Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 I was wondering.......how long was a day before God made the earth? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: I was wondering.......how long was a day before God made the earth? " I's " are always wondering about something or other. Ho-hum ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering.......how long was a day before God made the earth? > > " I's " are always wondering about something or other. Ho-hum ;-). > This post represents the circular thought in which the spiritual mind flounders. Obviously the time sequence that we call a day is relevant only on the earth. And yet we are told that it took six days to make it. It really as nothing to say about the Bible.......but a lot to say about the mind. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering.......how long was a day before God made the earth? > > > > " I's " are always wondering about something or other. Ho-hum ;-). > > > > > This post represents the circular thought in which the spiritual > mind flounders. > > Obviously the time sequence that we call a day is relevant only on the earth. > > And yet we are told that it took six days to make it. > > It really as nothing to say about the Bible.......but a lot to say > about the mind. > toombaru Yup. The above post says nothing about the bible, but a lot about the mind ;-). " This post represents the circular thought in which the spiritual mind flounders. " And so-represent it did ;-). Immediacy, my good man, immediacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering.......how long was a day before God made the earth? > > > > > > " I's " are always wondering about something or other. Ho-hum ;-). > > > > > > > > > This post represents the circular thought in which the spiritual > > mind flounders. > > > > Obviously the time sequence that we call a day is relevant only on the earth. > > > > And yet we are told that it took six days to make it. > > > > It really as nothing to say about the Bible.......but a lot to say > about the mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > Yup. > > The above post says nothing about the bible, but a lot about the mind ;-). > > " This post represents the circular thought in which the spiritual mind flounders. " > > And so-represent it did ;-). > > Immediacy, my good man, immediacy. > I have absolutely no idea what you mean by " immediacy " . toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering.......how long was a day before God made the earth? > > > > > > > > " I's " are always wondering about something or other. Ho-hum ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > This post represents the circular thought in which the spiritual > > > mind flounders. > > > > > > Obviously the time sequence that we call a day is relevant only on the earth. > > > > > > And yet we are told that it took six days to make it. > > > > > > It really as nothing to say about the Bible.......but a lot to say > about the mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Yup. > > > > The above post says nothing about the bible, but a lot about the mind ;-). > > > > " This post represents the circular thought in which the spiritual mind flounders. " > > > > And so-represent it did ;-). > > > > Immediacy, my good man, immediacy. > > > > > > > I have absolutely no idea what you mean by " immediacy " . > > > > > toombaru Yes, you do. Thought is dwelling on " there " , " then " , or thought is here, now. There is an attempt to escape into the past (and projected future) or there is not. This is so obvious that it doesn't even deserve mentioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering.......how long was a day before God made the earth? > > > > > > > > > > " I's " are always wondering about something or other. Ho-hum ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This post represents the circular thought in which the spiritual > > > > mind flounders. > > > > > > > > Obviously the time sequence that we call a day is relevant only on the earth. > > > > > > > > And yet we are told that it took six days to make it. > > > > > > > > It really as nothing to say about the Bible.......but a lot to say > about the mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Yup. > > > > > > The above post says nothing about the bible, but a lot about the mind ;-). > > > > > > " This post represents the circular thought in which the spiritual mind flounders. " > > > > > > And so-represent it did ;-). > > > > > > Immediacy, my good man, immediacy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have absolutely no idea what you mean by " immediacy " . > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > Yes, you do. > > Thought is dwelling on " there " , " then " , > > or thought is here, now. " Here " and " now " are as irrelevant as 'there " and " then " . What is the nature of the creature that these terms apply? Whose now? Whose here? > > There is an attempt to escape into the past (and projected future) > > or there is not. > > This is so obvious that it doesn't even deserve mentioning. > Anything obvious concerning thoughts that the self has pertaining to the nature of self is delusional. And thinking that there are such things as here and now......is compounded delusion. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > " Here " and " now " are as irrelevant as 'there " and " then " . > What is the nature of the creature that these terms apply? > Whose now? > Whose here? If the terms bother you, don't use them. It's strange that they bother you, though. The word " tree " is no concern, the word " grass " is no big deal, but " here and now " are troublesome somehow. For one very good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > " Here " and " now " are as irrelevant as 'there " and " then " . > > What is the nature of the creature that these terms apply? > > Whose now? > > Whose here? > > If the terms bother you, don't use them. > > It's strange that they bother you, though. > > The word " tree " is no concern, the word " grass " is no big deal, but " here and now " are troublesome somehow. > > For one very good reason. > Trees and grass have a substantial reality. You can hold them in your hands. They have a physical consensus counterpart. The problem with concepts like here and now is that their only meaning resides in and is relative only to the self referential circularity. Put some here or now on the table if you want to convince anyone that they are real. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > " Here " and " now " are as irrelevant as 'there " and " then " . > > > What is the nature of the creature that these terms apply? > > > Whose now? > > > Whose here? > > > > If the terms bother you, don't use them. > > > > It's strange that they bother you, though. > > > > The word " tree " is no concern, the word " grass " is no big deal, but " here and now " are troublesome somehow. > > > > For one very good reason. > > > > > > Trees and grass have a substantial reality. > You can hold them in your hands. > They have a physical consensus counterpart. > The problem with concepts like here and now is that their only > meaning resides in and is relative only to the self referential > circularity. Only when 'here and now' are not apperceived as a living reality. After all, if it wasn't for here and now, would these words be appearing here, now? Would trees and grass appear here, now, if it weren't for here and now? So, 'here and now' are what make it possible to hold trees and grass in your hands. Does that not make them at least as 'substantial' as that which appears as them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > " Here " and " now " are as irrelevant as 'there " and " then " . > > > > What is the nature of the creature that these terms apply? > > > > Whose now? > > > > Whose here? > > > > > > If the terms bother you, don't use them. > > > > > > It's strange that they bother you, though. > > > > > > The word " tree " is no concern, the word " grass " is no big deal, but " here and now " are troublesome somehow. > > > > > > For one very good reason. > > > > > > > > > > > Trees and grass have a substantial reality. > > You can hold them in your hands. > > They have a physical consensus counterpart. > > The problem with concepts like here and now is that their only > > meaning resides in and is relative only to the self referential > > circularity. > > Only when 'here and now' are not apperceived as a living reality. > > After all, if it wasn't for here and now, would these words be appearing here, now? > > Would trees and grass appear here, now, if it weren't for here and now? > > So, 'here and now' are what make it possible to hold trees and grass in your hands. > > Does that not make them at least as 'substantial' as that which appears as them? > Ok......If you persist in the attempt to assign a name to the flowing......go for it. That's just what everybody's doin. The only problem with that is.....they become objects that cloud your eyes and make you believe that you know something about that which cannot be known. But if it makes you happy.......keep your labels. toombaru toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Ok......If you persist in the attempt to assign a name to the > flowing......go for it. > > That's just what everybody's doin. Is there an assumption that the author of this message is trying to be different than 'others'? Or that the author even sees 'others' at all? > The only problem with that is.....they become objects that cloud > your eyes and make you believe that you know something about that > which cannot be known. No. They become objects that cloud the reader's eyes, not the writer's. Assuming what one doesn't know, is foolishness. One doesn't know. One knows only what is here, now. That's the trick of it ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Ok......If you persist in the attempt to assign a name to the > > flowing......go for it. > > > > That's just what everybody's doin. > > Is there an assumption that the author of this message is trying to be different than 'others'? > > Or that the author even sees 'others' at all? > > > The only problem with that is.....they become objects that cloud > > your eyes and make you believe that you know something about that > > which cannot be known. > > No. > > They become objects that cloud the reader's eyes, not the writer's. > > Assuming what one doesn't know, is foolishness. > > One doesn't know. > > One knows only what is here, now. > > That's the trick of it ;-). > If you still think there is a trick that the self can pull out of its hat....that it can combine its thoughts in some special way......that it can stack its post-its in its favor.......that it can manipulate its pseudo reality.....improve its dream of separation......find or create the magic key for the magic door...... .........well....... you get the idea. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Ok......If you persist in the attempt to assign a name to the > > > flowing......go for it. > > > > > > That's just what everybody's doin. > > > > Is there an assumption that the author of this message is trying to be different than 'others'? > > > > Or that the author even sees 'others' at all? > > > > > The only problem with that is.....they become objects that cloud > > > your eyes and make you believe that you know something about that > > > which cannot be known. > > > > No. > > > > They become objects that cloud the reader's eyes, not the writer's. > > > > Assuming what one doesn't know, is foolishness. > > > > One doesn't know. > > > > One knows only what is here, now. > > > > That's the trick of it ;-). > If you still think there is a trick that the self can pull out of its hat....that it can combine its thoughts in some special way......that it can stack its post-its in its favor.......that it can manipulate its pseudo reality.....improve its dream of separation......find or create the magic key for the magic door...... > > ........well....... > > > > you get the idea. > > > > > > toombaru Who is " you? " Who's really being referred to? Why give folks the idea that they are being referred to, when that isn't the case, has never been the case? " You " and " me " refer to the same entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: I was wondering.......how long was a day before God made the earth? toombaru > lol God made " the day " too.....?... .... I was wondering.....about the occupation of God before he made the earth.... ....wait....we should invent a nice occupation for That too... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:52 PM Re: 6 days Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > " Here " and " now " are as irrelevant as 'there " and " then " . > > What is the nature of the creature that these terms apply? > > Whose now? > > Whose here? > > If the terms bother you, don't use them. > > It's strange that they bother you, though. > > The word " tree " is no concern, the word " grass " is no big deal, but " here > and now " are troublesome somehow. > > For one very good reason. > Trees and grass have a substantial reality. You can hold them in your hands. They have a physical consensus counterpart. The problem with concepts like here and now is that their only meaning resides in and is relative only to the self referential circularity. Put some here or now on the table if you want to convince anyone that they are real. toombaru The words here and now will never satisfy because in fact they are an attempt to describe what IS...and IT has no names -geo- 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.