Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > I've never claimed to be above ego, whatever that is supposed to > mean. I've never said I don't have human feelings such as pride or > experience enjoyment of this kind of communicating. Feelings are actually an interesting topic, when it comes to This. They certainly aren't precluded, but there are certain feelings one tends to associate with the attempt to be a situated being -- in particular, stuff like boredom, loneliness and depression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I've never claimed to be above ego, whatever that is supposed to mean. I've never said I don't have human feelings such as pride or experience enjoyment of this kind of communicating. -d- Pride? In order to have such feeling there must be someone who is proud. Let us translate this: sometimes you are awake and sometimes you snore... Have you not said the human organism is a belief? That the human world is a belief? How can you have human feelings in an non-existent human organism if not believing in it? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:30 AM Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > I've never claimed to be above ego, whatever that is supposed to > mean. I've never said I don't have human feelings such as pride or > > experience enjoyment of this kind of communicating. Feelings are actually an interesting topic, when it comes to This. They certainly aren't precluded, but there are certain feelings one tends to associate with the attempt to be a situated being -- in particular, stuff like boredom, loneliness and depression. -t- And pride.. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:30 AM > Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > I've never claimed to be above ego, whatever that is supposed to > > mean. I've never said I don't have human feelings such as pride or > > > experience enjoyment of this kind of communicating. > > Feelings are actually an interesting topic, when it comes to This. > > They certainly aren't precluded, but there are certain feelings one tends to > associate with the attempt to be a situated being -- in particular, stuff > like boredom, loneliness and depression. > -t- > > And pride.. > -geo- Technically speaking, Dan said " I never said I didn't have such feelings " . That isn't the same as saying he does ;-)... but he can respond for himself. You seem to want to believe he's sleeping sometimes, and awake the other... why, I don't know, and it's none of my business... I really don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:05 AM Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:30 AM > Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > I've never claimed to be above ego, whatever that is supposed to > > mean. I've never said I don't have human feelings such as pride or > > > experience enjoyment of this kind of communicating. > > Feelings are actually an interesting topic, when it comes to This. > > They certainly aren't precluded, but there are certain feelings one tends > to > associate with the attempt to be a situated being -- in particular, stuff > like boredom, loneliness and depression. > -t- > > And pride.. > -geo- Technically speaking, Dan said " I never said I didn't have such feelings " . That isn't the same as saying he does ;-)... but he can respond for himself. You seem to want to believe he's sleeping sometimes, and awake the other... why, I don't know, and it's none of my business... I really don't care. -t- Because you both claim to be always awake. I really really don't care....but I want you to know it un-mistakenly...for sure!! :>)) -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Because you both claim to be always awake. It's you who's applying a criteria of 'time' to what both of us have said is timelessly Now. You want to believe in the temporary, which means " time " (temporal). That comes as no surprise here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:34 AM Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Because you both claim to be always awake. That isn't true. " Awake-ness " is timelessness, and " always " does not apply. It's you who's applying a criteria of " time " , and claiming that something is always, or temporarily, the case. Neither is so. -t- That is correct. There is no time. I agree. And how would you call the state of being where time is present? Where there is boredom, anger, anxiety and pride? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:40 AM Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Because you both claim to be always awake. It's you who's applying a criteria of 'time' to what both of us have said is timelessly Now. -t- If there is timelessness now there is nothing to say - at least from here. What about when it is not? -geo- You want to believe in the temporary, which means " time " (temporal). That comes as no surprise here. -t- When I believe there is time I am sleeping. When I am awake there is no time at all. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:34 AM > Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Because you both claim to be always awake. > > That isn't true. " Awake-ness " is timelessness, and " always " does not apply. > > It's you who's applying a criteria of " time " , and claiming that something is > always, or temporarily, the case. > > Neither is so. > -t- > > That is correct. There is no time. I agree. And how would you call the state > of being where time is present? Where there is boredom, anger, > anxiety and > pride? > -geo- Imaginary. Based on memory and expectation. As far as the 'pride thing', you'll have to ask Dan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > When I believe there is time I am sleeping. When I am awake there is no time > at all. > -geo- Well then, who's the one who keeps 'going to sleep' and 'waking up' again? Do ya really think you're experiencing " someone else out there " when reading and interpreting messages here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Thursday, August 20, 2009 12:18 PM Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:34 AM > Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Because you both claim to be always awake. > > That isn't true. " Awake-ness " is timelessness, and " always " does not > apply. > > It's you who's applying a criteria of " time " , and claiming that something > is > always, or temporarily, the case. > > Neither is so. > -t- > > That is correct. There is no time. I agree. And how would you call the > state > of being where time is present? Where there is boredom, anger, > anxiety and > pride? > -geo- Imaginary. Based on memory and expectation. As far as the 'pride thing', you'll have to ask Dan. -t- Correct. So we oscilate not between wakefullness and sleep but imagination and the lack of it. I am not asking you anything about dan. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 20/8/2009 12:38:20 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Correct. So we oscilate not between wakefullness and sleep but > imagination > and the lack of it. I dunno, Geo... does it really matter what words one uses? Does it change any actuality, either way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I've never claimed to be above ego, whatever that is supposed to mean. I've > never said I don't have human feelings such as pride or experience enjoyment > of this kind of communicating. > -d- > > Pride? In order to have such feeling there must be someone who is proud. Where does this someone you say must exist, exist? > Let > us translate this: sometimes you are awake and sometimes you snore... > Have you not said the human organism is a belief? That the human world is a > belief? How can you have human feelings in an non-existent human organism if > not believing in it? > -geo- Whatever arises, arises. Whatever feelings, thoughts, sensations. I don't pick and choose. There isn't any time involved. Whatever is here, is here. The word labels in common usage, " I " , " pride, " " lust, " " fear, " " disgust, " " hatred, " or any other word you think isn't nondual, is some aspect of reality that you reject. With no separation or division, there is no rejection. With no rejection, there isn't any acceptance, nor need for acceptance. Just " is. " The " is " is beyond the words in the sense that every word/concept involves an imagined division. But so what? Has anything been divided in actuality? No. Words/concepts have never really divided or separated anything. To make words or concepts the boogey-man is common in nondual discussions. Or to pick certain " bad " words and say they shouldn't be happening, or to say if " someone " is " really aware, " such bad things (hate, fear, sorrow, pain, lust, disgust, whatever) would never, ever happen for such a person ... that misconception is also common. But one beholding clearly oneself, without division, on all sides, understands .... there is nothing that is not this, that I am. Sure, there is no separable " I " or " am " involved. There also is no separable " car " or " tree " or " anger " or " sorrow " or " suffering. " " I " and " am " and associated emotions like " pride " get picked on a lot. As if they should never arise. Or for certain people, who are special, they should never arise. Have you noticed: what arises, arises undivided, unsplit, words, emotions, people, all included. What is arising on all sides is one's own being, one's awareness, call it what you will. It is freedom itself, as it is. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Words/concepts have never really divided or separated anything. > > > To make words or concepts the boogey-man is common in nondual discussions. Or to pick certain " bad " words and say they shouldn't be happening, or to say if " someone " is " really aware, " such bad things (hate, fear, sorrow, pain, lust, disgust, whatever) would never, ever happen for such a person ... that misconception is also > common. As long as " nonduality " remains a conceptual thing rather than a matter of clear/direct seeing, conceptual rejection is bound to happen. 'Verbal advaita' is more-or-less integrated into the trance of imagination, becomes another sought-after goal to decorate oneself with as an achievement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:30 AM > Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > I've never claimed to be above ego, whatever that is supposed to > > mean. I've never said I don't have human feelings such as pride or > > > experience enjoyment of this kind of communicating. > > Feelings are actually an interesting topic, when it comes to This. > > They certainly aren't precluded, but there are certain feelings one tends to > associate with the attempt to be a situated being -- in particular, stuff > like boredom, loneliness and depression. > -t- > > And pride.. > -geo- Not me. I take the attempt to be a situated person as an impersonal activity. You are situating the attempt and identifying the attempt as a certain person or as certain emotions. That certainly is a common way of looking at this issue in " nondual circles. " To me, it is blatantly contradictory, to say one is nonlocal, then to localize the attempt to be located. The attempt to localize is itself nonlocal. That is why you are not localized. If the attempt could be localized as a certain emotion occuring somewhere at a certain time, or as a particular type of person who exists, who always feels humble and giving, and never prideful, there would be a localized being in existence. Indeed, the nonlocality of the attempt to exist is obvious: that attempt is occurring as " the human race. " " The human race " doesn't have a localized existence of its own, anywhere, nor ever has. And certainly, a person claiming never to feel pride, or always to be concerned about helping others, is evidencing the same " attempt " at localization, just in a different way than the " prideful " person. Frankly, if people could never feel any sense of pride, the world we be in a sorrier state than it is, imho. The truth is, I am tired of " nonduality. " " Nonduality " has led to so much bullshit and so many misconceptions. " Nonduality " is as capable of generating delusions as any other conceptual orientation, it appears. Not that I'm against delusion. The fight against delusion is itself delusion. Smiles, - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > fewtch > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:30 AM > > Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > I've never claimed to be above ego, whatever that is supposed to > > > mean. I've never said I don't have human feelings such as pride or > > > > experience enjoyment of this kind of communicating. > > > > Feelings are actually an interesting topic, when it comes to This. > > > > They certainly aren't precluded, but there are certain feelings one tends to > > associate with the attempt to be a situated being -- in particular, stuff > > like boredom, loneliness and depression. > > -t- > > > > And pride.. > > -geo- > > Technically speaking, Dan said " I never said I didn't have such feelings " . That isn't the same as saying he does ;-)... but he can respond for himself. D: Okay. My feelings come and go. What I'm feeling at this moment has no label to it, can't be called a feeling, can't be called not-a-feeling. When I talk about feelings, I'm immediately in the past, the past that never is. Feelings come and go, pride, anger, lust, fear, weakness, loneliness, sadness .... I've felt all of these. Also, I've felt strength, love, warmth, joy, happiness, peacefulness. All " the past. " But so is everything ever read from this list. > You seem to want to believe he's sleeping sometimes, and awake the other... why, I don't know, and it's none of my business... I really don't care. Me, either. Being aware has nothing to do with Dan. Dan is never aware. Dan is the dream child, the son of the barren woman. Dan is the past. Dan is a dead man walking. Smiles, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:05 AM > Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > fewtch > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:30 AM > > Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > I've never claimed to be above ego, whatever that is supposed to > > > mean. I've never said I don't have human feelings such as pride or > > > > experience enjoyment of this kind of communicating. > > > > Feelings are actually an interesting topic, when it comes to This. > > > > They certainly aren't precluded, but there are certain feelings one tends > > to > > associate with the attempt to be a situated being -- in particular, stuff > > like boredom, loneliness and depression. > > -t- > > > > And pride.. > > -geo- > > Technically speaking, Dan said " I never said I didn't have such feelings " . > That isn't the same as saying he does ;-)... but he can respond for himself. > > You seem to want to believe he's sleeping sometimes, and awake the other... > why, I don't know, and it's none of my business... I really don't care. > -t- > > Because you both claim to be always awake. > I really really don't care....but I want you to know it un-mistakenly...for > sure!! :>)) > -geo- You have really misunderstood me, Geo. I'm not awake all the time as a separable person from someone else, who isn't awake all the time. There is just being aware. There isn't any division of it. There isn't more of it somewhere called " Dan " and less of it somewhere else called " a rock, " or " John, " or " Sally, " or " a car. " There also isn't less of it somewhere called " Dan " or " Geo, " or any other place. The only reason for calling this " awareness " is it is that which allows arisings to arise, perceptions to be perceived. It isn't really nammeable, because once named, there is a sense that a definition has been placed, a quality associated. A definition is a location, a boundary -- a quality is a distinction, a boundary. If the statement " this is who one is " is made by Dan, then " someone else other than Dan " assumes that Dan is saying that this is who Dan is, and not someone else. No, that is not what is being said! The statement " this is who one is " could be made in any post, by anybody, or could be said by anyone, or thought by anyone - and it is just as true when it hasn't been said. Said or unsaid, this is so, this is who one is. There isn't one particle in space, nor any aspect of space itself, where This is not so. The talk about this is for the sake of enjoyment of the release from trying to exist as a localized being, or as a localized center of awareness, or as a someone who has an identity over a period of time. It is not to try to say that a personalized someone is more awake than another personalized someone. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:34 AM > Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Because you both claim to be always awake. > > That isn't true. " Awake-ness " is timelessness, and " always " does not apply. > > It's you who's applying a criteria of " time " , and claiming that something is > always, or temporarily, the case. > > Neither is so. > -t- > > That is correct. There is no time. I agree. And how would you call the state > of being where time is present? Where there is boredom, anger, anxiety and > pride? > -geo- Geo, either there isn't actual time, or there is actual time. You can't have it both ways. There isn't any state of time and another state of no-time. If there were, then division would be actual, separation would be the truth of what is, and there would be beings each with their own existences, going in and out of " states. " Boredom, anger, anxiety, pride - how can these be described except as " the past. " If you are clear there is no " the past, " then what has ever been? What about enlightenment, awareness of timelessness, humility, equanimity -- how can these be described except as " the past " ? Any description involves time, and a distance between describer and described. If you consider these as real states of being, or feelings had by persons - then you are saying time is actual and there really exist separate beings who experience these states and feelings. Clearly, there is a strong tendency to want to hold on to the notion of really existing beings, things, emotional states. To let that go would be not to ever have had any existence. As Tim mentioned earlier, this is the deepest fear - it's been mentioned many times before in many places - it's not my original thought or Tim's original thought or anyone else's. This fear is not localized. It is the fear that seemingly constructs a boundary for an individual existence. All the attempts to localize, to exist, to prove one exists through one's feelings, states of being, possessions (whether material, intellectual, or spiritual) ... And those attempts are not localized ... They are " the attempt " which is " the human race " which is " suffering " which is " who I am " which is " arising always through awareness, " and " never not through awareness. " - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:40 AM > Re: ::):::):::)..(:::(:::(::: (Dan) > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Because you both claim to be always awake. > > It's you who's applying a criteria of 'time' to what both of us have said is > timelessly Now. > -t- > > If there is timelessness now there is nothing to say - at least from here. > What about when it is not? > -geo- > > You want to believe in the temporary, which means " time " (temporal). That > comes as no surprise here. > -t- > > When I believe there is time I am sleeping. When I am awake there is no time > at all. > -geo- This belief that one exists and goes in and out of states, such as being awake and not being awake - is itself what has been referred to as " sleep " or " delusion. " The person is the delusion. The personal Dan, the personal Geo, the personal anyone - because there is no personal existence, ever. There is no locatable, existing being who has ever gone in and out of states of awareness. Awareness isn't a state that can be entered into, or lost. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > You have really misunderstood me, Geo. > > I'm not awake all the time as a separable person from someone else, > who isn't awake all the time. > > There is just being aware. > > There isn't any division of it. He hasn't misunderstood you. He's misunderstood himself. There's just being aware without any division of it 'for him', too. This is, of course, why he keeps 'mis-hearing' ya. He isn't hearing a separable person from someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Words/concepts have never really divided or separated anything. > > > > > > To make words or concepts the boogey-man is common in nondual discussions. Or to pick certain " bad " words and say they shouldn't be happening, or to say if " someone " is " really aware, " such bad things (hate, fear, sorrow, pain, lust, disgust, whatever) would never, ever happen for such a person ... that misconception is also > > common. > > As long as " nonduality " remains a conceptual thing rather than a matter of clear/direct seeing, conceptual rejection is bound to happen. 'Verbal advaita' is more-or-less integrated into the trance of imagination, becomes another sought-after goal to decorate oneself with as an achievement. Yes, it's true. Particularly in recent times, as it's proliferated as a kind of ideology. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > You have really misunderstood me, Geo. > > > > I'm not awake all the time as a separable person from someone else, > who isn't awake all the time. > > > > There is just being aware. > > > > There isn't any division of it. > > He hasn't misunderstood you. > > He's misunderstood himself. > > There's just being aware without any division of it 'for him', too. This is, of course, why he keeps 'mis-hearing' ya. He isn't hearing a separable person from someone else. True. I guess it comes down to this: I won't allow myself to be what I am. I will therefore get to be what I am not, an existing being. However, what is this existing being, except the " non-allowance, " that is, in the deepest sense " self-rejection. " The belief that something has been gained by not-allowing the being that is, is delusion. It is not " my " delusion or " your " delusion. There is no " him " who is " making this delusion real, " someone else. There is only " me " and I'm " being this delusion, that is what I mistake for me. " I can't stop the delusion that I am. I can only be this attempt, and be honest about it. In not being able to stop the attempt (trying to stop it, is the attempt), in not being able to end the delusion (I am the delusion, I am the non-allowance, the self-rejection), there is insight, there is awareness. Dan is the delusion, Dan is the non-allowance, Dan is the past. There is self-rejection that has been learned from others. This can be cleared up over time. There is self-rejection that has not been learned from others, which is the sense of existing, and this self-rejection can't be cleared up over time - it is not a matter of having a new friend, or going to therapy, or getting a new position. To be aware of this situation naturally precipitates a crisis. Through this crisis, understanding shines. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > All the attempts to localize, to exist, to prove one exists through one's feelings, states of being, possessions (whether material, intellectual, or spiritual) ... > > And those attempts are not localized ... > > They are " the attempt " which is " the human race " which is " suffering " which is " who I am " which is " arising always through awareness, " and " never not through awareness. " > > - Dan - > At-tempt.... a temptation to be " at " somewhere? ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > All the attempts to localize, to exist, to prove one exists through one's feelings, states of being, possessions (whether material, intellectual, or spiritual) ... > > > > And those attempts are not localized ... > > > > They are " the attempt " which is " the human race " which is " suffering " which is " who I am " which is " arising always through awareness, " and " never not through awareness. " > > > > - Dan - > > > > At-tempt.... a temptation to be " at " somewhere? ;-). Yes, so as to get to eat and be eaten. Smiles, - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > All the attempts to localize, to exist, to prove one exists through one's feelings, states of being, possessions (whether material, intellectual, or spiritual) ... > > > > > > And those attempts are not localized ... > > > > > > They are " the attempt " which is " the human race " which is " suffering " which is " who I am " which is " arising always through awareness, " and " never not through awareness. " > > > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > > At-tempt.... a temptation to be " at " somewhere? ;-). > > Yes, so as to get to eat and be eaten. Heh... And get to die, and worry about it too. Get to be stuck in/as an imaginary past and future, unless some miracle happens. And get to 'pretty up' all the attachment with a bunch of romantic notions. Fun... ;-). 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.