Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

today's Nisargadatta (with U.G.)

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

" If you have the courage to touch life for the first time, you will never know

what hit you. Everything man has thought, felt and experienced is gone, and

nothing is put in its place. " -- U.G. Krishnamurti

 

Questioner: You say that whatever you see is yourself. You also admit that you

see the world as we see it. Here is today's newspaper with all the horrors going

on. Since the world is yourself, how can you explain such misbehaviour?

 

Nisargadatta Maharaj: Which world do you have in mind?

 

Questioner: Our common world, in which we live.

 

Nisargadatta: Are you sure we live in the same world? I do not mean nature, the

sea and the land, plants and animals. They are not the problem, nor the endless

space, the infinite time, the inexhaustible power. Do not be misled by my eating

and smoking, reading and talking. My mind is not here, my life is not here. Your

world, of desires and their fulfilments, of fears and their escapes, is

definitely not my world. I do not even perceive it, except through what you tell

me about it. It is your private dream world and my only reaction to it is to ask

you to stop dreaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> " If you have the courage to touch life for the first time, you will never know

what hit you. Everything man has thought, felt and experienced is gone, and

nothing is put in its place. " -- U.G. Krishnamurti

>

> Questioner: You say that whatever you see is yourself. You also admit that you

see the world as we see it. Here is today's newspaper with all the horrors going

on. Since the world is yourself, how can you explain such misbehaviour?

>

> Nisargadatta Maharaj: Which world do you have in mind?

>

> Questioner: Our common world, in which we live.

>

> Nisargadatta: Are you sure we live in the same world? I do not mean nature,

the sea and the land, plants and animals. They are not the problem, nor the

endless space, the infinite time, the inexhaustible power. Do not be misled by

my eating and smoking, reading and talking. My mind is not here, my life is not

here. Your world, of desires and their fulfilments, of fears and their escapes,

is definitely not my world. I do not even perceive it, except through what you

tell me about it. It is your private dream world and my only reaction to it is

to ask you to stop dreaming.

>

 

 

there is no " common world " existing, yes

 

there are also no common dreams existing

 

what is common, is of no worlds at all

 

 

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

wrote:

>

>

> there is no " common world " existing, yes

>

> there are also no common dreams existing

 

It doesn't seem so, yet whether there are or not is actually irrelevant. The

" dream, here, as the reader " is the only dream that will ever appear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> >

> >

> > there is no " common world " existing, yes

> >

> > there are also no common dreams existing

>

> It doesn't seem so, yet whether there are or not is actually irrelevant. The

" dream, here, as the reader " is the only dream that will ever appear.

>

 

 

it is you who posted the words of Nis. , telling that there are no common

worlds.....

 

i agreed with such view

 

....

 

are you posting then " irrelvant " words?....

why?

 

.....

 

 

 

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > there is no " common world " existing, yes

> > >

> > > there are also no common dreams existing

> >

> > It doesn't seem so, yet whether there are or not is actually irrelevant.

The " dream, here, as the reader " is the only dream that will ever appear.

> >

>

>

> it is you who posted the words of Nis. , telling that there are no common

worlds.....

>

> i agreed with such view

>

> ...

>

> are you posting then " irrelvant " words?....

> why?

>

> ....

>

>

>

> Marc

 

Because it so happens words arise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > there is no " common world " existing, yes

> > > >

> > > > there are also no common dreams existing

> > >

> > > It doesn't seem so, yet whether there are or not is actually irrelevant.

The " dream, here, as the reader " is the only dream that will ever appear.

> > >

> >

> >

> > it is you who posted the words of Nis. , telling that there are no common

worlds.....

> >

> > i agreed with such view

> >

> > ...

> >

> > are you posting then " irrelvant " words?....

> > why?

> >

> > ....

> >

> >

> >

> > Marc

>

> Because it so happens words arise.

 

 

through your brain?...

or not?

 

LOL

 

but ok, i'm sorry for you....if " it so happens words arise "

 

 

Marc

 

 

Ps: greetings to all this dual/triple/etc identities in here.....lol

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

wrote:

>

> > Because it so happens words arise.

>

>

> through your brain?...

> or not?

>

> LOL

 

I really don't know.

 

One is told " the brain is the seat of thought " , blah, blah.

 

One is also told " Jesus loves you, because the Bible says so " .

 

Why believe one, and not the other?

 

Nothing is known here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> " If you have the courage to touch life for the first time, you will never know

what hit you. Everything man has thought, felt and experienced is gone, and

nothing is put in its place. " -- U.G. Krishnamurti

>

> Questioner: You say that whatever you see is yourself. You also admit that you

see the world as we see it. Here is today's newspaper with all the horrors going

on. Since the world is yourself, how can you explain such misbehaviour?

>

> Nisargadatta Maharaj: Which world do you have in mind?

>

> Questioner: Our common world, in which we live.

>

> Nisargadatta: Are you sure we live in the same world? I do not mean nature,

the sea and the land, plants and animals. They are not the problem, nor the

endless space, the infinite time, the inexhaustible power. Do not be misled by

my eating and smoking, reading and talking. My mind is not here, my life is not

here. Your world, of desires and their fulfilments, of fears and their escapes,

is definitely not my world. I do not even perceive it, except through what you

tell me about it. It is your private dream world and my only reaction to it is

to ask you to stop dreaming.

 

 

The fact is, the person he speaks to is a dream character. Asking that

character to stop dreaming is irrelevant.

 

The " dream " is a metaphor. Another metaphor is " splitting, projecting,

attacking, defending. "

 

The person he's addressing is constructed through splitting and projecting.

It's useless to ask this person to stop the splitting and projecting.

 

The dream can only stop nonvolitionally, when it is time to stop.

 

There isn't any human control over starting it or stopping it.

 

I guess that would make gurus, teachings, practices, mighty ... irrelevant, no?

 

All of that stuff is just as much a by-product of dreaming as anything else.

 

A person claiming not to live in the dream " becomes " a dream character simply

due to appearing to " another. "

 

So, regardless of the claim, it just becomes a case of a dream character asking

another dream character to stop the dream.

 

 

 

- D -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > " If you have the courage to touch life for the first time, you will never

know what hit you. Everything man has thought, felt and experienced is gone,

and nothing is put in its place. " -- U.G. Krishnamurti

> >

> > Questioner: You say that whatever you see is yourself. You also admit that

you see the world as we see it. Here is today's newspaper with all the horrors

going on. Since the world is yourself, how can you explain such misbehaviour?

> >

> > Nisargadatta Maharaj: Which world do you have in mind?

> >

> > Questioner: Our common world, in which we live.

> >

> > Nisargadatta: Are you sure we live in the same world? I do not mean nature,

the sea and the land, plants and animals. They are not the problem, nor the

endless space, the infinite time, the inexhaustible power. Do not be misled by

my eating and smoking, reading and talking. My mind is not here, my life is not

here. Your world, of desires and their fulfilments, of fears and their escapes,

is definitely not my world. I do not even perceive it, except through what you

tell me about it. It is your private dream world and my only reaction to it is

to ask you to stop dreaming.

>

>

> The fact is, the person he speaks to is a dream character. Asking that

character to stop dreaming is irrelevant.

>

> The " dream " is a metaphor. Another metaphor is " splitting, projecting,

attacking, defending. "

>

> The person he's addressing is constructed through splitting and projecting.

It's useless to ask this person to stop the splitting and projecting.

>

> The dream can only stop nonvolitionally, when it is time to stop.

>

> There isn't any human control over starting it or stopping it.

>

> I guess that would make gurus, teachings, practices, mighty ... irrelevant,

no?

>

> All of that stuff is just as much a by-product of dreaming as anything else.

>

> A person claiming not to live in the dream " becomes " a dream character simply

due to appearing to " another. "

>

> So, regardless of the claim, it just becomes a case of a dream character

asking another dream character to stop the dream.

>

>

>

> - D -

 

True.

 

Of course, he died in 1981... it's certain he's not d, and reading ;-).

 

To his credit, he said something to the effect of " until concepts are

transcended, all these cock-and-bull stories are provided, all these concepts " .

 

And, " it's all entertainment to pass the time " , or words to that effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> >

> > > Because it so happens words arise.

> >

> >

> > through your brain?...

> > or not?

> >

> > LOL

>

> I really don't know.

>

> One is told " the brain is the seat of thought " , blah, blah.

>

> One is also told " Jesus loves you, because the Bible says so " .

>

> Why believe one, and not the other?

>

> Nothing is known here.

 

Yes.

 

Use the metaphor of a bubble.

 

Words, brains, bodies, thoughts, feelings, experiences appear inside the bubble.

 

One is outside the bubble, and seeing appearances come and go inside the bubble,

although the bubble doesn't exist outside of one's being.

 

Nis. says things like this, like the quote just posted, or like " for you, you

arise in the world. for me, the world arises within me. "

 

Outside the bubble, or beyond the confines of the bubble, if you like, or beyond

the definitions of bubble-land, is unknown in bubble-land terms. It is unknown,

not perceived, not structured, not cognized, not formed. Therefore, typically

awareness is construed as having a position inside the bubble, because it is

assumed to exist in relation to the known. But it does not have such position.

Such position is assumption only, attempt only - can never be established,

regardless of thousands of years of attempt.

 

Seeing this, reverses the picture formed in bubble-land.

 

The notion of being a particular brain, as opposed to being something else in

the bubble, has no attraction. One understands one's life is not in a location

inside the bubble. Explaining how words arise inside the bubble, and whether

this brain or that brain is responsible, might seem important for a

bubble-entity. And that's okay, that's common-sense day-to-day stuff for a

bubble-being.

 

But for one who is the entirety of the bubble, and beyond ...

 

How would it be a concern to explain the causality of bubble events, that simply

arise as they arise.

 

It is all causeless. All of nothing. There is not this being and that being.

Only one. None.

 

And it's funny to talk about.

 

Funny to hear about, too.

 

If one speaks about being beyond the bubble, the bubble-beings want to bring

" you " down to size. They insist you are a " you " apart from a " them. "

Particularly the " enlightened " bubble-beings.

 

Certainly " enlightenment " is an odious concept. As is " liberation. " These

ideas just become elegant means for further distortions and delusions in

bubble-land.

 

 

-- D --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Certainly " enlightenment " is an odious concept. As is " liberation. " > These

ideas just become elegant means for further distortions and

> delusions in bubble-land.

>

>

> -- D --

 

I don't see anything inherently wrong with the concepts of enlightenment, or

liberation. Depends on where/when they're being used, as does all concepts

(e.g. the concept of " fucking " may odious when spoken in a church, but not in a

tavern).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 18, 2009 8:39 PM

Re: today's Nisargadatta (with U.G.)

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Certainly " enlightenment " is an odious concept. As is " liberation. " >

> These ideas just become elegant means for further distortions and

> delusions in bubble-land.

>

>

> -- D --

 

I don't see anything inherently wrong with the concepts of enlightenment, or

liberation. Depends on where/when they're being used, as does all concepts

(e.g. the concept of " fucking " may odious when spoken in a church, but not

in a tavern).

-t-

 

Yes and no - as with everything. Indeed enlightenment and liberation became

the ridiculous ground for most organized religions in the east (and west).

In the other hand can also be understood as light all over the place...

-geo-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> If one speaks about being beyond the bubble, the bubble-beings want

> to bring " you " down to size. They insist you are a " you " apart from > a

" them. " Particularly the " enlightened " bubble-beings.

 

The 'outside' of the bubble is much closer in than its inside ;-).

 

Is it any surprise, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 18, 2009 9:29 PM

Re: today's Nisargadatta (with U.G.)

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> If one speaks about being beyond the bubble, the bubble-beings want

> to bring " you " down to size. They insist you are a " you " apart from > a

> " them. " Particularly the " enlightened " bubble-beings.

 

The 'outside' of the bubble is much closer in than its inside ;-).

 

Is it any surprise, then?

-t-

 

They are exactly equally either inside or outside. How could anything be

" more " inside then something else??

-geo-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 18, 2009 9:29 PM

> Re: today's Nisargadatta (with U.G.)

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > If one speaks about being beyond the bubble, the bubble-beings want

> > to bring " you " down to size. They insist you are a " you " apart from > a

> > " them. " Particularly the " enlightened " bubble-beings.

>

> The 'outside' of the bubble is much closer in than its inside ;-).

>

> Is it any surprise, then?

> -t-

>

> They are exactly equally either inside or outside. How could anything be

> " more " inside then something else??

> -geo-

 

The inside of the bubble is outside.

 

The outside of the bubble is inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > " If you have the courage to touch life for the first time, you will never

know what hit you. Everything man has thought, felt and experienced is gone,

and nothing is put in its place. " -- U.G. Krishnamurti

> >

> > Questioner: You say that whatever you see is yourself. You also admit that

you see the world as we see it. Here is today's newspaper with all the horrors

going on. Since the world is yourself, how can you explain such misbehaviour?

> >

> > Nisargadatta Maharaj: Which world do you have in mind?

> >

> > Questioner: Our common world, in which we live.

> >

> > Nisargadatta: Are you sure we live in the same world? I do not mean nature,

the sea and the land, plants and animals. They are not the problem, nor the

endless space, the infinite time, the inexhaustible power. Do not be misled by

my eating and smoking, reading and talking. My mind is not here, my life is not

here. Your world, of desires and their fulfilments, of fears and their escapes,

is definitely not my world. I do not even perceive it, except through what you

tell me about it. It is your private dream world and my only reaction to it is

to ask you to stop dreaming.

>

>

> The fact is, the person he speaks to is a dream character. Asking that

character to stop dreaming is irrelevant.

>

> The " dream " is a metaphor. Another metaphor is " splitting, projecting,

attacking, defending. "

>

> The person he's addressing is constructed through splitting and projecting.

It's useless to ask this person to stop the splitting and projecting.

>

> The dream can only stop nonvolitionally, when it is time to stop.

>

> There isn't any human control over starting it or stopping it.

>

> I guess that would make gurus, teachings, practices, mighty ... irrelevant,

no?

>

> All of that stuff is just as much a by-product of dreaming as anything else.

>

> A person claiming not to live in the dream " becomes " a dream character simply

due to appearing to " another. "

>

> So, regardless of the claim, it just becomes a case of a dream character

asking another dream character to stop the dream.

>

>

>

> - D -

>

 

 

what exactly is this your claim about?....

 

 

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > " If you have the courage to touch life for the first time, you will never

know what hit you. Everything man has thought, felt and experienced is gone,

and nothing is put in its place. " -- U.G. Krishnamurti

> > >

> > > Questioner: You say that whatever you see is yourself. You also admit that

you see the world as we see it. Here is today's newspaper with all the horrors

going on. Since the world is yourself, how can you explain such misbehaviour?

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: Which world do you have in mind?

> > >

> > > Questioner: Our common world, in which we live.

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta: Are you sure we live in the same world? I do not mean

nature, the sea and the land, plants and animals. They are not the problem, nor

the endless space, the infinite time, the inexhaustible power. Do not be misled

by my eating and smoking, reading and talking. My mind is not here, my life is

not here. Your world, of desires and their fulfilments, of fears and their

escapes, is definitely not my world. I do not even perceive it, except through

what you tell me about it. It is your private dream world and my only reaction

to it is to ask you to stop dreaming.

> >

> >

> > The fact is, the person he speaks to is a dream character. Asking that

character to stop dreaming is irrelevant.

> >

> > The " dream " is a metaphor. Another metaphor is " splitting, projecting,

attacking, defending. "

> >

> > The person he's addressing is constructed through splitting and projecting.

It's useless to ask this person to stop the splitting and projecting.

> >

> > The dream can only stop nonvolitionally, when it is time to stop.

> >

> > There isn't any human control over starting it or stopping it.

> >

> > I guess that would make gurus, teachings, practices, mighty ... irrelevant,

no?

> >

> > All of that stuff is just as much a by-product of dreaming as anything else.

> >

> > A person claiming not to live in the dream " becomes " a dream character

simply due to appearing to " another. "

> >

> > So, regardless of the claim, it just becomes a case of a dream character

asking another dream character to stop the dream.

> >

> >

> >

> > - D -

> >

>

>

> what exactly is this your claim about?....

>

>

> Marc

 

 

 

next time i talk to me, i'll try to find out for you.

 

- d -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

 

" If you have the courage to touch life for the first time, you will never know

what hit you. Everything man has thought, felt and experienced is gone, and

nothing is put in its place. " -- U.G. Krishnamurti

 

Questioner: You say that whatever you see is yourself. You also admit that you

see the world as we see it. Here is today's newspaper with all the horrors going

on. Since the world is yourself, how can you explain such misbehaviour?

 

Nisargadatta Maharaj: Which world do you have in mind?

 

Questioner: Our common world, in which we live.

 

Nisargadatta: Are you sure we live in the same world? I do not mean nature, the

sea and the land, plants and animals. They are not the problem, nor the endless

space, the infinite time, the inexhaustible power. Do not be misled by my eating

and smoking, reading and talking. My mind is not here, my life is not here. Your

world, of desires and their fulfilments, of fears and their escapes, is

definitely not my world. I do not even perceive it, except through what you tell

me about it. It is your private dream world and my only reaction to it is to ask

you to stop dreaming.

 

--- End forwarded message ---

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > " If you have the courage to touch life for the first time, you will

never know what hit you. Everything man has thought, felt and experienced is

gone, and nothing is put in its place. " -- U.G. Krishnamurti

> > > >

> > > > Questioner: You say that whatever you see is yourself. You also admit

that you see the world as we see it. Here is today's newspaper with all the

horrors going on. Since the world is yourself, how can you explain such

misbehaviour?

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: Which world do you have in mind?

> > > >

> > > > Questioner: Our common world, in which we live.

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta: Are you sure we live in the same world? I do not mean

nature, the sea and the land, plants and animals. They are not the problem, nor

the endless space, the infinite time, the inexhaustible power. Do not be misled

by my eating and smoking, reading and talking. My mind is not here, my life is

not here. Your world, of desires and their fulfilments, of fears and their

escapes, is definitely not my world. I do not even perceive it, except through

what you tell me about it. It is your private dream world and my only reaction

to it is to ask you to stop dreaming.

> > >

> > >

> > > The fact is, the person he speaks to is a dream character. Asking that

character to stop dreaming is irrelevant.

> > >

> > > The " dream " is a metaphor. Another metaphor is " splitting, projecting,

attacking, defending. "

> > >

> > > The person he's addressing is constructed through splitting and

projecting. It's useless to ask this person to stop the splitting and

projecting.

> > >

> > > The dream can only stop nonvolitionally, when it is time to stop.

> > >

> > > There isn't any human control over starting it or stopping it.

> > >

> > > I guess that would make gurus, teachings, practices, mighty ...

irrelevant, no?

> > >

> > > All of that stuff is just as much a by-product of dreaming as anything

else.

> > >

> > > A person claiming not to live in the dream " becomes " a dream character

simply due to appearing to " another. "

> > >

> > > So, regardless of the claim, it just becomes a case of a dream character

asking another dream character to stop the dream.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> >

> >

> > what exactly is this your claim about?....

> >

> >

> > Marc

>

>

>

> next time i talk to me, i'll try to find out for you.

>

> - d -

>

 

 

yes, no no, yes...

 

there is no common world.....and never will be....

 

impossible so to find out something about me....which isn't about you

 

lol

 

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...