is just a label, and doesn't really describe anything. It's like living in apartment #5... saying " I live in a 5 " wouldn't make any sense, and saying " I am Tim " makes no more sense than that. -tim- Well now...that is obvious..with any word. -gge- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > What a stupid thing to say, when addressing the person one > > supposedly doesn't want to know or talk to. > > > > > > what a stupid thing to say to someone of whom one has not: > > > > talked to(on the phone)... > > > > seen(in person)... > > > > and all that crap. > > Not at all. Saying to someone: " I don't want to talk to you " is really dumb. Just don't talk to them. Doh. timmy.. you said (before you conveniently snipped it off): " Ya wouldn't know a thing about Tim, having never met him, never talked to him on the phone, never seen a thing but a few of his messages. Bobby wouldn't even know what Tim had for breakfast this morning, but he wants to diagnose him already, eh? ;-). Physician, heal thyself ;-). " so timmy i replied that i really didn't want to know you etc. and i don't. but we are talking here. so i have my say too buddy boy. don't like it? fuck you. i don't care. get it? whoo boy! > > we are one timmy. > > No, Bob and Tim are not one. > > Bob and Tim are not. > > But if there's a belief that Bob is, Tim will be seen as " existing as a person " too. > > If there's no belief that Bob is, Tim won't appear to be " existing as a person " either. that's plain bullshit tim. we are people. we live on earth. we are here talking on this list. you're like the groupie who followed every rock band. she wanted desperately to fuck Mick Jagger. she fucked every garage band member that would have her.. she made it up through the ranks. she soon was following and fucking stars. every time she would say.. " that was great but it's not Mick " . after years and years she finally made the grad. she got backstage..invited to the hotel room.. and big as life..there was Mick. and as he fucked her she lay back with closed eyes.. and said: " this is great but it's not Mick " . get it??? you're looking for.. and even claiming to have experienced.. that which is MORE mystical..beautiful..truthful..etc etc. than anything that is right before your eyes.. is real.. is beautiful.. and is known and experienced by every everyday joe and jane. there is no big secret timmy. this is it. it's all you or anyone has or ever will have. you think your bullshit talk is impressive. it's not. it's stupid and self delusional. that's it and that's all kiddo. get a life before you lose the chance of living it to the fullest. your wispy wonderland is just that. keep it for campfire stories with children. > As long as there's a holding on, a clinging to " Bob " as a person with a name and past history, the past history will continue to be the painful, unwanted thing it is. ROFLMAO! oh you kid. you definitely have NO idea about me. sorry chump. no painful or unwanted thing here. i'll leave that to your fairytale idea of " how it is " ... and to your notion of " how it should be " you're a nutcase sometimes timmy. but that was beautiful. i really mean it you made me laugh out loud. LOL! > It's much like a drug addiction. One can't live without it, yet one can't live WITH it either. I'll bet this really 'rings a bell' for the reader. how 'bout the writer? your drug is your fascination with your own bullshit. you can't live with it and long for escape. and OBVIOUSLY you can't live without it. you love it to pieces. that's a hell of a place to be stuck little one. i prefer weed. i could easily live without it.. often do when times are " dry " . but listen son.. i don't WANT to live without it. it's too fucking enjoyable. too bad about your need to be seen as special. you will never fulfill that promise. you're as common as nails and that's the way it will always be. you're just dissatisfied with life as it is. in your case this is understandable. > One must get to the point where one just can't live WITH it, period, where the pain of it is greater than the fear of letting go. that's sick timmy. now you're beginning to sound like an Evangelical. get help id. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > I like what you wrote here. But consider. Indeed Bob and Tim are > > not entities - if that is the case. > > Of course not. They are memories, composed entirely of thought. > > Thought-constructs. The " person " is " built " from memory, constructed by the mind and " held together " by attachment. > > > Bob and Tim are names that point to two different organisms. > > The names actually don't point to anything. They're just words, and the sense as if they 'point to' something real or important is all due to attachment. > > > If there is the beleif that there is a ME (Tim) separte from the > > outside world then there is the belief that there is a Bob as a > > nother ME also separate from the world - so those two entities > > fight. > > The persons " exist " in whatever locations they're thought of, wherever attachment is located. If they're not thought about, they just aren't there. This is why the whole world can see an 'enlightened one' as existing as an entity, when they actually don't. > > > Now..there is not the beleif that there is a ME as Tim, that means > that there are no other entities nowhere, but Bob may still believe > he is a ME and a separet entity. So Tim (no ME) sees that Bob > > believes and behaves like if he was some inner separate entity > > inside his body. > > Tim " no me " doesn't see a Bob at all. What he sees is a thread of memory and habit. It may sound very cold, emotionless, unfeeling or whatever, but it really doesn't work that way in reality. But what way it *does* work can't really be described. There's just no continuity to refer to in order to describe something -- i.e., " Tim no me " is just doing whatever arises in the moment, now, non-volitionally. LOL! the bullshit just keeps on keepin' on. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Sure, that can happen. If it's not quite certain, chances are it's a > 'conceptual letting go'. There's nothing uncertain about actual 'letting > go'... the " I " is composed of doubt, uncertainty, and its absence is absence > of doubt and uncertainty. > > geo> No way pall!! It is also a feeling of certainty, absolute lack > of > doubt. That is a false certainty, though. There's always an under-current of doubt, and if one looks closely I bet it's easy to notice. There's always a " look at me, just please look at me, notice me! " somewhere in the background. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Maybe. But it's the desire for something to "go on", for continuity, that indicates it hasn't happened completely. There's very much a 'finality' about 'the real thing', a sense of completeness and lack of desire for any "future", for any continuing on of anything.-tim- I would say that any sense of "finality" must be questioned to see if there is not some carrying on, for a "beleif" may be hidden there. What lack of desire for continuity and future if there is none of those? There is no time. But I am just playing the devils atorney.....cant tell. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I would say that any sense of " finality " must be questioned to see if > there is not some carrying on, for a " beleif " may be hidden there. > > True letting go is unquestionable. There's nothing to question. > Wanting to question is presence of " I " . P.S. if one thinks about it, it's obvious: If one questions 'finality', it isn't 'finality' in the first place, is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:31 PM Re: This Morning At Niz (deleted II) P.S. 2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I would say that any sense of " finality " must be questioned to see if > > there is not some carrying on, for a " beleif " may be hidden there. True letting go is unquestionable. There's nothing to question. Wanting to question is presence of " I " . -tim- You are safe. -ego- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:31 PM > Re: This Morning At Niz (deleted II) P.S. 2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I would say that any sense of " finality " must be questioned to see if > > > there is not some carrying on, for a " beleif " may be hidden there. > > True letting go is unquestionable. There's nothing to question. > Wanting to > question is presence of " I " . > -tim- > > You are safe. > -ego- Huh? Lost ya on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:31 PM > > Re: This Morning At Niz (deleted II) P.S. 2 > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > I would say that any sense of " finality " must be questioned to see if > > > > there is not some carrying on, for a " beleif " may be hidden there. > > > > True letting go is unquestionable. There's nothing to question. > > Wanting to > > question is presence of " I " . > > -tim- > > > > You are safe. > > -ego- > > Huh? Lost ya on that one. P.S. if the above meant " Geo's ego is safe " , the only possible response is: " Get 'other' out of one's system " . " Other " is really the issue more-so than 'self' when it comes to this stuff. One wants to follow along with others, be like others, be accepted by others, and along with this systemic 'otherness' comes the questionability of one's 'state'. 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.