there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for real.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 5:38 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > Then stop talking!! Keep repeating how useless is talking and keep doing

> > it....???

> > I dont think talk is useless

> > -geo-

>

> Ahh so... we're different again. " you " vs. " me " . YOU think talk is useless,

> but *I* don't.

>

> Let's keep reinforcing that imaginary difference, shall we?

>

> Talk has its uses, after all (LOL).

> -t-

>

> You dont seem to realize that when you start with the you-me thing it is

> when you are taking things personally, fell offended.

 

Who is this " you " being addressed?

 

Geo knows that Tim is taking things personally and feels offended, but Tim

himself doesn't realize that?!?!?

 

That just makes no sense.

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 5:47 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> And... why the " Timmy " ?

> -t-

>

> Because as I am you and you are me we are now intimate timmy.

> -geovanito-

 

Still doesn't make sense. If I am you and you are me, how can we be

intimate?

 

If the computer mouse is the computer mouse, can the computer mouse be

intimate with the computer mouse?

 

I guess if separation is seen, it's seen.

 

There is an attempt to maintain a sense of separation.

 

That's fine.

-t-

 

Now you are ofended. Time for the you-me stuff

-geovanito-

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 5:50 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 5:38 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > Then stop talking!! Keep repeating how useless is talking and keep doing

> > it....???

> > I dont think talk is useless

> > -geo-

>

> Ahh so... we're different again. " you " vs. " me " . YOU think talk is

> useless,

> but *I* don't.

>

> Let's keep reinforcing that imaginary difference, shall we?

>

> Talk has its uses, after all (LOL).

> -t-

>

> You dont seem to realize that when you start with the you-me thing it is

> when you are taking things personally, fell offended.

 

Who is this " you " being addressed?

 

Geo knows that Tim is taking things personally and feels offended, but Tim

himself doesn't realize that?!?!?

 

That just makes no sense.

-t-

 

Ahh...but that is the way it is!! I DONT HAVE A SELF-IMAGE!!...that is when

I have it. I AM NOT TAKING IT PERSONALLY!!...that is when it is taken.

AWARENESS IS WHAT ALWAYS IS!!! ...that is when awareness is just a concept.

I AM YOU AND YOU ARE ME!!...that is when it is not felt so. etc...

-geovanitozinho-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 5:47 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > And... why the " Timmy " ?

> > -t-

> >

> > Because as I am you and you are me we are now intimate timmy.

> > -geovanito-

>

> Still doesn't make sense. If I am you and you are me, how can we be

> intimate?

>

> If the computer mouse is the computer mouse, can the computer mouse be

> intimate with the computer mouse?

>

> I guess if separation is seen, it's seen.

>

> There is an attempt to maintain a sense of separation.

>

> That's fine.

> -t-

>

> Now you are ofended. Time for the you-me stuff

> -geovanito-

 

Why not just say, " Now I am offended? " Be truthful.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 5:50 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 5:38 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Then stop talking!! Keep repeating how useless is talking and keep doing

> > > it....???

> > > I dont think talk is useless

> > > -geo-

> >

> > Ahh so... we're different again. " you " vs. " me " . YOU think talk is

> > useless,

> > but *I* don't.

> >

> > Let's keep reinforcing that imaginary difference, shall we?

> >

> > Talk has its uses, after all (LOL).

> > -t-

> >

> > You dont seem to realize that when you start with the you-me thing it is

> > when you are taking things personally, fell offended.

>

> Who is this " you " being addressed?

>

> Geo knows that Tim is taking things personally and feels offended, but Tim

> himself doesn't realize that?!?!?

>

> That just makes no sense.

> -t-

>

> Ahh...but that is the way it is!! I DONT HAVE A SELF-IMAGE!!...that is when

> I have it. I AM NOT TAKING IT PERSONALLY!!...that is when it is taken.

> AWARENESS IS WHAT ALWAYS IS!!! ...that is when awareness is just a concept.

> I AM YOU AND YOU ARE ME!!...that is when it is not felt so. etc...

> -geovanitozinho-

 

Calm down... I believe you, I believe you. You are a self without a self-image.

You are NOT really excited, which is why you're using all capitals... because

you like to do things the reverse of most people.

 

OK, OK... (chuckling).

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 6:01 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 5:47 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > And... why the " Timmy " ?

> > -t-

> >

> > Because as I am you and you are me we are now intimate timmy.

> > -geovanito-

>

> Still doesn't make sense. If I am you and you are me, how can we be

> intimate?

>

> If the computer mouse is the computer mouse, can the computer mouse be

> intimate with the computer mouse?

>

> I guess if separation is seen, it's seen.

>

> There is an attempt to maintain a sense of separation.

>

> That's fine.

> -t-

>

> Now you are ofended. Time for the you-me stuff

> -geovanito-

 

Why not just say, " Now I am offended? " Be truthful.

-t-

 

Just say it? And then I am truthfull? ...ok...

...i am offended...

-geozito-

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 6:03 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 5:50 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 5:38 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Then stop talking!! Keep repeating how useless is talking and keep

> > > doing

> > > it....???

> > > I dont think talk is useless

> > > -geo-

> >

> > Ahh so... we're different again. " you " vs. " me " . YOU think talk is

> > useless,

> > but *I* don't.

> >

> > Let's keep reinforcing that imaginary difference, shall we?

> >

> > Talk has its uses, after all (LOL).

> > -t-

> >

> > You dont seem to realize that when you start with the you-me thing it is

> > when you are taking things personally, fell offended.

>

> Who is this " you " being addressed?

>

> Geo knows that Tim is taking things personally and feels offended, but Tim

> himself doesn't realize that?!?!?

>

> That just makes no sense.

> -t-

>

> Ahh...but that is the way it is!! I DONT HAVE A SELF-IMAGE!!...that is

> when

> I have it. I AM NOT TAKING IT PERSONALLY!!...that is when it is taken.

> AWARENESS IS WHAT ALWAYS IS!!! ...that is when awareness is just a

> concept.

> I AM YOU AND YOU ARE ME!!...that is when it is not felt so. etc...

> -geovanitozinho-

 

Calm down... I believe you, I believe you. You are a self without a

self-image. You are NOT really excited, which is why you're using all

capitals... because you like to do things the reverse of most people.

 

OK, OK... (chuckling).

-t-

 

Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way around.

-geozito-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:01 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 5:47 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > And... why the " Timmy " ?

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > Because as I am you and you are me we are now intimate timmy.

> > > -geovanito-

> >

> > Still doesn't make sense. If I am you and you are me, how can we be

> > intimate?

> >

> > If the computer mouse is the computer mouse, can the computer mouse be

> > intimate with the computer mouse?

> >

> > I guess if separation is seen, it's seen.

> >

> > There is an attempt to maintain a sense of separation.

> >

> > That's fine.

> > -t-

> >

> > Now you are ofended. Time for the you-me stuff

> > -geovanito-

>

> Why not just say, " Now I am offended? " Be truthful.

> -t-

>

> Just say it? And then I am truthfull? ...ok...

> ..i am offended...

> -geozito-

 

Better, considering the reader has no " emotional contact " at all with the writer

of this message.

 

What if the writer said he's been calm, throughout, and that the reader has been

projecting?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

>> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> -t-

>

> Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way around.

> -geozito-

 

No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

 

Always.

 

Here.

 

Not " there " .

 

Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's forgetting.

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 6:12 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

>> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> -t-

>

> Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way around.

> -geozito-

 

No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

 

Always.

 

Here.

 

Not " there " .

 

Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's forgetting.

-t-

 

You just forgot it..otherwise you would not tell it to

yourself.....obvioulsy

Always the other way around.

-g-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > -t-

> >

> > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way around.

> > -geozito-

>

> No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

>

> Always.

>

> Here.

>

> Not " there " .

>

> Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's forgetting.

>

 

P.S. if there's a feeling of " upset " , even if it seemingly occurs " out there "

with the other...

 

It is " here " , that feeling.

 

And 'the Self' has been forgotten, in favor of the other.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:12 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > -t-

> >

> > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way around.

> > -geozito-

>

> No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

>

> Always.

>

> Here.

>

> Not " there " .

>

> Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's forgetting.

> -t-

>

> You just forgot it..otherwise you would not tell it to

> yourself.....obvioulsy

> Always the other way around.

> -g-

 

No, Geo.

 

The writer of this has been sitting here calmly, watching Geo thrash about.

 

Geo fell asleep.

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 6:11 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:01 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 5:47 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > And... why the " Timmy " ?

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > Because as I am you and you are me we are now intimate timmy.

> > > -geovanito-

> >

> > Still doesn't make sense. If I am you and you are me, how can we be

> > intimate?

> >

> > If the computer mouse is the computer mouse, can the computer mouse be

> > intimate with the computer mouse?

> >

> > I guess if separation is seen, it's seen.

> >

> > There is an attempt to maintain a sense of separation.

> >

> > That's fine.

> > -t-

> >

> > Now you are ofended. Time for the you-me stuff

> > -geovanito-

>

> Why not just say, " Now I am offended? " Be truthful.

> -t-

>

> Just say it? And then I am truthfull? ...ok...

> ..i am offended...

> -geozito-

 

Better, considering the reader has no " emotional contact " at all with the

writer of this message.

 

What if the writer said he's been calm, throughout, and that the reader has

been projecting?

-t-

 

He would be right. Very difficult not to project a personality into another

writer.

This can be seen when people act different when they consider the other as

friend or enemy.

I have seen people here agreeing to things said by one that they have been

totally against with another one.

-gg-

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 6:16 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > -t-

> >

> > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way around.

> > -geozito-

>

> No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

>

> Always.

>

> Here.

>

> Not " there " .

>

> Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's forgetting.

>

 

P.S. if there's a feeling of " upset " , even if it seemingly occurs " out

there " with the other...

 

It is " here " , that feeling.

 

And 'the Self' has been forgotten, in favor of the other.

-t-

 

Anything can trigger awakening. To me suddenly there is seeing/being. No

need to question " anothers " or " mes-yous " . All at the same side - nothig

out.

-ggg-

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 6:16 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > -t-

> >

> > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way around.

> > -geozito-

>

> No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

>

> Always.

>

> Here.

>

> Not " there " .

>

> Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's forgetting.

>

 

P.S. if there's a feeling of " upset " , even if it seemingly occurs " out

there " with the other...

 

It is " here " , that feeling.

 

And 'the Self' has been forgotten, in favor of the other.

-t-

 

But...reading again. If there is a feeling of upset...it is here, obviously.

What self wa forgoten?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 6:17 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:12 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > -t-

> >

> > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way around.

> > -geozito-

>

> No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

>

> Always.

>

> Here.

>

> Not " there " .

>

> Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's forgetting.

> -t-

>

> You just forgot it..otherwise you would not tell it to

> yourself.....obvioulsy

> Always the other way around.

> -g-

 

No, Geo.

 

The writer of this has been sitting here calmly, watching Geo thrash about.

 

Geo fell asleep.

-t-

 

Geo has a wide smile in his face...having fun...all the way in these

exchanges...See how we project while telling others not to project..

-geovaninho_

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:16 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way around.

> > > -geozito-

> >

> > No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

> >

> > Always.

> >

> > Here.

> >

> > Not " there " .

> >

> > Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's forgetting.

> >

>

> P.S. if there's a feeling of " upset " , even if it seemingly occurs " out

> there " with the other...

>

> It is " here " , that feeling.

>

> And 'the Self' has been forgotten, in favor of the other.

> -t-

>

> But...reading again. If there is a feeling of upset...it is here, obviously.

> What self wa forgoten?

> -geo-

 

Awareness is " pulling apart " in two different directions, seemingly.

 

Introjected into/as " me, here " .

 

Projected out to/as " you, there "

 

And... it is all Here. Neither " me, here " nor " you, there " in truth, just Here.

 

But when it's introjected/projected, there is a seeming " me and you " .

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:17 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 6:12 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way around.

> > > -geozito-

> >

> > No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

> >

> > Always.

> >

> > Here.

> >

> > Not " there " .

> >

> > Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's forgetting.

> > -t-

> >

> > You just forgot it..otherwise you would not tell it to

> > yourself.....obvioulsy

> > Always the other way around.

> > -g-

>

> No, Geo.

>

> The writer of this has been sitting here calmly, watching Geo thrash about.

>

> Geo fell asleep.

> -t-

>

> Geo has a wide smile in his face...having fun...all the way in these

> exchanges...See how we project while telling others not to project..

> -geovaninho_

 

I enjoy them too :-).

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 6:17 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:12 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > -t-

> >

> > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way around.

> > -geozito-

>

> No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

>

> Always.

>

> Here.

>

> Not " there " .

>

> Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's forgetting.

> -t-

>

> You just forgot it..otherwise you would not tell it to

> yourself.....obvioulsy

> Always the other way around.

> -g-

 

No, Geo.

 

The writer of this has been sitting here calmly, watching Geo thrash about.

 

Geo fell asleep.

-t-

 

I will keep this post from tim. So there is sleeping and awakening. In other

words..tim is able to recognise another one who is asleep. In other

words...what about the " only self can see self " stuff? If tim sees geo

sleeping, means tim is sleeping and dreaming that geo is asleep? LOL

....dont take this too serioulsy....

 

BTW: I do say that when one is awake (no conceptual projecting), it is

possible to recognise conceptual projecting in anothers words. There is a

margin of error.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 6:35 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:17 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 6:12 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way

> > > around.

> > > -geozito-

> >

> > No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

> >

> > Always.

> >

> > Here.

> >

> > Not " there " .

> >

> > Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's

> > forgetting.

> > -t-

> >

> > You just forgot it..otherwise you would not tell it to

> > yourself.....obvioulsy

> > Always the other way around.

> > -g-

>

> No, Geo.

>

> The writer of this has been sitting here calmly, watching Geo thrash

> about.

>

> Geo fell asleep.

> -t-

>

> Geo has a wide smile in his face...having fun...all the way in these

> exchanges...See how we project while telling others not to project..

> -geovaninho_

 

I enjoy them too :-).

-t-

 

Very difficult to find people to talk these things " alive " .

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:17 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 6:12 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way around.

> > > -geozito-

> >

> > No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

> >

> > Always.

> >

> > Here.

> >

> > Not " there " .

> >

> > Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's forgetting.

> > -t-

> >

> > You just forgot it..otherwise you would not tell it to

> > yourself.....obvioulsy

> > Always the other way around.

> > -g-

>

> No, Geo.

>

> The writer of this has been sitting here calmly, watching Geo thrash about.

>

> Geo fell asleep.

> -t-

>

> I will keep this post from tim. So there is sleeping and awakening. In other

> words..tim is able to recognise another one who is asleep. In other

> words...what about the " only self can see self " stuff? If tim sees geo

> sleeping, means tim is sleeping and dreaming that geo is asleep? LOL

> ...dont take this too serioulsy....

>

> BTW: I do say that when one is awake (no conceptual projecting), it is

> possible to recognise conceptual projecting in anothers words. There is a

> margin of error.

> -geo-

 

That's pretty much it.

 

When there is " full awareness " that never goes " out there " (although it may seem

to by another), it's easy to recognize in 'someone else' when projecting, in

particular, is happening.

 

The word " you " starts being heavily used, for one thing. YOU are doing this,

YOU are doing that, YOU don't recognize this, YOU are wrong... etc.

 

And since, in truth, neither of us are in the remotest contact with " an other "

(paradoxical, isn't it?) then it's pretty easy to see.

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 6:34 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:16 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way

> > > around.

> > > -geozito-

> >

> > No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

> >

> > Always.

> >

> > Here.

> >

> > Not " there " .

> >

> > Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's

> > forgetting.

> >

>

> P.S. if there's a feeling of " upset " , even if it seemingly occurs " out

> there " with the other...

>

> It is " here " , that feeling.

>

> And 'the Self' has been forgotten, in favor of the other.

> -t-

>

> But...reading again. If there is a feeling of upset...it is here,

> obviously.

> What self wa forgoten?

> -geo-

 

Awareness is " pulling apart " in two different directions, seemingly.

 

Introjected into/as " me, here " .

 

Projected out to/as " you, there "

 

And... it is all Here. Neither " me, here " nor " you, there " in truth, just

Here.

 

But when it's introjected/projected, there is a seeming " me and you " .

-t-

 

Yes that is what happens. But not just me-you. The whole field of

consciousness is noisy and fragmented. It is noisy because of the

fragmentation. This brings us back to the healthy topic.

Lookout...easy...dont jump..meditation... There is the need of seeing this

limited conditioned field as one movement. Consciousness is one and here.

When the fragmentation of consciousness is healed, in other words, there is

a unitary seeing/doing, with no separate doer, something else " enters " in

the game....the ground/me. And then consciousness is not me because it is

being seen.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:35 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 6:17 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > fewtch

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Friday, September 04, 2009 6:12 PM

> > > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > > real.

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > > > -t-

> > > >

> > > > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way

> > > > around.

> > > > -geozito-

> > >

> > > No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

> > >

> > > Always.

> > >

> > > Here.

> > >

> > > Not " there " .

> > >

> > > Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's

> > > forgetting.

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > You just forgot it..otherwise you would not tell it to

> > > yourself.....obvioulsy

> > > Always the other way around.

> > > -g-

> >

> > No, Geo.

> >

> > The writer of this has been sitting here calmly, watching Geo thrash

> > about.

> >

> > Geo fell asleep.

> > -t-

> >

> > Geo has a wide smile in his face...having fun...all the way in these

> > exchanges...See how we project while telling others not to project..

> > -geovaninho_

>

> I enjoy them too :-).

> -t-

>

> Very difficult to find people to talk these things " alive " .

> -geo-

 

I know... so many people are " not serious " about enquiry in general, and are

just looking to clash with each other, or comfort each other.

 

I always enjoy talking to people who are " serious " (not implying 'seriousness'

in a negative sense) and really interested in this kind of stuff, in seeing

through and understanding the " self/other " game.

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 04, 2009 6:40 PM

Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

real.

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 04, 2009 6:17 PM

> Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> real.

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, September 04, 2009 6:12 PM

> > Re: there is neither seer, seen nor seing....for

> > real.

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >> OK, OK... (chuckling).

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > Yes! Now you got it! Try to remember: it is always the other way

> > > around.

> > > -geozito-

> >

> > No. It is always the " Self " way 'round.

> >

> > Always.

> >

> > Here.

> >

> > Not " there " .

> >

> > Which the reader keeps forgetting, and not noticing that he's

> > forgetting.

> > -t-

> >

> > You just forgot it..otherwise you would not tell it to

> > yourself.....obvioulsy

> > Always the other way around.

> > -g-

>

> No, Geo.

>

> The writer of this has been sitting here calmly, watching Geo thrash

> about.

>

> Geo fell asleep.

> -t-

>

> I will keep this post from tim. So there is sleeping and awakening. In

> other

> words..tim is able to recognise another one who is asleep. In other

> words...what about the " only self can see self " stuff? If tim sees geo

> sleeping, means tim is sleeping and dreaming that geo is asleep? LOL

> ...dont take this too serioulsy....

>

> BTW: I do say that when one is awake (no conceptual projecting), it is

> possible to recognise conceptual projecting in anothers words. There is a

> margin of error.

> -geo-

 

That's pretty much it.

 

When there is " full awareness " that never goes " out there " (although it may

seem to by another), it's easy to recognize in 'someone else' when

projecting, in particular, is happening.

 

The word " you " starts being heavily used, for one thing. YOU are doing this,

YOU are doing that, YOU don't recognize this, YOU are wrong... etc.

 

And since, in truth, neither of us are in the remotest contact with " an

other " (paradoxical, isn't it?) then it's pretty easy to see.

-t-

 

That is really quite easy to see. But when the issue is related to

consciousness, awareness, ground...all those dificult and subtle

symbols..there is the need to talk carefully and checking out as one is

going along whether concepts sneak in. I is VERY easy to conceptualize when

one gets to talk close...around....the absolute/ground. It must stay

absolutely subject - not a trace of objectivation....can be very

obvious..but sometimes quite tricky....subtle. Many times I find myself

projecting a " ground " simmilar to a vast space...or a dimensionless

" something " ...hhhaaa....

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Yes that is what happens. But not just me-you. The whole field of

> consciousness is noisy and fragmented. It is noisy because of the

> fragmentation. This brings us back to the healthy topic.

> Lookout...easy...dont jump..meditation... There is the need of seeing this

> limited conditioned field as one movement. Consciousness is one and

> here.

 

It can be called consciousness or awareness or " Self " or God or whatever... the

words really don't matter.

 

What's 'important' is that it is never " away " , never " out there " somewhere.

 

And that's what the word " Self " (with a capital S) points to, in my book. Just

the fact that it's never away, somewhere else.

 

Only 'being aware' without pretending that we know what's going on with 'the

other', is the cure for this.

 

It's so ingrained in us, the belief that we know what's happening with the

other, with " you " .

 

But, that is never the case.

 

We aren't in contact with an " other " , ever.

 

This is all that goes away: " Else " .

 

Distance.

 

Separation.

 

Nothing was ever apart.