Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > I, I, I say it IS > > Somewhere out there: > > Definitely!!! Three " I's " in a row, eh? ;-). There is nothing out there but 'oneself', projected. And nothing in here, but 'other', introjected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > I, I, I say it IS > > > > Somewhere out there: > > > > Definitely!!! > > Three " I's " in a row, eh? ;-). > > There is nothing out there > > but 'oneself', projected. > > And nothing in here, > > but 'other', introjected. > That's what ewe say, My sheepish and woolly friend! I, I, I say that I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU and, and, and That it REALLY is out there TOO, AS WELL, ALSO (as much as anything anywhere ever is anywhere at all, ever) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > I, I, I say it IS > > > > > > Somewhere out there: > > > > > > Definitely!!! > > > > Three " I's " in a row, eh? ;-). > > > > There is nothing out there > > > > but 'oneself', projected. > > > > And nothing in here, > > > > but 'other', introjected. > > > > > That's what ewe say, > > My sheepish and woolly friend! > > > I, I, I say that I > > TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU > > > and, and, and > > > That it REALLY is out there > > TOO, AS WELL, ALSO Awareness does not constitute " both awareness and darkness " . Light does not constitute both light and shadow. In order for a shadow to be, there must be an object. There never has been any object. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, July 27, 2009 5:30 PM Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > I, I, I say it IS > > Somewhere out there: > > Definitely!!! Three " I's " in a row, eh? ;-). There is nothing out there but 'oneself', projected. And nothing in here, but 'other', introjected. -tim- Is it so? I thought out there and in here where the same no-place..and that there was no oneself or other. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 27, 2009 5:30 PM > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > I, I, I say it IS > > > > Somewhere out there: > > > > Definitely!!! > > Three " I's " in a row, eh? ;-). > > There is nothing out there > > but 'oneself', projected. > > And nothing in here, > > but 'other', introjected. > -tim- > > Is it so? > I thought out there and in here where the same no-place..and that there was > no oneself or other. > -geo- That's basically what I 'said'. But, of course, it isn't said. It's apperceived right here, or not. Not gleaned from elsewhere, based on someone else's words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I, I, I say it IS > > > > > > > > Somewhere out there: > > > > > > > > Definitely!!! > > > > > > Three " I's " in a row, eh? ;-). > > > > > > There is nothing out there > > > > > > but 'oneself', projected. > > > > > > And nothing in here, > > > > > > but 'other', introjected. > > > > > > > > > That's what ewe say, > > > > My sheepish and woolly friend! > > > > > > I, I, I say that I > > > > TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU > > > > > > and, and, and > > > > > > That it REALLY is out there > > > > TOO, AS WELL, ALSO > > Awareness does not constitute " both awareness and darkness " . > > Light does not constitute both light and shadow. > > In order for a shadow to be, there must be an object. > > There never has been any object. > You're confusing fact with fantasy, Art with science. Awareness is anything and everything Including " darkness " and " unawareness " You're confusing an object With an objective. People have both objects and objectives Don't they? This here, what we're doing Is ART We have objectives Real objectives In ART ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING Is possible, all one needs is to Imagine it and it becomes automatically REAL, TRUE, AN OBJECT OF ART Science, technology is a tad different I think, don't you? To let the laws of science and physics Determine what you want, feel, experience: This is pure suffering: " You confuse the rope for a snake " You bind yourself to rules You enslave yourself to imaginary limitations Dude!!! Come on!! Drop the eager ego and just Believe whatever you want And let others believe whatever they want! OR NOT, OR NOT! I'M NOT TRYING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND: I'm just talking to myself, As we both know. I'm just pretending that I'm you and telling myself What I think I'd want to hear if I were you. That's all. Ignore it, if you wish. No es problema para mi, Amigo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I, I, I say it IS > > > > > > > > > > Somewhere out there: > > > > > > > > > > Definitely!!! > > > > > > > > Three " I's " in a row, eh? ;-). > > > > > > > > There is nothing out there > > > > > > > > but 'oneself', projected. > > > > > > > > And nothing in here, > > > > > > > > but 'other', introjected. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's what ewe say, > > > > > > My sheepish and woolly friend! > > > > > > > > > I, I, I say that I > > > > > > TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU > > > > > > > > > and, and, and > > > > > > > > > That it REALLY is out there > > > > > > TOO, AS WELL, ALSO > > > > Awareness does not constitute " both awareness and darkness " . > > > > Light does not constitute both light and shadow. > > > > In order for a shadow to be, there must be an object. > > > > There never has been any object. > > > > > > You're confusing fact with fantasy, > > Art with science. Not at all. Everywhere and nowhere means one thing. Somewhere means something else. Somewhere means " some " where. A partialization. Just as does someone, something, etc. This is partialized awareness. Divided. Fragmented. There's no confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I, I, I say it IS > > > > > > > > > > > > Somewhere out there: > > > > > > > > > > > > Definitely!!! > > > > > > > > > > Three " I's " in a row, eh? ;-). > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing out there > > > > > > > > > > but 'oneself', projected. > > > > > > > > > > And nothing in here, > > > > > > > > > > but 'other', introjected. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's what ewe say, > > > > > > > > My sheepish and woolly friend! > > > > > > > > > > > > I, I, I say that I > > > > > > > > TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU > > > > > > > > > > > > and, and, and > > > > > > > > > > > > That it REALLY is out there > > > > > > > > TOO, AS WELL, ALSO > > > > > > Awareness does not constitute " both awareness and darkness " . > > > > > > Light does not constitute both light and shadow. > > > > > > In order for a shadow to be, there must be an object. > > > > > > There never has been any object. > > > > > > > > > > > You're confusing fact with fantasy, > > > > Art with science. > > Not at all. > > Everywhere and nowhere means one thing. > > Somewhere means something else. > > Somewhere means " some " where. A partialization. > > Just as does someone, something, etc. > > This is partialized awareness. > > Divided. > > Fragmented. > > There's no confusion. > Too tedious! Who cares? Just feel whatever you want to feel! Does that feel good to you? OK, I want you should do it. I just don't see how I could possibly get Off on it... That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Too tedious! > > Who cares? No one, obviously ;-). > Just feel whatever you want to feel! Is there a choice? OK, feel good. Now, feel bad for a minute. Now, feel average, sort of so-so. How'd it go? ;-). > Does that feel good to you? No... it feels real. Peace, bro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, July 27, 2009 5:47 PM Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 27, 2009 5:30 PM > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > I, I, I say it IS > > > > Somewhere out there: > > > > Definitely!!! > > Three " I's " in a row, eh? ;-). > > There is nothing out there > > but 'oneself', projected. > > And nothing in here, > > but 'other', introjected. > -tim- > > Is it so? > I thought out there and in here where the same no-place..and that there > was > no oneself or other. > -geo- That's basically what I 'said'. But, of course, it isn't said. It's apperceived right here, or not. Not gleaned from elsewhere, based on someone else's words. -tim- Other introjected? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 27, 2009 4:55 PM > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 27, 2009 2:14 PM > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you do, good sir? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and > > > > > > to > > > > > > hold, > > > > > > 'til death do you part? > > > > > > > > > > > > You do? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or > > > > > > the > > > > > > " other " half? > > > > > > > > > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers... > > > > > > > > > > it's all lies. > > > > > > > > > > including this. > > > > > > > > > > what's truth? > > > > > > > > > > everything ends..100% of all things end. > > > > > > > > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new. > > > > > > > > > > you'll never admit it. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that > > > > > does > > > > > not > > > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves > > > > > concerning > > > > > death. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about? > > > > > > > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death. > > > > > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to avoid > > > being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having > > > wealth, not be remembered, not having experiences, not having what you > > > want) > > > > who could be " the one " to " take away.? > > > > > > > > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid > > > risks, > > > being noticed, experiencing) > > > > > > what would be left? > > > > left from what? > > > > left as what? > > > > nothing is ever gained or lost. > > > > > > > > just natural being > > > > > > being which is not in opposition to not-being > > > > > > which has no conflict with any other > > > > conflict is illusion. > > > > > and the human being would then act without acting, know without knowing, > > > be without existing > > > > > > and life would be ... > > > > > > unknown > > > > so says the one called danny. > > > > and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else. > > > > because danny is exactly the same as everyone else. > > > > except danny wants to pontificate. > > > > no bow. > > > > > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known > > > > > > > > > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that is > > > done to avoid being and to avoid not being. > > > > by whom? > > > > > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness > > > > regarding what? > > > > > > > > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very little of > > > an impact > > > > who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about? > > > > > > > > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which > > > avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from something > > > outside - including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc. > > > > > > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is neither > > > existing nor not existing. > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > just nonsense. > > > > plain and simple. > > > > it's clear to any awareness. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > I think he is saying that without the center-periphery-consciousness there > > would not be a separate me. " Taking away " does not mean someone taking > > away..it is an idiomatic expression. It is not possible to > > desassemble/separte idiomatic expressions into their individual component > > words - the unit looses its meaning. For example...smart-ass means one > > thing, but then ass and smart another. > > -geo- > > the term " idiomatic expression " .. > > only has meaning to an individual or group of individuals. > > whether they are smart or just plain smart asses. > -bbb- > > Of course - one or many speaking the same idiom - what other alternative do > you suggest? > -geo- > > there is nothing unitary. > > unitary by implication suggests fragmentation. > > what the hell are you talking about? > > .b b.b. > > The unitary is talking > -geo- to whom. and don't say itself. it needn't bother and frankly it would find that insignificant. too insignificant for words. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > to whom. > > and don't say itself. > > it needn't bother and frankly it would find that insignificant. > > too insignificant for words. Too insignificant for words.. perfect. The truth described. Total insignificance. Smallness that is greatness. " Smaller than the smallest, greater than the greatest " . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > So much defensiveness, due to such simple posts (as Dan posts). > > > > > > > > It's interesting. > > > > > > > > The same thing happened here the other night -- I posted the following on Nondualitysalon, and was met with so much distractive talk, it was ridiculous. Folks were actually trying to change the subject multiple times over in the same responses. One can tell a good nondual pointing by how riled up it gets folks ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > I will try to figure out a > > > > > > > way to send you one. > > > > > > > > > > > > Good luck sending 'someone else' even... > > > > > > > > > > > > A sight from one's own eyes, > > > > > > > > > > > > A sound heard in one's own ears, > > > > > > > > > > > > A smell in one's own nose, > > > > > > > > > > > > A feeling felt in one's own body, > > > > > > > > > > > > A thought from one's own head. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there an 'other', apart from the reader's own sight, sound, smell, > > > > feeling and/or thought of another? > > > > > > > > > > > > This is crucial. We assume 'others' are seeing us, and we are seeing them. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is literally and completely false. > > > > > > I like this post, glad you posted it here as well. > > > > > > Where all apparently disparate selves and others meet, the meeting > place involves no contact, and is simultaneously everywhere and > > > nowhere. > > > > What... ya mean, it ain't " somewhere out there? " ;-). > > > > > I, I, I say it IS > > Somewhere out there: > > Definitely!!! > > > (It's just that we don't know where, > > And we don't know where to put it.) that's ridiculous. everyone knows whereto tell you to put it... you filthy untalented animal. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Too tedious! > > > > Who cares? > > No one, obviously ;-). > > > Just feel whatever you want to feel! > > Is there a choice? > > OK, feel good. Now, feel bad for a minute. Now, feel average, sort of so-so. > > How'd it go? ;-). > > > Does that feel good to you? > > No... it feels real. > > Peace, bro. > Peace, Namaste: Yes, totally, TOTALLY It's my choice!!! Would you rather feel " Real " than " good " ? Fine: your choice. But, to me, it's just a point of art, A semantic/poetic preference, NOT a scientistic conceit. It's All a conceit, Anyway. 2 me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > I, I, I say it IS > > > > > > Somewhere out there: > > > > > > Definitely!!! > > > > Three " I's " in a row, eh? ;-). > > > > There is nothing out there > > > > but 'oneself', projected. > > > > And nothing in here, > > > > but 'other', introjected. > > > > > That's what ewe say, > > My sheepish and woolly friend! > > > I, I, I say that I > > TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU > > > and, and, and > > > That it REALLY is out there > > TOO, AS WELL, ALSO > > > > (as much as anything anywhere > > ever is anywhere at all, ever) jesus h. christ you write the most boring crap. sickly sweet and ridiculous. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Monday, July 27, 2009 6:12 PM Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 27, 2009 4:55 PM > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 27, 2009 2:14 PM > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > nonconceptual > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you do, good sir? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have > > > > > > and > > > > > > to > > > > > > hold, > > > > > > 'til death do you part? > > > > > > > > > > > > You do? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or > > > > > > the > > > > > > " other " half? > > > > > > > > > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers... > > > > > > > > > > it's all lies. > > > > > > > > > > including this. > > > > > > > > > > what's truth? > > > > > > > > > > everything ends..100% of all things end. > > > > > > > > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new. > > > > > > > > > > you'll never admit it. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that > > > > > does > > > > > not > > > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves > > > > > concerning > > > > > death. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about? > > > > > > > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death. > > > > > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to > > > avoid > > > being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having > > > wealth, not be remembered, not having experiences, not having what you > > > want) > > > > who could be " the one " to " take away.? > > > > > > > > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid > > > risks, > > > being noticed, experiencing) > > > > > > what would be left? > > > > left from what? > > > > left as what? > > > > nothing is ever gained or lost. > > > > > > > > just natural being > > > > > > being which is not in opposition to not-being > > > > > > which has no conflict with any other > > > > conflict is illusion. > > > > > and the human being would then act without acting, know without > > > knowing, > > > be without existing > > > > > > and life would be ... > > > > > > unknown > > > > so says the one called danny. > > > > and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else. > > > > because danny is exactly the same as everyone else. > > > > except danny wants to pontificate. > > > > no bow. > > > > > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known > > > > > > > > > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that > > > is > > > done to avoid being and to avoid not being. > > > > by whom? > > > > > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness > > > > regarding what? > > > > > > > > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very little > > > of > > > an impact > > > > who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about? > > > > > > > > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which > > > avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from something > > > outside - including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc. > > > > > > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is > > > neither > > > existing nor not existing. > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > just nonsense. > > > > plain and simple. > > > > it's clear to any awareness. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > I think he is saying that without the center-periphery-consciousness > > there > > would not be a separate me. " Taking away " does not mean someone taking > > away..it is an idiomatic expression. It is not possible to > > desassemble/separte idiomatic expressions into their individual > > component > > words - the unit looses its meaning. For example...smart-ass means one > > thing, but then ass and smart another. > > -geo- > > the term " idiomatic expression " .. > > only has meaning to an individual or group of individuals. > > whether they are smart or just plain smart asses. > -bbb- > > Of course - one or many speaking the same idiom - what other alternative > do > you suggest? > -geo- > > there is nothing unitary. > > unitary by implication suggests fragmentation. > > what the hell are you talking about? > > .b b.b. > > The unitary is talking > -geo- to whom. and don't say itself. it needn't bother and frankly it would find that insignificant. too insignificant for words. ..b b.b. That is the same as asking: to whom IT is living? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 27, 2009 6:12 PM > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 27, 2009 4:55 PM > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 2:14 PM > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you do, good sir? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > hold, > > > > > > > 'til death do you part? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > " other " half? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers... > > > > > > > > > > > > it's all lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > including this. > > > > > > > > > > > > what's truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > everything ends..100% of all things end. > > > > > > > > > > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new. > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll never admit it. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that > > > > > > does > > > > > > not > > > > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves > > > > > > concerning > > > > > > death. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about? > > > > > > > > > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death. > > > > > > > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to > > > > avoid > > > > being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having > > > > wealth, not be remembered, not having experiences, not having what you > > > > want) > > > > > > who could be " the one " to " take away.? > > > > > > > > > > > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid > > > > risks, > > > > being noticed, experiencing) > > > > > > > > what would be left? > > > > > > left from what? > > > > > > left as what? > > > > > > nothing is ever gained or lost. > > > > > > > > > > > just natural being > > > > > > > > being which is not in opposition to not-being > > > > > > > > which has no conflict with any other > > > > > > conflict is illusion. > > > > > > > and the human being would then act without acting, know without > > > > knowing, > > > > be without existing > > > > > > > > and life would be ... > > > > > > > > unknown > > > > > > so says the one called danny. > > > > > > and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else. > > > > > > because danny is exactly the same as everyone else. > > > > > > except danny wants to pontificate. > > > > > > no bow. > > > > > > > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known > > > > > > > > > > > > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that > > > > is > > > > done to avoid being and to avoid not being. > > > > > > by whom? > > > > > > > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness > > > > > > regarding what? > > > > > > > > > > > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very little > > > > of > > > > an impact > > > > > > who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about? > > > > > > > > > > > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which > > > > avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from something > > > > outside - including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc. > > > > > > > > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is > > > > neither > > > > existing nor not existing. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > just nonsense. > > > > > > plain and simple. > > > > > > it's clear to any awareness. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > I think he is saying that without the center-periphery-consciousness > > > there > > > would not be a separate me. " Taking away " does not mean someone taking > > > away..it is an idiomatic expression. It is not possible to > > > desassemble/separte idiomatic expressions into their individual > > > component > > > words - the unit looses its meaning. For example...smart-ass means one > > > thing, but then ass and smart another. > > > -geo- > > > > the term " idiomatic expression " .. > > > > only has meaning to an individual or group of individuals. > > > > whether they are smart or just plain smart asses. > > -bbb- > > > > Of course - one or many speaking the same idiom - what other alternative > > do > > you suggest? > > -geo- > > > > there is nothing unitary. > > > > unitary by implication suggests fragmentation. > > > > what the hell are you talking about? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > The unitary is talking > > -geo- > > to whom. > > and don't say itself. > > it needn't bother and frankly it would find that insignificant. > > too insignificant for words. > > .b b.b. > > That is the same as asking: to whom IT is living? > -geo- so? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Monday, July 27, 2009 9:27 PM Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 27, 2009 6:12 PM > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 27, 2009 4:55 PM > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > nonconceptual > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 2:14 PM > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you do, good sir? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > hold, > > > > > > > 'til death do you part? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > " other " half? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers... > > > > > > > > > > > > it's all lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > including this. > > > > > > > > > > > > what's truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > everything ends..100% of all things end. > > > > > > > > > > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new. > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll never admit it. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something > > > > > > that > > > > > > does > > > > > > not > > > > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves > > > > > > concerning > > > > > > death. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about? > > > > > > > > > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death. > > > > > > > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to > > > > avoid > > > > being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having > > > > wealth, not be remembered, not having experiences, not having what > > > > you > > > > want) > > > > > > who could be " the one " to " take away.? > > > > > > > > > > > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid > > > > risks, > > > > being noticed, experiencing) > > > > > > > > what would be left? > > > > > > left from what? > > > > > > left as what? > > > > > > nothing is ever gained or lost. > > > > > > > > > > > just natural being > > > > > > > > being which is not in opposition to not-being > > > > > > > > which has no conflict with any other > > > > > > conflict is illusion. > > > > > > > and the human being would then act without acting, know without > > > > knowing, > > > > be without existing > > > > > > > > and life would be ... > > > > > > > > unknown > > > > > > so says the one called danny. > > > > > > and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else. > > > > > > because danny is exactly the same as everyone else. > > > > > > except danny wants to pontificate. > > > > > > no bow. > > > > > > > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known > > > > > > > > > > > > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that > > > > is > > > > done to avoid being and to avoid not being. > > > > > > by whom? > > > > > > > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness > > > > > > regarding what? > > > > > > > > > > > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very > > > > little > > > > of > > > > an impact > > > > > > who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about? > > > > > > > > > > > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which > > > > avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from something > > > > outside - including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc. > > > > > > > > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is > > > > neither > > > > existing nor not existing. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > just nonsense. > > > > > > plain and simple. > > > > > > it's clear to any awareness. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > I think he is saying that without the center-periphery-consciousness > > > there > > > would not be a separate me. " Taking away " does not mean someone taking > > > away..it is an idiomatic expression. It is not possible to > > > desassemble/separte idiomatic expressions into their individual > > > component > > > words - the unit looses its meaning. For example...smart-ass means one > > > thing, but then ass and smart another. > > > -geo- > > > > the term " idiomatic expression " .. > > > > only has meaning to an individual or group of individuals. > > > > whether they are smart or just plain smart asses. > > -bbb- > > > > Of course - one or many speaking the same idiom - what other alternative > > do > > you suggest? > > -geo- > > > > there is nothing unitary. > > > > unitary by implication suggests fragmentation. > > > > what the hell are you talking about? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > The unitary is talking > > -geo- > > to whom. > > and don't say itself. > > it needn't bother and frankly it would find that insignificant. > > too insignificant for words. > > .b b.b. > > That is the same as asking: to whom IT is living? > -geo- so? ..b b.b. To whom it is being? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 27, 2009 9:27 PM > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 27, 2009 6:12 PM > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 4:55 PM > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > roberibus111 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 2:14 PM > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM > > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you do, good sir? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > hold, > > > > > > > > 'til death do you part? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > " other " half? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's all lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > including this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything ends..100% of all things end. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll never admit it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves > > > > > > > concerning > > > > > > > death. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about? > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death. > > > > > > > > > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to > > > > > avoid > > > > > being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having > > > > > wealth, not be remembered, not having experiences, not having what > > > > > you > > > > > want) > > > > > > > > who could be " the one " to " take away.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid > > > > > risks, > > > > > being noticed, experiencing) > > > > > > > > > > what would be left? > > > > > > > > left from what? > > > > > > > > left as what? > > > > > > > > nothing is ever gained or lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just natural being > > > > > > > > > > being which is not in opposition to not-being > > > > > > > > > > which has no conflict with any other > > > > > > > > conflict is illusion. > > > > > > > > > and the human being would then act without acting, know without > > > > > knowing, > > > > > be without existing > > > > > > > > > > and life would be ... > > > > > > > > > > unknown > > > > > > > > so says the one called danny. > > > > > > > > and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else. > > > > > > > > because danny is exactly the same as everyone else. > > > > > > > > except danny wants to pontificate. > > > > > > > > no bow. > > > > > > > > > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that > > > > > is > > > > > done to avoid being and to avoid not being. > > > > > > > > by whom? > > > > > > > > > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness > > > > > > > > regarding what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very > > > > > little > > > > > of > > > > > an impact > > > > > > > > who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which > > > > > avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from something > > > > > outside - including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc. > > > > > > > > > > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is > > > > > neither > > > > > existing nor not existing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > > > just nonsense. > > > > > > > > plain and simple. > > > > > > > > it's clear to any awareness. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > I think he is saying that without the center-periphery-consciousness > > > > there > > > > would not be a separate me. " Taking away " does not mean someone taking > > > > away..it is an idiomatic expression. It is not possible to > > > > desassemble/separte idiomatic expressions into their individual > > > > component > > > > words - the unit looses its meaning. For example...smart-ass means one > > > > thing, but then ass and smart another. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > the term " idiomatic expression " .. > > > > > > only has meaning to an individual or group of individuals. > > > > > > whether they are smart or just plain smart asses. > > > -bbb- > > > > > > Of course - one or many speaking the same idiom - what other alternative > > > do > > > you suggest? > > > -geo- > > > > > > there is nothing unitary. > > > > > > unitary by implication suggests fragmentation. > > > > > > what the hell are you talking about? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > The unitary is talking > > > -geo- > > > > to whom. > > > > and don't say itself. > > > > it needn't bother and frankly it would find that insignificant. > > > > too insignificant for words. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > That is the same as asking: to whom IT is living? > > -geo- > > so? > > .b b.b. > > To whom it is being? > -geo- being what? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:14 AM Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 27, 2009 9:27 PM > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 27, 2009 6:12 PM > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > nonconceptual > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 4:55 PM > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > roberibus111 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 2:14 PM > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM > > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you do, good sir? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > hold, > > > > > > > > 'til death do you part? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " > > > > > > > > half, > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > " other " half? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's all lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > including this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything ends..100% of all things end. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll never admit it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves > > > > > > > concerning > > > > > > > death. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about? > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death. > > > > > > > > > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to > > > > > avoid > > > > > being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not > > > > > having > > > > > wealth, not be remembered, not having experiences, not having what > > > > > you > > > > > want) > > > > > > > > who could be " the one " to " take away.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to > > > > > avoid > > > > > risks, > > > > > being noticed, experiencing) > > > > > > > > > > what would be left? > > > > > > > > left from what? > > > > > > > > left as what? > > > > > > > > nothing is ever gained or lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just natural being > > > > > > > > > > being which is not in opposition to not-being > > > > > > > > > > which has no conflict with any other > > > > > > > > conflict is illusion. > > > > > > > > > and the human being would then act without acting, know without > > > > > knowing, > > > > > be without existing > > > > > > > > > > and life would be ... > > > > > > > > > > unknown > > > > > > > > so says the one called danny. > > > > > > > > and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else. > > > > > > > > because danny is exactly the same as everyone else. > > > > > > > > except danny wants to pontificate. > > > > > > > > no bow. > > > > > > > > > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything > > > > > that > > > > > is > > > > > done to avoid being and to avoid not being. > > > > > > > > by whom? > > > > > > > > > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness > > > > > > > > regarding what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very > > > > > little > > > > > of > > > > > an impact > > > > > > > > who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in > > > > > which > > > > > avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from > > > > > something > > > > > outside - including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc. > > > > > > > > > > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is > > > > > neither > > > > > existing nor not existing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > > > just nonsense. > > > > > > > > plain and simple. > > > > > > > > it's clear to any awareness. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > I think he is saying that without the center-periphery-consciousness > > > > there > > > > would not be a separate me. " Taking away " does not mean someone > > > > taking > > > > away..it is an idiomatic expression. It is not possible to > > > > desassemble/separte idiomatic expressions into their individual > > > > component > > > > words - the unit looses its meaning. For example...smart-ass means > > > > one > > > > thing, but then ass and smart another. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > the term " idiomatic expression " .. > > > > > > only has meaning to an individual or group of individuals. > > > > > > whether they are smart or just plain smart asses. > > > -bbb- > > > > > > Of course - one or many speaking the same idiom - what other > > > alternative > > > do > > > you suggest? > > > -geo- > > > > > > there is nothing unitary. > > > > > > unitary by implication suggests fragmentation. > > > > > > what the hell are you talking about? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > The unitary is talking > > > -geo- > > > > to whom. > > > > and don't say itself. > > > > it needn't bother and frankly it would find that insignificant. > > > > too insignificant for words. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > That is the same as asking: to whom IT is living? > > -geo- > > so? > > .b b.b. > > To whom it is being? > -geo- being what? ..b b.b. Wrong question. Just being. The what would be some conceptual interpretation. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:14 AM > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 27, 2009 9:27 PM > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 6:12 PM > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > roberibus111 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 4:55 PM > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 2:14 PM > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM > > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM > > > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you do, good sir? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > hold, > > > > > > > > > 'til death do you part? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " > > > > > > > > > half, > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > " other " half? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's all lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > including this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything ends..100% of all things end. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll never admit it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves > > > > > > > > concerning > > > > > > > > death. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death. > > > > > > > > > > > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not > > > > > > having > > > > > > wealth, not be remembered, not having experiences, not having what > > > > > > you > > > > > > want) > > > > > > > > > > who could be " the one " to " take away.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > risks, > > > > > > being noticed, experiencing) > > > > > > > > > > > > what would be left? > > > > > > > > > > left from what? > > > > > > > > > > left as what? > > > > > > > > > > nothing is ever gained or lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just natural being > > > > > > > > > > > > being which is not in opposition to not-being > > > > > > > > > > > > which has no conflict with any other > > > > > > > > > > conflict is illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > and the human being would then act without acting, know without > > > > > > knowing, > > > > > > be without existing > > > > > > > > > > > > and life would be ... > > > > > > > > > > > > unknown > > > > > > > > > > so says the one called danny. > > > > > > > > > > and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else. > > > > > > > > > > because danny is exactly the same as everyone else. > > > > > > > > > > except danny wants to pontificate. > > > > > > > > > > no bow. > > > > > > > > > > > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything > > > > > > that > > > > > > is > > > > > > done to avoid being and to avoid not being. > > > > > > > > > > by whom? > > > > > > > > > > > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness > > > > > > > > > > regarding what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very > > > > > > little > > > > > > of > > > > > > an impact > > > > > > > > > > who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in > > > > > > which > > > > > > avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from > > > > > > something > > > > > > outside - including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is > > > > > > neither > > > > > > existing nor not existing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > > > > > just nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > plain and simple. > > > > > > > > > > it's clear to any awareness. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > I think he is saying that without the center-periphery-consciousness > > > > > there > > > > > would not be a separate me. " Taking away " does not mean someone > > > > > taking > > > > > away..it is an idiomatic expression. It is not possible to > > > > > desassemble/separte idiomatic expressions into their individual > > > > > component > > > > > words - the unit looses its meaning. For example...smart-ass means > > > > > one > > > > > thing, but then ass and smart another. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > the term " idiomatic expression " .. > > > > > > > > only has meaning to an individual or group of individuals. > > > > > > > > whether they are smart or just plain smart asses. > > > > -bbb- > > > > > > > > Of course - one or many speaking the same idiom - what other > > > > alternative > > > > do > > > > you suggest? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > there is nothing unitary. > > > > > > > > unitary by implication suggests fragmentation. > > > > > > > > what the hell are you talking about? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > The unitary is talking > > > > -geo- > > > > > > to whom. > > > > > > and don't say itself. > > > > > > it needn't bother and frankly it would find that insignificant. > > > > > > too insignificant for words. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > That is the same as asking: to whom IT is living? > > > -geo- > > > > so? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > To whom it is being? > > -geo- > > being what? > > .b b.b. > > Wrong question. Just being. The what would be some conceptual > interpretation. > -geo- there is no such thing as right or wrong.. not regarding questions nor answers... nor anything.. as there are no such things as things from the start. you're just defending your 'self " opinion.. and conceptual interpretation. it doesn't matter. just more tales told by an idiot.. full of sound and fury..signifying nothing. baba too tries to reap the senseless whirlwind. it blows where it blows and nobody knows... not the whither nor why. it doesn't matter. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:52 AM Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:14 AM > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 27, 2009 9:27 PM > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > nonconceptual > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 6:12 PM > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > roberibus111 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 4:55 PM > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 2:14 PM > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM > > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM > > > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you do, good sir? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > hold, > > > > > > > > > 'til death do you part? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " > > > > > > > > > half, > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > " other " half? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's all lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > including this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything ends..100% of all things end. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll never admit it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves > > > > > > > > concerning > > > > > > > > death. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death. > > > > > > > > > > > If one took away from the human being everything that was done > > > > > > to > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not > > > > > > having > > > > > > wealth, not be remembered, not having experiences, not having > > > > > > what > > > > > > you > > > > > > want) > > > > > > > > > > who could be " the one " to " take away.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > risks, > > > > > > being noticed, experiencing) > > > > > > > > > > > > what would be left? > > > > > > > > > > left from what? > > > > > > > > > > left as what? > > > > > > > > > > nothing is ever gained or lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just natural being > > > > > > > > > > > > being which is not in opposition to not-being > > > > > > > > > > > > which has no conflict with any other > > > > > > > > > > conflict is illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > and the human being would then act without acting, know without > > > > > > knowing, > > > > > > be without existing > > > > > > > > > > > > and life would be ... > > > > > > > > > > > > unknown > > > > > > > > > > so says the one called danny. > > > > > > > > > > and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else. > > > > > > > > > > because danny is exactly the same as everyone else. > > > > > > > > > > except danny wants to pontificate. > > > > > > > > > > no bow. > > > > > > > > > > > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything > > > > > > that > > > > > > is > > > > > > done to avoid being and to avoid not being. > > > > > > > > > > by whom? > > > > > > > > > > > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness > > > > > > > > > > regarding what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very > > > > > > little > > > > > > of > > > > > > an impact > > > > > > > > > > who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in > > > > > > which > > > > > > avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from > > > > > > something > > > > > > outside - including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is > > > > > > neither > > > > > > existing nor not existing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > > > > > just nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > plain and simple. > > > > > > > > > > it's clear to any awareness. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > I think he is saying that without the > > > > > center-periphery-consciousness > > > > > there > > > > > would not be a separate me. " Taking away " does not mean someone > > > > > taking > > > > > away..it is an idiomatic expression. It is not possible to > > > > > desassemble/separte idiomatic expressions into their individual > > > > > component > > > > > words - the unit looses its meaning. For example...smart-ass means > > > > > one > > > > > thing, but then ass and smart another. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > the term " idiomatic expression " .. > > > > > > > > only has meaning to an individual or group of individuals. > > > > > > > > whether they are smart or just plain smart asses. > > > > -bbb- > > > > > > > > Of course - one or many speaking the same idiom - what other > > > > alternative > > > > do > > > > you suggest? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > there is nothing unitary. > > > > > > > > unitary by implication suggests fragmentation. > > > > > > > > what the hell are you talking about? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > The unitary is talking > > > > -geo- > > > > > > to whom. > > > > > > and don't say itself. > > > > > > it needn't bother and frankly it would find that insignificant. > > > > > > too insignificant for words. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > That is the same as asking: to whom IT is living? > > > -geo- > > > > so? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > To whom it is being? > > -geo- > > being what? > > .b b.b. > > Wrong question. Just being. The what would be some conceptual > interpretation. > -geo- there is no such thing as right or wrong.. not regarding questions nor answers... nor anything.. as there are no such things as things from the start. you're just defending your 'self " opinion.. and conceptual interpretation. it doesn't matter. just more tales told by an idiot.. full of sound and fury..signifying nothing. baba too tries to reap the senseless whirlwind. it blows where it blows and nobody knows... not the whither nor why. it doesn't matter. ..b b.b. Yes, there is nothing " wrong " in asking what it is being apart from what it already is-ing. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:52 AM > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:14 AM > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 9:27 PM > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > roberibus111 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 6:12 PM > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 4:55 PM > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 2:14 PM > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM > > > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM > > > > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you do, good sir? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > hold, > > > > > > > > > > 'til death do you part? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " > > > > > > > > > > half, > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > " other " half? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's all lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > including this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything ends..100% of all things end. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll never admit it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves > > > > > > > > > concerning > > > > > > > > > death. > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If one took away from the human being everything that was done > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > > being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not > > > > > > > having > > > > > > > wealth, not be remembered, not having experiences, not having > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > want) > > > > > > > > > > > > who could be " the one " to " take away.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to > > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > > risks, > > > > > > > being noticed, experiencing) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what would be left? > > > > > > > > > > > > left from what? > > > > > > > > > > > > left as what? > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing is ever gained or lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just natural being > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being which is not in opposition to not-being > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which has no conflict with any other > > > > > > > > > > > > conflict is illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the human being would then act without acting, know without > > > > > > > knowing, > > > > > > > be without existing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and life would be ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unknown > > > > > > > > > > > > so says the one called danny. > > > > > > > > > > > > and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else. > > > > > > > > > > > > because danny is exactly the same as everyone else. > > > > > > > > > > > > except danny wants to pontificate. > > > > > > > > > > > > no bow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > done to avoid being and to avoid not being. > > > > > > > > > > > > by whom? > > > > > > > > > > > > > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very > > > > > > > little > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > an impact > > > > > > > > > > > > who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > outside - including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is > > > > > > > neither > > > > > > > existing nor not existing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > > > > > > > just nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > plain and simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > it's clear to any awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think he is saying that without the > > > > > > center-periphery-consciousness > > > > > > there > > > > > > would not be a separate me. " Taking away " does not mean someone > > > > > > taking > > > > > > away..it is an idiomatic expression. It is not possible to > > > > > > desassemble/separte idiomatic expressions into their individual > > > > > > component > > > > > > words - the unit looses its meaning. For example...smart-ass means > > > > > > one > > > > > > thing, but then ass and smart another. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > the term " idiomatic expression " .. > > > > > > > > > > only has meaning to an individual or group of individuals. > > > > > > > > > > whether they are smart or just plain smart asses. > > > > > -bbb- > > > > > > > > > > Of course - one or many speaking the same idiom - what other > > > > > alternative > > > > > do > > > > > you suggest? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing unitary. > > > > > > > > > > unitary by implication suggests fragmentation. > > > > > > > > > > what the hell are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > The unitary is talking > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > to whom. > > > > > > > > and don't say itself. > > > > > > > > it needn't bother and frankly it would find that insignificant. > > > > > > > > too insignificant for words. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > That is the same as asking: to whom IT is living? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > so? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > To whom it is being? > > > -geo- > > > > being what? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Wrong question. Just being. The what would be some conceptual > > interpretation. > > -geo- > > there is no such thing as right or wrong.. > > not regarding questions nor answers... > > nor anything.. as there are no such things as things from the start. > > you're just defending your 'self " opinion.. > > and conceptual interpretation. > > it doesn't matter. > > just more tales told by an idiot.. > > full of sound and fury..signifying nothing. > > baba too tries to reap the senseless whirlwind. > > it blows where it blows and nobody knows... > > not the whither nor why. > > it doesn't matter. > > .b b.b. > > Yes, there is nothing " wrong " in asking what it is being apart from what it > already is-ing. > -geo- of course not. just so-ing. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:52 AM > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:14 AM > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > roberibus111 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 9:27 PM > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 6:12 PM > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 4:55 PM > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Monday, July 27, 2009 2:14 PM > > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM > > > > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM > > > > > > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and > > > > > > > > > > nonconceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you do, good sir? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > hold, > > > > > > > > > > > 'til death do you part? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " > > > > > > > > > > > half, > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > " other " half? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's all lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > including this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything ends..100% of all things end. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll never admit it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves > > > > > > > > > > concerning > > > > > > > > > > death. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If one took away from the human being everything that was done > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > > > being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not > > > > > > > > having > > > > > > > > wealth, not be remembered, not having experiences, not having > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > want) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who could be " the one " to " take away.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to > > > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > > > risks, > > > > > > > > being noticed, experiencing) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what would be left? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left from what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left as what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing is ever gained or lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just natural being > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being which is not in opposition to not-being > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which has no conflict with any other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conflict is illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the human being would then act without acting, know without > > > > > > > > knowing, > > > > > > > > be without existing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and life would be ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unknown > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so says the one called danny. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because danny is exactly the same as everyone else. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > except danny wants to pontificate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no bow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > done to avoid being and to avoid not being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by whom? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very > > > > > > > > little > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > an impact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from > > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > outside - including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is > > > > > > > > neither > > > > > > > > existing nor not existing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plain and simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's clear to any awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think he is saying that without the > > > > > > > center-periphery-consciousness > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > would not be a separate me. " Taking away " does not mean someone > > > > > > > taking > > > > > > > away..it is an idiomatic expression. It is not possible to > > > > > > > desassemble/separte idiomatic expressions into their individual > > > > > > > component > > > > > > > words - the unit looses its meaning. For example...smart-ass means > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > thing, but then ass and smart another. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > the term " idiomatic expression " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > only has meaning to an individual or group of individuals. > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they are smart or just plain smart asses. > > > > > > -bbb- > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course - one or many speaking the same idiom - what other > > > > > > alternative > > > > > > do > > > > > > you suggest? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing unitary. > > > > > > > > > > > > unitary by implication suggests fragmentation. > > > > > > > > > > > > what the hell are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > The unitary is talking > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > to whom. > > > > > > > > > > and don't say itself. > > > > > > > > > > it needn't bother and frankly it would find that insignificant. > > > > > > > > > > too insignificant for words. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > That is the same as asking: to whom IT is living? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > so? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > To whom it is being? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > being what? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Wrong question. Just being. The what would be some conceptual > > > interpretation. > > > -geo- > > > > there is no such thing as right or wrong.. > > > > not regarding questions nor answers... > > > > nor anything.. as there are no such things as things from the start. > > > > you're just defending your 'self " opinion.. > > > > and conceptual interpretation. > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > just more tales told by an idiot.. > > > > full of sound and fury..signifying nothing. > > > > baba too tries to reap the senseless whirlwind. > > > > it blows where it blows and nobody knows... > > > > not the whither nor why. > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Yes, there is nothing " wrong " in asking what it is being apart from what it > > already is-ing. > > -geo- > > > of course not. > > just so-ing. > > .b b.b. and.. just sewing. but not in the thread nor woof nor warp.. nor sewer itself.. can " meaning " be found. that still dumbfounds me. yet thus it is is-ing and is-not-ing. as only nothing can. ..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.