Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. -- From " I Am That " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > -- From " I Am That " > make sense..... such mentionned " vyakta " seem to be the " ego " ..... but then this ego freaks in here believe that they are the " causeless cause of everything.... LOL Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > make sense..... > > such mentionned " vyakta " seem to be the " ego " > > .... > > but then this ego freaks in here believe that they are the " causeless cause of everything.... > > LOL > > > Marc > Ps: true! how could there ever be (re)unification with something non-existing.....with some fiction....?... take the fiction as what it Is....nothing more, nothing less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 - dennis_travis33 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 26, 2009 11:32 AM Re: This morning's Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of > > imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is > > the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person > > cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes > > there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) > > lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even > > to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because > > there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by > > conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > make sense..... > > such mentionned " vyakta " seem to be the " ego " > > .... > > but then this ego freaks in here believe that they are the " causeless > cause of everything.... > > LOL > > > Marc > Ps: true! how could there ever be (re)unification with something non-existing.....with some fiction....?... take the fiction as what it Is....nothing more, nothing less geo> No. The fiction is the inner observer, the person, the entity, not what is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dennis_travis33 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 26, 2009 11:32 AM > Re: This morning's Nisargadatta > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of > > > imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is > > > the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person > > > cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes > > > there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) > > > lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even > > > to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because > > > there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by > > > conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > > > > make sense..... > > > > such mentionned " vyakta " seem to be the " ego " > > > > .... > > > > but then this ego freaks in here believe that they are the " causeless > > cause of everything.... > > > > LOL > > > > > > Marc > > > > Ps: true! > > how could there ever be (re)unification with something non-existing.....with > some fiction....?... > > take the fiction as what it Is....nothing more, nothing less > > geo> No. The fiction is the inner observer, the person, the entity, not what > is. > it isn't possible to make it even more complicated?.... maybe invent some more fiction, observers, grounds etc..... hey.....wait.....or read one of this new non-dual books.... one can observe that it's a nice business.... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > -- From " I Am That " Nice one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > Nice one! > The assumption of there being a 'causeless cause' arises within the assumption of self. It's merely another word for God and a meaningless speculation. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > > > Nice one! > > The assumption of there being a 'causeless cause' arises within the > assumption of self. > > It's merely another word for God and a meaningless speculation. > > > toombaru Nisargadatta's " wisdom " depends utterly on Toom's. Has Toom noticed that, yet? Nisargadatta will get wiser, or he will get more ignorant. Just you watch ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:54 PM Re: This morning's Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of > imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is > the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person > cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes > there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) > lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even > to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there > is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. > Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > -- From " I Am That " Nice one! -dan- Is it dan? Really? He said: " Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything " So now that is not thought based.....: Geo says beyond consciusness is the ground - and that is thought based. Very clever. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > > > > > > Nice one! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The assumption of there being a 'causeless cause' arises within the > assumption of self. > > > > It's merely another word for God and a meaningless speculation. > > > > > > toombaru > > Nisargadatta's " wisdom " depends utterly on Toom's. > > Has Toom noticed that, yet? > > Nisargadatta will get wiser, or he will get more ignorant. Just you watch ;-). > Anyone who has a following.......is dope peddler. They offer the self what it wants to hear. Nissy is great for coaxing one to the edge of themselves. But he had no more idea about the nature of reality than Jerry Falwell. In all matters concerning the self......no self can know anything. For one very good reason. It's time to kiss the old guy good-bye. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > > > > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice one! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The assumption of there being a 'causeless cause' arises within the > assumption of self. > > > > > > It's merely another word for God and a meaningless speculation. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Nisargadatta's " wisdom " depends utterly on Toom's. > > > > Has Toom noticed that, yet? > > > > Nisargadatta will get wiser, or he will get more ignorant. Just you watch ;-). > > > > > > > Anyone who has a following.......is dope peddler. > > They offer the self what it wants to hear. > > Nissy is great for coaxing one to the edge of themselves. > > But he had no more idea about the nature of reality than Jerry Falwell. > > In all matters concerning the self......no self can know anything. > > For one very good reason. > > It's time to kiss the old guy good-bye. > > > > toombaru It's time to kiss goodbye, recommending to 'others' what one wants to do oneself, but hasn't. It's time to kiss the projections goodbye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice one! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The assumption of there being a 'causeless cause' arises within the > assumption of self. > > > > > > > > It's merely another word for God and a meaningless speculation. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Nisargadatta's " wisdom " depends utterly on Toom's. > > > > > > Has Toom noticed that, yet? > > > > > > Nisargadatta will get wiser, or he will get more ignorant. Just you watch ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone who has a following.......is dope peddler. > > > > They offer the self what it wants to hear. > > > > Nissy is great for coaxing one to the edge of themselves. > > > > But he had no more idea about the nature of reality than Jerry Falwell. > > > > In all matters concerning the self......no self can know anything. > > > > For one very good reason. > > > > It's time to kiss the old guy good-bye. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > It's time to kiss goodbye, recommending to 'others' what one wants to do oneself, but hasn't. > > It's time to kiss the projections goodbye. > If you could do that......(which you can't...because they are your personal totality)............you could kiss your ass good-bye. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > > > Nice one! > > The assumption of there being a 'causeless cause' arises within the assumption of self. > > It's merely another word for God and a meaningless speculation. > > > toombaru That's what it says to you. And that's all you can know. But maybe you'll hear one of those new voices you're desperate for, who will give you another slant on you ... - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice one! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The assumption of there being a 'causeless cause' arises within the > assumption of self. > > > > > > > > > > It's merely another word for God and a meaningless speculation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta's " wisdom " depends utterly on Toom's. > > > > > > > > Has Toom noticed that, yet? > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta will get wiser, or he will get more ignorant. Just you watch ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone who has a following.......is dope peddler. > > > > > > They offer the self what it wants to hear. > > > > > > Nissy is great for coaxing one to the edge of themselves. > > > > > > But he had no more idea about the nature of reality than Jerry Falwell. > > > > > > In all matters concerning the self......no self can know anything. > > > > > > For one very good reason. > > > > > > It's time to kiss the old guy good-bye. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > It's time to kiss goodbye, recommending to 'others' what one wants to do oneself, but hasn't. > > > > It's time to kiss the projections goodbye. > > > > > > > If you could do that......(which you can't...because they are your > personal totality)............you could kiss your ass good-bye. > > > > > toombaru It's necessary to project a " you out there " , onto which to place Toom's own questions, reflections, desires and fears. If one ceases to do that, it all goes away. The 'conceptual storm' is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:54 PM > Re: This morning's Nisargadatta > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of > > imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is > > the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person > > cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes > > there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) > > lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even > > to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there > > is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. > > Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > Nice one! > -dan- > > Is it dan? Really? > He said: > " Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless > cause of everything " > > So now that is not thought based.....: > > Geo says beyond consciusness is the ground - and that is thought based. > Very clever. > > -geo- Geo, I'm responding to the gist of the words as a paragraph and reading between the lines. This is also how I respond when reading Geo. For whatever any of it is worth <s>. I wonder though, Geo, do you stop to look? Really look? Do you see the construction: here is Geo saying this, but Nis. says that, and Dan you say this about Nis. but that contradicts what you say to Geo? Do you look? Geo says that Geo is just an imaginary marker for a conversation. Really? Is that all that is going on? How honest is it possible to be with one's look, one's seeing? This is only between you and you, for you to know. I merely raise the question, but I have no way of knowing the look that goes on for Geo, through Geo. I raise the question because I understand that the look at Dan, through Dan, here, is what counts, and involves no other. This inquiry simply is not about anyone else, it isn't about getting responses from others that are confirming or affirming, it isn't about deciding that all one is is a marker for a conversation because that sounds like a good way to look at things. Inquiry has the potential for an upheaval in the entirety of the construction of self, other, world, and experience. Yet, it is so easy not to go there, so to speak. Well, it really isn't so easy, because your own experiences will continually reflect you back to yourself. One's own experiencing is saying: look. See. What is this? What is going on here? Is there a contradiction? Is there avoidance? This can only be suggested through words. Although what is, is utterly impersonal, it is understood through what was considered to be a personalized individual. So, the upheaval is very personal. The awareness breaks through in a very personal way. It has nothing to do with anyone else, or what anyone else is saying, or how they are responding. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:54 PM > > Re: This morning's Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of > > > imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is > > > the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person > > > cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes > > > there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) > > > lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even > > > to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there > > > is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. > > > Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > Nice one! > > -dan- > > > > Is it dan? Really? > > He said: > > " Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless > > cause of everything " > > > > So now that is not thought based.....: > > > > Geo says beyond consciusness is the ground - and that is thought based. > > Very clever. > > > > -geo- > > > Geo, I'm responding to the gist of the words as a paragraph and reading between the lines. This is also how I respond when reading Geo. For whatever any of it is worth <s>. > > I wonder though, Geo, do you stop to look? > > Really look? > > Do you see the construction: here is Geo saying this, but Nis. says that, and Dan you say this about Nis. but that contradicts what you say to Geo? > > Do you look? > > Geo says that Geo is just an imaginary marker for a conversation. > > Really? > > Is that all that is going on? > > How honest is it possible to be with one's look, one's seeing? > > This is only between you and you, for you to know. > > > I merely raise the question, but I have no way of knowing the look that goes on for Geo, through Geo. > > > I raise the question because I understand that the look at Dan, through Dan, here, is what counts, and involves no other. > > > > This inquiry simply is not about anyone else, it isn't about getting responses from others that are confirming or affirming, it isn't about deciding that all one is is a marker for a conversation because that sounds like a good way to look at things. > > > Inquiry has the potential for an upheaval in the entirety of the construction of self, other, world, and experience. > > > Yet, it is so easy not to go there, so to speak. > > > Well, it really isn't so easy, because your own experiences will continually reflect you back to yourself. > > > One's own experiencing is saying: look. See. What is this? What is going on here? Is there a contradiction? Is there avoidance? > > > This can only be suggested through words. > > > Although what is, is utterly impersonal, it is understood through what was considered to be a personalized individual. > > So, the upheaval is very personal. > > The awareness breaks through in a very personal way. > > It has nothing to do with anyone else, or what anyone else is saying, or how they are responding. > > - D - I don't know why 'you' ('I') do this. It's precisely the 'self and other' mechanism that results in everyone wanting to tell everyone else " how it is " ... or " how they should see it " or " what they should do " . And results in absolutely nobody listening. Dozens of voices, with essentially no audience, except for 'co-projection', co-reinforcement of self-and-other. When one is 'able to hear', one no longer needs to hear. I guess futility is, itself, interesting ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:54 PM > > > Re: This morning's Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of > > > > imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is > > > > the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person > > > > cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes > > > > there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) > > > > lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even > > > > to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there > > > > is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. > > > > Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > > > Nice one! > > > -dan- > > > > > > Is it dan? Really? > > > He said: > > > " Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless > > > cause of everything " > > > > > > So now that is not thought based.....: > > > > > > Geo says beyond consciusness is the ground - and that is thought based. > > > Very clever. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Geo, I'm responding to the gist of the words as a paragraph and reading between the lines. This is also how I respond when reading Geo. For whatever any of it is worth <s>. > > > > I wonder though, Geo, do you stop to look? > > > > Really look? > > > > Do you see the construction: here is Geo saying this, but Nis. says that, and Dan you say this about Nis. but that contradicts what you say to Geo? > > > > Do you look? > > > > Geo says that Geo is just an imaginary marker for a conversation. > > > > Really? > > > > Is that all that is going on? > > > > How honest is it possible to be with one's look, one's seeing? > > > > This is only between you and you, for you to know. > > > > > > I merely raise the question, but I have no way of knowing the look that goes on for Geo, through Geo. > > > > > > I raise the question because I understand that the look at Dan, through Dan, here, is what counts, and involves no other. > > > > > > > > This inquiry simply is not about anyone else, it isn't about getting responses from others that are confirming or affirming, it isn't about deciding that all one is is a marker for a conversation because that sounds like a good way to look at things. > > > > > > Inquiry has the potential for an upheaval in the entirety of the construction of self, other, world, and experience. > > > > > > Yet, it is so easy not to go there, so to speak. > > > > > > Well, it really isn't so easy, because your own experiences will continually reflect you back to yourself. > > > > > > One's own experiencing is saying: look. See. What is this? What is going on here? Is there a contradiction? Is there avoidance? > > > > > > This can only be suggested through words. > > > > > > Although what is, is utterly impersonal, it is understood through what was considered to be a personalized individual. > > > > So, the upheaval is very personal. > > > > The awareness breaks through in a very personal way. > > > > It has nothing to do with anyone else, or what anyone else is saying, or how they are responding. > > > > - D - > > I don't know why 'you' ('I') do this. > > It's precisely the 'self and other' mechanism that results in everyone wanting to tell everyone else " how it is " ... or " how they should see it " or " what they should do " . > > And results in absolutely nobody listening. > > Dozens of voices, with essentially no audience, except for 'co-projection', co-reinforcement of self-and-other. > > When one is 'able to hear', one no longer needs to hear. > > I guess futility is, itself, interesting ;-). D: Yes, it's the attraction of the futile endeavor, ala Don Quixote. The joy of meaningless bullshit. The extravagant purposeless gesture. Give it all you got! Down the rabbit hole witcha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:08 PM Re: This morning's Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:54 PM > > > Re: This morning's Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real > > > > self. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of > > > > imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It > > > > is > > > > the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The > > > > person > > > > cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that > > > > believes > > > > there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self > > > > (vyakta) > > > > lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. > > > > Even > > > > to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because > > > > there > > > > is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by > > > > conviction. > > > > Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > > > Nice one! > > > -dan- > > > > > > Is it dan? Really? > > > He said: > > > " Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the > > > causeless > > > cause of everything " > > > > > > So now that is not thought based.....: > > > > > > Geo says beyond consciusness is the ground - and that is thought > > > based. > > > Very clever. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Geo, I'm responding to the gist of the words as a paragraph and reading > > between the lines. This is also how I respond when reading Geo. For > > whatever any of it is worth <s>. > > > > I wonder though, Geo, do you stop to look? > > > > Really look? > > > > Do you see the construction: here is Geo saying this, but Nis. says > > that, and Dan you say this about Nis. but that contradicts what you say > > to Geo? > > > > Do you look? > > > > Geo says that Geo is just an imaginary marker for a conversation. > > > > Really? > > > > Is that all that is going on? > > > > How honest is it possible to be with one's look, one's seeing? > > > > This is only between you and you, for you to know. > > > > > > I merely raise the question, but I have no way of knowing the look that > > goes on for Geo, through Geo. > > > > > > I raise the question because I understand that the look at Dan, through > > Dan, here, is what counts, and involves no other. > > > > > > > > This inquiry simply is not about anyone else, it isn't about getting > > responses from others that are confirming or affirming, it isn't about > > deciding that all one is is a marker for a conversation because that > > sounds like a good way to look at things. > > > > > > Inquiry has the potential for an upheaval in the entirety of the > > construction of self, other, world, and experience. > > > > > > Yet, it is so easy not to go there, so to speak. > > > > > > Well, it really isn't so easy, because your own experiences will > > continually reflect you back to yourself. > > > > > > One's own experiencing is saying: look. See. What is this? What is going > > on here? Is there a contradiction? Is there avoidance? > > > > > > This can only be suggested through words. > > > > > > Although what is, is utterly impersonal, it is understood through what > > was considered to be a personalized individual. > > > > So, the upheaval is very personal. > > > > The awareness breaks through in a very personal way. > > > > It has nothing to do with anyone else, or what anyone else is saying, or > > how they are responding. > > > > - D - > > I don't know why 'you' ('I') do this. > > It's precisely the 'self and other' mechanism that results in everyone > wanting to tell everyone else " how it is " ... or " how they should see it " > or " what they should do " . > > And results in absolutely nobody listening. > > Dozens of voices, with essentially no audience, except for > 'co-projection', co-reinforcement of self-and-other. > > When one is 'able to hear', one no longer needs to hear. > > I guess futility is, itself, interesting ;-). D: Yes, it's the attraction of the futile endeavor, ala Don Quixote. The joy of meaningless bullshit. The extravagant purposeless gesture. Give it all you got! Down the rabbit hole witcha! geo> Exactly. That is why you call bullshit what geo wrote - but you dont seem to notice it in yourself, of course. The attraction of the futile endeavor, indeed avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 26/8/2009 17:12:18 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:08 PM > Re: This morning's Nisargadatta > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:54 PM > > > > Re: This morning's Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of > > > > > imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It > > > > > is > > > > > the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The > > > > > person > > > > > cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that > > > > > believes > > > > > there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self > > > > > (vyakta) > > > > > lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. > > > > > Even > > > > > to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because > > > > > there > > > > > is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by > > > > > conviction. > > > > > Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > > > > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > > > > > Nice one! > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > Is it dan? Really? > > > > He said: > > > > " Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the > > > > causeless > > > > cause of everything " > > > > > > > > So now that is not thought based.....: > > > > > > > > Geo says beyond consciusness is the ground - and that is thought > > > > based. > > > > Very clever. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > Geo, I'm responding to the gist of the words as a paragraph and reading > > > between the lines. This is also how I respond when reading Geo. For > > > whatever any of it is worth <s>. > > > > > > I wonder though, Geo, do you stop to look? > > > > > > Really look? > > > > > > Do you see the construction: here is Geo saying this, but Nis. says > > > that, and Dan you say this about Nis. but that contradicts what you say > > > to Geo? > > > > > > Do you look? > > > > > > Geo says that Geo is just an imaginary marker for a conversation. > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > Is that all that is going on? > > > > > > How honest is it possible to be with one's look, one's seeing? > > > > > > This is only between you and you, for you to know. > > > > > > > > > I merely raise the question, but I have no way of knowing the look that > > > goes on for Geo, through Geo. > > > > > > > > > I raise the question because I understand that the look at Dan, through > > > Dan, here, is what counts, and involves no other. > > > > > > > > > > > > This inquiry simply is not about anyone else, it isn't about getting > > > responses from others that are confirming or affirming, it isn't about > > > deciding that all one is is a marker for a conversation because that > > > sounds like a good way to look at things. > > > > > > > > > Inquiry has the potential for an upheaval in the entirety of the > > > construction of self, other, world, and experience. > > > > > > > > > Yet, it is so easy not to go there, so to speak. > > > > > > > > > Well, it really isn't so easy, because your own experiences will > > > continually reflect you back to yourself. > > > > > > > > > One's own experiencing is saying: look. See. What is this? What is going > > > on here? Is there a contradiction? Is there avoidance? > > > > > > > > > This can only be suggested through words. > > > > > > > > > Although what is, is utterly impersonal, it is understood through what > > > was considered to be a personalized individual. > > > > > > So, the upheaval is very personal. > > > > > > The awareness breaks through in a very personal way. > > > > > > It has nothing to do with anyone else, or what anyone else is saying, or > > > how they are responding. > > > > > > - D - > > > > I don't know why 'you' ('I') do this. > > > > It's precisely the 'self and other' mechanism that results in everyone > > wanting to tell everyone else " how it is " ... or " how they should see it " > > or " what they should do " . > > > > And results in absolutely nobody listening. > > > > Dozens of voices, with essentially no audience, except for > > 'co-projection', co-reinforcement of self-and-other. > > > > When one is 'able to hear', one no longer needs to hear. > > > > I guess futility is, itself, interesting ;-). > > D: Yes, it's the attraction of the futile endeavor, ala Don Quixote. > > The joy of meaningless bullshit. > > The extravagant purposeless gesture. > > Give it all you got! > > Down the rabbit hole witcha! > > geo> Exactly. That is why you call bullshit what geo wrote - but you dont > seem to notice it in yourself, of course. The attraction of the futile > endeavor, indeed It's all equally bullshit, Geo. And it's all your bullshit. Or, it's all mine, same thing. It's not you calling me out on my bullshit. And it's not me calling you out on your bullshit. So, if it makes you feel better, it's all my bullshit. Yours, mine, it's the same bullshit. Okay, happy? All this bullshit is my bullshit. It's no one else's. And what isn't bullshit is also all mine. The bullshit isn't divided from the non-bullshit. Except by thought. And thought's divisions are bullshit. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > D: Yes, it's the attraction of the futile endeavor, ala Don Quixote. > > The joy of meaningless bullshit. > > The extravagant purposeless gesture. > > Give it all you got! > > Down the rabbit hole witcha! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... (in an ever deepening tone)... ... ... ... ... .... ... ........ Damn... it's bottomless ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > D: Yes, it's the attraction of the futile endeavor, ala Don Quixote. > > > > The joy of meaningless bullshit. > > > > The extravagant purposeless gesture. > > > > Give it all you got! > > > > Down the rabbit hole witcha! > > Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... (in an ever deepening tone)... ... ... ... .... ... ... ........ > > Damn... it's bottomless ;-). You mean the rabbit? Probably topless then, too. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > D: Yes, it's the attraction of the futile endeavor, ala Don Quixote. > > > > > > The joy of meaningless bullshit. > > > > > > The extravagant purposeless gesture. > > > > > > Give it all you got! > > > > > > Down the rabbit hole witcha! > > > > Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... (in an ever deepening tone)... ... ... ... .... ... ... ........ > > > > Damn... it's bottomless ;-). > > You mean the rabbit? > > Probably topless then, too. > > - D - Yes, she's very cute. Apparently, she's the new Playboy Bunny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Questioner: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self. > > > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of this imagination. It is the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes there is a person and is conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the causeless cause of everything. Even to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not right, because there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction. Nothing was divided, and there is nothing to unite. > > > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > > > Nice one! > > The assumption of there being a 'causeless cause' arises within the assumption of self. > > It's merely another word for God and a meaningless speculation. > > > toombaru > if one take the screen itself....on which the movie is projected.....as " causeless cause " of the projected movie.....why not.... why not....it's a nice assumption....for some spiritual kids.....wanting/wishing to hear some nice stories.....and feeling to get some powers......feeling to get free.....etc.... nice for kids...yes ..... but one shouldn't forget that the screen itself isn't the cause of any projected movie.... Marc 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.