Guest guest Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 How can there be attacment to something which is gone before it is known so that attachment to it can occur? Life is a dream because it is attachment to the unknown. Life is memory of the unknown. We are but memory of unknown happenings. Yours sincerely is memory of the unknown speaking. -Goldilocks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > How can there be attacment to something which is gone > before it is known so that attachment to it can occur? > > Life is a dream because it is attachment to the unknown. > > Life is memory of the unknown. > > We are but memory of unknown happenings. > > Yours sincerely is memory of the unknown speaking. > > -Goldilocks Hi Lene - Yes, quite so ... And the " I " is an attempt to maintain a center to manipulate events that already happened. The " I " can only be a focus on the past, on memory. So, when " I " attempt to act, to be, to have significance and an impact, to get results - the action is contradictory, the understanding of reality is contradictory. And yet, this is what is observed, across cultures, in various guises: the attempt to have an " I " that can control events as if that " I " were an existent being and an active agent that feels and does and has relationships and obtains results. One doesn't clear this up because one learns to think a new way. Hence, the limitation of verbal teachings. One clears this up through immediate insight, understanding that reveals the impossibility of the self-existence. Teachings that glorify the " I " as if it were an absolute of some kind are limited in scope. Such teachings (indeed all teachings) inevitably are undermined through understanding. Teachings are only of use to an " I " -center, if one is supposedly being maintained. Understanding reveals the actuality of being as it occurs - indivisible. " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* Occurrence and non-occurrence are therefore the same. It is only when taking a position as existing somewhere in the past that a distinction can be drawn between existing and not existing, occurring and not occurring. Thus, the only distinction involved in understanding is to be aware of the past, the constructed, as a trick of mind, and the present as all that is, inclusive of what we call, through our imaginary divisions: past, present, future. " I come not to bring peace, but a sword. " - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > How can there be attacment to something which is gone > > before it is known so that attachment to it can occur? > > > > Life is a dream because it is attachment to the unknown. > > > > Life is memory of the unknown. > > > > We are but memory of unknown happenings. > > > > Yours sincerely is memory of the unknown speaking. > > > > -Goldilocks > > Hi Lene - > > Yes, quite so ... > > And the " I " is an attempt to maintain a center to manipulate events that already happened. > > The " I " can only be a focus on the past, on memory. > > So, when " I " attempt to act, to be, to have significance and an impact, to get results - the action is contradictory, the understanding of reality is contradictory. > > And yet, this is what is observed, across cultures, in various guises: the attempt to have an " I " that can control events as if that " I " were an existent being and an active agent that feels and does and has relationships and obtains results. > > One doesn't clear this up because one learns to think a new way. Hence, the limitation of verbal teachings. > > One clears this up through immediate insight, understanding that reveals the impossibility of the self-existence. > > Teachings that glorify the " I " as if it were an absolute of some kind are limited in scope. > > Such teachings (indeed all teachings) inevitably are undermined through understanding. Teachings are only of use to an " I " -center, if one is supposedly being maintained. > > Understanding reveals the actuality of being as it occurs - indivisible. > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > Occurrence and non-occurrence are therefore the same. > > It is only when taking a position as existing somewhere in the past that a distinction can be drawn between existing and not existing, occurring and not occurring. > > Thus, the only distinction involved in understanding is to be aware of the past, the constructed, as a trick of mind, and the present as all that is, inclusive of what we call, through our imaginary divisions: past, present, future. > > " I come not to bring peace, but a sword. " > > - Dan - it's much less dramatic than all that. what is is. beginning and end of story. there's nothing to teach. eat your meals and dump out the waste. have some fun and don't worry be happy. don't listen to pontifications. nor give out any. it's a waste of time. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - > as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the > past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* Indeed. There's wisdom in not 'arguing with' or attempting to 'teach' an " I " something. By the time any " I " can be addressed, it's the past (of the past). The past will arise as it will. And dissolve as it will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - > > as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the > > past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > Indeed. > > There's wisdom in not 'arguing with' or attempting to 'teach' an " I " something. > > By the time any " I " can be addressed, it's the past (of the past). > > The past will arise as it will. > > And dissolve as it will. the past is a lot like an Alka Seltzer i guess. a lot of " I " s are the same. past past effervescent bubbles of the same kind. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - > > > as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the > > > past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > Indeed. > > > > There's wisdom in not 'arguing with' or attempting to 'teach' an " I " something. > > > > By the time any " I " can be addressed, it's the past (of the past). > > > > The past will arise as it will. > > > > And dissolve as it will. > > > > > the past is a lot like an Alka Seltzer i guess. > > a lot of " I " s are the same. > > past past effervescent bubbles of the same kind. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. > Hi boys, I see you all rising to the surface. But inside there is a living, walking, talking, thinking, acting/reacting, feeling human being, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - > > > > as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the > > > > past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > There's wisdom in not 'arguing with' or attempting to 'teach' an " I " something. > > > > > > By the time any " I " can be addressed, it's the past (of the past). > > > > > > The past will arise as it will. > > > > > > And dissolve as it will. > > > > > > > > > > the past is a lot like an Alka Seltzer i guess. > > > > a lot of " I " s are the same. > > > > past past effervescent bubbles of the same kind. > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > Hi boys, I see you all rising to the surface. > > But inside there is a living, walking, talking, thinking, acting/reacting, feeling human being, eh? with an upset stomach to boot. to wit: the need of bubbly Alka-Seltzer. brought on by listening to too much hocus-pocus: eminating from the Tartuffes who sputter.. " spiritual " nonsense in the hopes that they'll be deemed " Aware " . i'd rather wait in the hopes St. Nicholas soon will be there. it's more realistic if you know what i mean. not to shatter anyone's dreams of seeming to be.. a philosopher extraordinaire... but to shatter it anyway.. let it be said: the commonality of that trite stuff.. and the mundane quality of the pulpit bullies that spout it.. shines through like a Christmas candle. God Bless Thee Jolly Gentlemen. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > with an upset stomach to boot. > > to wit: the need of bubbly Alka-Seltzer. Chase it with some pink pepto-bismol ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - > > as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the > > past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > Indeed. > > There's wisdom in not 'arguing with' or attempting to 'teach' an " I " something. > > By the time any " I " can be addressed, it's the past (of the past). > > The past will arise as it will. > > And dissolve as it will. Yes. One lives beyond the touch of the past, but not in ignorance of it. As no separable self is assumed, one observes the past without being " in " any of it. One is what one observes, but not as something that has passed. There is no separate place for anything to pass to. The imaginary nature of thought and time is the requirement of thought for things to be passing away. The things that pass away are no-things, fantasied images - not real things, not having existence - as nothing can have separable existence. One can investigate the sense of movement, of passing events. The movement is only determined by relating changes that are observed presently. Events only can be construed as moving to whatever extent the observer separates from the observed, assuming a stationary vantage point for the observer. One can investigate the separation of the observer, which is the basis for time, thought, language, and movement. The observer " originally " is a reaction to pain, and all its observations proceed once a cognizing center has been established relative to pain; therefore all experiences and seemingly objective knowledge have their basis in a response to pain, a response that is activated automatically - science would say genetically-determined. Regardless of science, one is aware first hand of the automaticity of the positioning of the observer, and is aware of the positioning relative to sensed stimuli, which reference is the placement of pain sensation as " something to be managed. " Thus, the placement of the observer is involuntary, all knowledge formation is involuntary, and all experience " happens of itself. " So, time ends when one fully understands that one is the pain of the experiencing. The division of pain from pleasure in experience is the basis for forming knowledge, and therefore the sense of an observer, and of time and movement. Therefore, there is no such thing as purely abstract knowledge, or purely impersonal experience - experience is experienced by sentient beings from a local (i.e., personal) standpoint. Living creatures that experience pain, that inherit with their birth a basis for recognizing and reacting to pain and pleasure, form experiences, situate an observer in relation to an environment. To understand what is, to be that which is so, is not to be born. This understanding involves no knowledge, has no feelings, yet is the basis for knowing, experiencing, feeling. Is not born, yet is how time/experience is known/sensed by creatures as creatures (i.e., sentient beings). One can express this as a creature (i.e., as a human being), for the sake of the primordial understanding that is not an undertanding had by a human being, but is not separate or other than the being of the human - an understanding for which the human being is utterly transparent and situates no knower. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - > > > as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the > > > past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > Indeed. > > > > There's wisdom in not 'arguing with' or attempting to 'teach' an " I " something. > > > > By the time any " I " can be addressed, it's the past (of the past). > > > > The past will arise as it will. > > > > And dissolve as it will. > > Yes. > > One lives beyond the touch of the past, but not in ignorance of it. > > As no separable self is assumed, one observes the past without being " in " any of it. > > One is what one observes, but not as something that has passed. > > There is no separate place for anything to pass to. > > The imaginary nature of thought and time is the requirement of thought for things to be passing away. > > The things that pass away are no-things, fantasied images - not real things, not having existence - as nothing can have separable existence. > > One can investigate the sense of movement, of passing events. > > The movement is only determined by relating changes that are observed presently. > > Events only can be construed as moving to whatever extent the observer separates from the observed, assuming a stationary vantage point for the observer. > > One can investigate the separation of the observer, which is the basis for time, thought, language, and movement. > > The observer " originally " is a reaction to pain, and all its observations proceed once a cognizing center has been established relative to pain; therefore all experiences and seemingly objective knowledge have their basis in a response to pain, a response that is activated automatically - science would say genetically-determined. Regardless of science, one is aware first hand of the automaticity of the positioning of the observer, and is aware of the positioning relative to sensed stimuli, which reference is the placement of pain sensation as " something to be managed. " Thus, the placement of the observer is involuntary, all knowledge formation is involuntary, and all experience " happens of itself. " > > So, time ends when one fully understands that one is the pain of the experiencing. > > The division of pain from pleasure in experience is the basis for forming knowledge, and therefore the sense of an observer, and of time and movement. > > Therefore, there is no such thing as purely abstract knowledge, or purely impersonal experience - experience is experienced by sentient beings from a local (i.e., personal) standpoint. Living creatures that experience pain, that inherit with their birth a basis for recognizing and reacting to pain and pleasure, form experiences, situate an observer in relation to an environment. > > To understand what is, to be that which is so, is not to be born. > > This understanding involves no knowledge, has no feelings, yet is the basis for knowing, experiencing, feeling. > > Is not born, yet is how time/experience is known/sensed by creatures as creatures (i.e., sentient beings). > > One can express this as a creature (i.e., as a human being), for the sake of the primordial understanding that is not an undertanding had by a human being, but is not separate or other than the being of the human - an understanding for which the human being is utterly transparent and situates no knower. > > - Dan - > The observer is the observed. Which means there is no observer - there is only the observed. And the observed is a content of awareness. It is thought which claims to be the observer. But thought neither does observe anything nor is it capable to observe. Thought is the verbalization of the oberved which is done for eventual verbal communication. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - > > > as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the > > > past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > Indeed. > > > > There's wisdom in not 'arguing with' or attempting to 'teach' an " I " something. > > > > By the time any " I " can be addressed, it's the past (of the past). > > > > The past will arise as it will. > > > > And dissolve as it will. > > Yes. > > One lives beyond the touch of the past, but not in ignorance of it. > > As no separable self is assumed, one observes the past without being " in " any of it. > > One is what one observes, but not as something that has passed. > > There is no separate place for anything to pass to. > > The imaginary nature of thought and time is the requirement of thought for things to be passing away. > > The things that pass away are no-things, fantasied images - not real things, not having existence - as nothing can have separable existence. > > One can investigate the sense of movement, of passing events. > > The movement is only determined by relating changes that are observed presently. > > Events only can be construed as moving to whatever extent the observer separates from the observed, assuming a stationary vantage point for the observer. > > One can investigate the separation of the observer, which is the basis for time, thought, language, and movement. > > The observer " originally " is a reaction to pain, and all its observations proceed once a cognizing center has been established relative to pain; therefore all experiences and seemingly objective knowledge have their basis in a response to pain, a response that is activated automatically - science would say genetically-determined. Regardless of science, one is aware first hand of the automaticity of the positioning of the observer, and is aware of the positioning relative to sensed stimuli, which reference is the placement of pain sensation as " something to be managed. " Thus, the placement of the observer is involuntary, all knowledge formation is involuntary, and all experience " happens of itself. " > > So, time ends when one fully understands that one is the pain of the experiencing. > > The division of pain from pleasure in experience is the basis for forming knowledge, and therefore the sense of an observer, and of time and movement. > > Therefore, there is no such thing as purely abstract knowledge, or purely impersonal experience - experience is experienced by sentient beings from a local (i.e., personal) standpoint. Living creatures that experience pain, that inherit with their birth a basis for recognizing and reacting to pain and pleasure, form experiences, situate an observer in relation to an environment. > > To understand what is, to be that which is so, is not to be born. > > This understanding involves no knowledge, has no feelings, yet is the basis for knowing, experiencing, feeling. > > Is not born, yet is how time/experience is known/sensed by creatures as creatures (i.e., sentient beings). > > One can express this as a creature (i.e., as a human being), for the sake of the primordial understanding that is not an undertanding had by a human being, but is not separate or other than the being of the human - an understanding for which the human being is utterly transparent and situates no knower. > > - Dan - Yea! Thus and Therefore and So On. One can Come to Pass as the Past within a a Whirlwind w/o Observance. Objectively the Subjective Moment in Understanding.. is drawn in an Undertaking of Experience.. Pain and Uncomprehending! the Cognizing(sic) Thingamajig is only then to become THE: " Automaticity " (sic..heheheheheeeeeeeeee)... of the positioning of the observer.. which is NOT as in the know as Daniel seems to be.. AND..which and who is aware of the positioning relative to: " sensed stimuli " which is Impossible as there isn't.. anyone to " sense " nor anything to be sensed as " stimuli " . God Bless America and pass the bullshit biscuits. ya gotta love it folks! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > How can there be attacment to something which is gone > > before it is known so that attachment to it can occur? > > > > Life is a dream because it is attachment to the unknown. > > > > Life is memory of the unknown. > > > > We are but memory of unknown happenings. > > > > Yours sincerely is memory of the unknown speaking. > > > > -Goldilocks > > Hi Lene - > > Yes, quite so ... > > And the " I " is an attempt to maintain a center to manipulate events that already happened. > > The " I " can only be a focus on the past, on memory. > > So, when " I " attempt to act, to be, to have significance and an impact, to get results - the action is contradictory, the understanding of reality is contradictory. > > And yet, this is what is observed, across cultures, in various guises: the attempt to have an " I " that can control events as if that " I " were an existent being and an active agent that feels and does and has relationships and obtains results. > > One doesn't clear this up because one learns to think a new way. Hence, the limitation of verbal teachings. > > One clears this up through immediate insight, understanding that reveals the impossibility of the self-existence. > > Teachings that glorify the " I " as if it were an absolute of some kind are limited in scope. > > Such teachings (indeed all teachings) inevitably are undermined through understanding. Teachings are only of use to an " I " -center, if one is supposedly being maintained. > > Understanding reveals the actuality of being as it occurs - indivisible. > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > Occurrence and non-occurrence are therefore the same. > > It is only when taking a position as existing somewhere in the past that a distinction can be drawn between existing and not existing, occurring and not occurring. > > Thus, the only distinction involved in understanding is to be aware of the past, the constructed, as a trick of mind, and the present as all that is, inclusive of what we call, through our imaginary divisions: past, present, future. > > " I come not to bring peace, but a sword. " > > - Dan - Thanks, Dan Below follow a couple of shots from the hip to a couple of other people on a couple of other lists, where I posted one msg on att. Have a nice one -Lene 1. Yes, Mr. X -- that was sort of what I was saying too - the point was however that that which is remembered never happened because it was " there " but for as long as no time, so it is the weirdest phenomenon that " it " is remembered. Life is nothing happening -- and I am the memories of that nothing - and that is strange, and I cant explain the phenomenon; all I know is that I am, but what I am (= that I am) seems to be a mirage, because WHAT I am never happened. In other words I am not a thing, that is clear, and so I must be no thing. Gone, gone ... completely gone 2. Hey Mr. Y. Yes, life is kicking all the time - but I do not know WHAT it is that is kicking - yes, this is memory speaking. but I do not know WHAT it is memory OF, that is why I call it un-known. In another reply to someone I called the unknown that which never happened - ie. nothing - no thing happened - and is remembered. I cannot explain it - there is simply fathoming that so it is. This " simply fathoming " - not so strange really - because since I am - obviously - no thing - it would be more strange if there were NOT fathoming this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > Thanks, Dan > > Below follow a couple of shots from the hip to a couple of other > people on a couple of other lists, where I posted one msg on att. > Have a nice one > > -Lene > > > 1. > Yes, Mr. X -- that was sort of what I was saying too - the point > was however that that which is remembered never happened because > it was " there " but for as long as no time, so it is the weirdest > phenomenon that " it " is remembered. Life is nothing happening -- > and I am the memories of that nothing - and that is strange, and > I cant explain the phenomenon; all I know is that I am, but what > I am (= that I am) seems to be a mirage, because WHAT I am never > happened. In other words I am not a thing, that is clear, and so > I must be no thing. > > Gone, gone ... completely gone > > > 2. > Hey Mr. Y. Yes, life is kicking all the time - but I do not know > WHAT it is that is kicking - yes, this is memory speaking. but I > do not know WHAT it is memory OF, that is why I call it un-known. > In another reply to someone I called the unknown that which never > happened - ie. nothing - no thing happened - and is remembered. I > cannot explain it - there is simply fathoming that so it is. This > " simply fathoming " - not so strange really - because since I am - > obviously - no thing - it would be more strange if there were NOT > fathoming this Indeed, Lene - Having no identity, I am free to be whatever is so. And thus, from and of my no-identity, comes " all this present experience " -- in all its richness and diversity. Shimmering, forming, dissolving, being. A cloud of dark light - this emptiness, allness - as this particular discrete and illuminated sensing. Wonderful: the experiencing forming, dissolving, as never having been - never having not been. Just this day to day stuff - each moment of ordinary experience -- all around, no limits, no location. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > How can there be attacment to something which is gone > > > before it is known so that attachment to it can occur? > > > > > > Life is a dream because it is attachment to the unknown. > > > > > > Life is memory of the unknown. > > > > > > We are but memory of unknown happenings. > > > > > > Yours sincerely is memory of the unknown speaking. > > > > > > -Goldilocks > > > > Hi Lene - > > > > Yes, quite so ... > > > > And the " I " is an attempt to maintain a center to manipulate events that already happened. > > > > The " I " can only be a focus on the past, on memory. > > > > So, when " I " attempt to act, to be, to have significance and an impact, to get results - the action is contradictory, the understanding of reality is contradictory. > > > > And yet, this is what is observed, across cultures, in various guises: the attempt to have an " I " that can control events as if that " I " were an existent being and an active agent that feels and does and has relationships and obtains results. > > > > One doesn't clear this up because one learns to think a new way. Hence, the limitation of verbal teachings. > > > > One clears this up through immediate insight, understanding that reveals the impossibility of the self-existence. > > > > Teachings that glorify the " I " as if it were an absolute of some kind are limited in scope. > > > > Such teachings (indeed all teachings) inevitably are undermined through understanding. Teachings are only of use to an " I " -center, if one is supposedly being maintained. > > > > Understanding reveals the actuality of being as it occurs - indivisible. > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > Occurrence and non-occurrence are therefore the same. > > > > It is only when taking a position as existing somewhere in the past that a distinction can be drawn between existing and not existing, occurring and not occurring. > > > > Thus, the only distinction involved in understanding is to be aware of the past, the constructed, as a trick of mind, and the present as all that is, inclusive of what we call, through our imaginary divisions: past, present, future. > > > > " I come not to bring peace, but a sword. " > > > > - Dan - > > > > it's much less dramatic than all that. > > what is is. > > beginning and end of story. > > there's nothing to teach. > > eat your meals and dump out the waste. > > have some fun and don't worry be happy. > > don't listen to pontifications. > > nor give out any. So far so good, Mr. B. But this? > it's a waste of time. Time? Time is fiction -- and of course in the fiction one must care! And in the fiction there is no such thing as waste of time or waste of anything else - except what has been thrown in to the waste-bin and is therefore called waste. Everything has its place in the fiction or else it's not a proper fiction Love and all that, compassion, hatred, and taking action with regard to global warming although one does not know what is fact and fiction in that part of the fiction, is ALL part of the mirage, the dream. So I wish you had not said that about waste of time I was in Cph yesterday - it looked like a ghost-city. No Christmas in the main public street, no Xmas-lights - no ever-greens. All the little grey ghosts in the city-hall must have become head-less monkeys because of the summit meeting. This " world " is going nuttier and nuttier every day. But we must care, Mr. Bob; we have no choice. We are the " world " . We are this adventure, dream - we are the being it and the watching the being. By and by -Lene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - > > > > as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the > > > > past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > There's wisdom in not 'arguing with' or attempting to 'teach' an " I " something. > > > > > > By the time any " I " can be addressed, it's the past (of the past). > > > > > > The past will arise as it will. > > > > > > And dissolve as it will. > > > > > > > > > > the past is a lot like an Alka Seltzer i guess. > > > > a lot of " I " s are the same. > > > > past past effervescent bubbles of the same kind. > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > Hi boys, I see you all rising to the surface. > > But inside there is a living, walking, talking, thinking, acting/reacting, feeling human being, eh? Don't get your hopes up Could not help it, Anna - sorry. But I really would not bet on it - seriously speaking. All the best to you and every other human being - all the same. But - only - every - other - human - being - remember that. -Lene > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - > > > > > as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the > > > > > past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > There's wisdom in not 'arguing with' or attempting to 'teach' an " I " something. > > > > > > > > By the time any " I " can be addressed, it's the past (of the past). > > > > > > > > The past will arise as it will. > > > > > > > > And dissolve as it will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the past is a lot like an Alka Seltzer i guess. > > > > > > a lot of " I " s are the same. > > > > > > past past effervescent bubbles of the same kind. > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > Hi boys, I see you all rising to the surface. > > > > But inside there is a living, walking, talking, thinking, acting/reacting, feeling human being, eh? > > > > Don't get your hopes up Could not help it, Anna - sorry. > But I really would not bet on it - seriously speaking. All > the best to you and every other human being - all the same. > > But - only - every - other - human - being - remember that. > > -Lene > > > > > > > Nothing to apologize for, Lene... I have my doubts, too. ;-) Sometimes I envision a huge talking head with all kinds of ganglia, not to be confused with personalities, of course. Your - style - of - communication - reminds - me - of someone. ~Anna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - > > > > as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the > > > > past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > There's wisdom in not 'arguing with' or attempting to 'teach' an " I " something. > > > > > > By the time any " I " can be addressed, it's the past (of the past). > > > > > > The past will arise as it will. > > > > > > And dissolve as it will. > > > > Yes. > > > > One lives beyond the touch of the past, but not in ignorance of it. > > > > As no separable self is assumed, one observes the past without being " in " any of it. > > > > One is what one observes, but not as something that has passed. > > > > There is no separate place for anything to pass to. > > > > The imaginary nature of thought and time is the requirement of thought for things to be passing away. > > > > The things that pass away are no-things, fantasied images - not real things, not having existence - as nothing can have separable existence. > > > > One can investigate the sense of movement, of passing events. > > > > The movement is only determined by relating changes that are observed presently. > > > > Events only can be construed as moving to whatever extent the observer separates from the observed, assuming a stationary vantage point for the observer. > > > > One can investigate the separation of the observer, which is the basis for time, thought, language, and movement. > > > > The observer " originally " is a reaction to pain, and all its observations proceed once a cognizing center has been established relative to pain; therefore all experiences and seemingly objective knowledge have their basis in a response to pain, a response that is activated automatically - science would say genetically-determined. Regardless of science, one is aware first hand of the automaticity of the positioning of the observer, and is aware of the positioning relative to sensed stimuli, which reference is the placement of pain sensation as " something to be managed. " Thus, the placement of the observer is involuntary, all knowledge formation is involuntary, and all experience " happens of itself. " > > > > So, time ends when one fully understands that one is the pain of the experiencing. > > > > The division of pain from pleasure in experience is the basis for forming knowledge, and therefore the sense of an observer, and of time and movement. > > > > Therefore, there is no such thing as purely abstract knowledge, or purely impersonal experience - experience is experienced by sentient beings from a local (i.e., personal) standpoint. Living creatures that experience pain, that inherit with their birth a basis for recognizing and reacting to pain and pleasure, form experiences, situate an observer in relation to an environment. > > > > To understand what is, to be that which is so, is not to be born. > > > > This understanding involves no knowledge, has no feelings, yet is the basis for knowing, experiencing, feeling. > > > > Is not born, yet is how time/experience is known/sensed by creatures as creatures (i.e., sentient beings). > > > > One can express this as a creature (i.e., as a human being), for the sake of the primordial understanding that is not an undertanding had by a human being, but is not separate or other than the being of the human - an understanding for which the human being is utterly transparent and situates no knower. > > > > - Dan - > > > > Yea! > > Thus and Therefore and So On. > > One can Come to Pass as the Past within a a Whirlwind w/o Observance. > > Objectively the Subjective Moment in Understanding.. > > is drawn in an Undertaking of Experience.. > > Pain and Uncomprehending! > > the Cognizing(sic) Thingamajig is only then to become THE: > > " Automaticity " (sic..heheheheheeeeeeeeee)... > > of the positioning of the observer.. > > which is NOT as in the know as Daniel seems to be.. > > AND..which and who is aware of the positioning relative to: > > " sensed stimuli " which is Impossible as there isn't.. > > anyone to " sense " nor anything to be sensed as " stimuli " . > God Bless America and pass the bullshit biscuits. Hear hear - thee observer with ears to hear with - hear, hear > ya gotta love it folks! Of course, How can one not ... -Alice in Wonderland likes Bob's eposes as she likes any great epos such as Brazil & Space Odyssey & Clockwork Orange & Space, the Last frontier and several Moores Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > How can there be attacment to something which is gone > > > > before it is known so that attachment to it can occur? > > > > > > > > Life is a dream because it is attachment to the unknown. > > > > > > > > Life is memory of the unknown. > > > > > > > > We are but memory of unknown happenings. > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely is memory of the unknown speaking. > > > > > > > > -Goldilocks > > > > > > Hi Lene - > > > > > > Yes, quite so ... > > > > > > And the " I " is an attempt to maintain a center to manipulate events that already happened. > > > > > > The " I " can only be a focus on the past, on memory. > > > > > > So, when " I " attempt to act, to be, to have significance and an impact, to get results - the action is contradictory, the understanding of reality is contradictory. > > > > > > And yet, this is what is observed, across cultures, in various guises: the attempt to have an " I " that can control events as if that " I " were an existent being and an active agent that feels and does and has relationships and obtains results. > > > > > > One doesn't clear this up because one learns to think a new way. Hence, the limitation of verbal teachings. > > > > > > One clears this up through immediate insight, understanding that reveals the impossibility of the self-existence. > > > > > > Teachings that glorify the " I " as if it were an absolute of some kind are limited in scope. > > > > > > Such teachings (indeed all teachings) inevitably are undermined through understanding. Teachings are only of use to an " I " -center, if one is supposedly being maintained. > > > > > > Understanding reveals the actuality of being as it occurs - indivisible. > > > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > > > Occurrence and non-occurrence are therefore the same. > > > > > > It is only when taking a position as existing somewhere in the past that a distinction can be drawn between existing and not existing, occurring and not occurring. > > > > > > Thus, the only distinction involved in understanding is to be aware of the past, the constructed, as a trick of mind, and the present as all that is, inclusive of what we call, through our imaginary divisions: past, present, future. > > > > > > " I come not to bring peace, but a sword. " > > > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > > > it's much less dramatic than all that. > > > > what is is. > > > > beginning and end of story. > > > > there's nothing to teach. > > > > eat your meals and dump out the waste. > > > > have some fun and don't worry be happy. > > > > don't listen to pontifications. > > > > nor give out any. > > >(Lene) > So far so good, Mr. B. (.b b.b.) so that It be Known: Mr. B is THE " Mr. E " . even more inexplicable and inscrutable than the mystery that is Time. so let us proceed. >(Lene) > But this? > > > " it's a waste of time. " yes? > Time? > > Time is fiction -- and of course in the fiction one must > care! And in the fiction there is no such thing as waste > of time or waste of anything else - except what has been > thrown in to the waste-bin and is therefore called waste. this idea is a fantasy. in less kind terms it is " bullshit " . all " time " is waste. if not..try to save some. " caring " is a fiction... a belief that there is " something " to " care about " .. that there is " someone " who SHOULD or even could " care " . cut to the chase i say. don't pussy foot around because it seems " right " or " good " . moral valuations are crap. and the fictions that spin them are as well. >(Lene) > Everything has its place in the fiction or else it's not > a proper fiction > > Love and all that, compassion, hatred, and taking action > with regard to global warming although one does not know > what is fact and fiction in that part of the fiction, is > ALL part of the mirage, the dream. (.b b.b.) of this there is no doubt here. if you feel comfortable wasting in a dream.. dream on. >(Lene) > So I wish you had not said that about waste of time (.b b.b.) and of course you must know how far wishes can go. but wait! we dare speak of distance.. when all along no such thing exists? only as a quality of " space " that is determined by.. a fictitious " time " of travel between " points " .. and the vice-versa definition of defining " parts " ? a separation of particulars which is not actual? we phantoms are full of bullshit one and all. Merry Christmas each and every one that Merry Mary believes in. put another nickle in Sally Anne's bottomless tin. it's Christmas " time " all over the world. and a cheerful heart is a wonderful thing. even though that's a bunch of bullshit too. > I was in Cph yesterday - it looked like a ghost-city. No > Christmas in the main public street, no Xmas-lights - no > ever-greens. All the little grey ghosts in the city-hall > must have become head-less monkeys because of the summit > meeting. This " world " is going nuttier and nuttier every > day. > > But we must care, Mr. Bob; we have no choice. We are the > " world " . We are this adventure, dream - we are the being > it and the watching the being. > > By and by > > -Lene care not but act as though you do. eat...sleep...do your business. it doesn't matter. whatever gets you through the night..or day.. or through the incredibly dull and illusory " Life " . :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - > > > > > > as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the > > > > > > past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > There's wisdom in not 'arguing with' or attempting to 'teach' an " I " something. > > > > > > > > > > By the time any " I " can be addressed, it's the past (of the past). > > > > > > > > > > The past will arise as it will. > > > > > > > > > > And dissolve as it will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the past is a lot like an Alka Seltzer i guess. > > > > > > > > a lot of " I " s are the same. > > > > > > > > past past effervescent bubbles of the same kind. > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi boys, I see you all rising to the surface. > > > > > > But inside there is a living, walking, talking, thinking, acting/reacting, feeling human being, eh? > > > > > > > > Don't get your hopes up Could not help it, Anna - sorry. > > But I really would not bet on it - seriously speaking. All > > the best to you and every other human being - all the same. > > > > But - only - every - other - human - being - remember that. > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing to apologize for, Lene... I have my doubts, too. ;-) > > Sometimes I envision a huge talking head with all kinds of ganglia, > not to be confused with personalities, of course. > > > Your - style - of - communication - reminds - me - of someone. > > > ~Anna One is all, all is one ... -Lene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - > > > > > > > as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the > > > > > > > past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > There's wisdom in not 'arguing with' or attempting to 'teach' an " I " something. > > > > > > > > > > > > By the time any " I " can be addressed, it's the past (of the past). > > > > > > > > > > > > The past will arise as it will. > > > > > > > > > > > > And dissolve as it will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the past is a lot like an Alka Seltzer i guess. > > > > > > > > > > a lot of " I " s are the same. > > > > > > > > > > past past effervescent bubbles of the same kind. > > > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi boys, I see you all rising to the surface. > > > > > > > > But inside there is a living, walking, talking, thinking, acting/reacting, feeling human being, eh? > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't get your hopes up Could not help it, Anna - sorry. > > > But I really would not bet on it - seriously speaking. All > > > the best to you and every other human being - all the same. > > > > > > But - only - every - other - human - being - remember that. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing to apologize for, Lene... I have my doubts, too. ;-) > > > > Sometimes I envision a huge talking head with all kinds of ganglia, > > not to be confused with personalities, of course. > > > > > > Your - style - of - communication - reminds - me - of someone. > > > > > > ~Anna > > > > > > One is all, all is one ... > > -Lene we can count on that.. as we can count on a dollar bill. e pluribus unum. and thus soon...many will equal one. merrily they roll along sings mr. bernanke. by trillions and trillions... minute by minute. (as big ben's clock ticks on like a bombshell).. One bank....Many dollars. god bless them all..every one. man the torpedoes and full speed ahead. and be it known to all Men: if our creditors don't like it...screw 'em. so it is We are all in it together as One. One hell of a mess..one hell of a market. but so and but lo! it's not real. the money we lose belongs to no one. and besides.. f**k us if we can't enjoy a joke. don't think of this as an Abomination.. it's the Great Obama Nation. spinning surreptitious salacious salvation. it's for the little people that He doth Socialize. Thus Spake the Lord... well actually it's just ol' .b b.b. jawing. come to think about it (Mr. Levant)... what the world needs today.. is more humble and genius sages like the .b there are far too few of me indeed. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > How can there be attacment to something which is gone > > > > > before it is known so that attachment to it can occur? > > > > > > > > > > Life is a dream because it is attachment to the unknown. > > > > > > > > > > Life is memory of the unknown. > > > > > > > > > > We are but memory of unknown happenings. > > > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely is memory of the unknown speaking. > > > > > > > > > > -Goldilocks > > > > > > > > Hi Lene - > > > > > > > > Yes, quite so ... > > > > > > > > And the " I " is an attempt to maintain a center to manipulate events that already happened. > > > > > > > > The " I " can only be a focus on the past, on memory. > > > > > > > > So, when " I " attempt to act, to be, to have significance and an impact, to get results - the action is contradictory, the understanding of reality is contradictory. > > > > > > > > And yet, this is what is observed, across cultures, in various guises: the attempt to have an " I " that can control events as if that " I " were an existent being and an active agent that feels and does and has relationships and obtains results. > > > > > > > > One doesn't clear this up because one learns to think a new way. Hence, the limitation of verbal teachings. > > > > > > > > One clears this up through immediate insight, understanding that reveals the impossibility of the self-existence. > > > > > > > > Teachings that glorify the " I " as if it were an absolute of some kind are limited in scope. > > > > > > > > Such teachings (indeed all teachings) inevitably are undermined through understanding. Teachings are only of use to an " I " -center, if one is supposedly being maintained. > > > > > > > > Understanding reveals the actuality of being as it occurs - indivisible. > > > > > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > > > > > Occurrence and non-occurrence are therefore the same. > > > > > > > > It is only when taking a position as existing somewhere in the past that a distinction can be drawn between existing and not existing, occurring and not occurring. > > > > > > > > Thus, the only distinction involved in understanding is to be aware of the past, the constructed, as a trick of mind, and the present as all that is, inclusive of what we call, through our imaginary divisions: past, present, future. > > > > > > > > " I come not to bring peace, but a sword. " > > > > > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > > > > > > > it's much less dramatic than all that. > > > > > > what is is. > > > > > > beginning and end of story. > > > > > > there's nothing to teach. > > > > > > eat your meals and dump out the waste. > > > > > > have some fun and don't worry be happy. > > > > > > don't listen to pontifications. > > > > > > nor give out any. > > > > > > > > > >(Lene) > > > So far so good, Mr. B. > > > (.b b.b.) > > so that It be Known: > > Mr. B is THE " Mr. E " . > > even more inexplicable and inscrutable than the mystery that is Time. > > so let us proceed. > > > >(Lene) > > > But this? > > > > > " it's a waste of time. " > > > yes? > > > > > > Time? > > > > Time is fiction -- and of course in the fiction one must > > care! And in the fiction there is no such thing as waste > > of time or waste of anything else - except what has been > > thrown in to the waste-bin and is therefore called waste. > > > > this idea is a fantasy. > > in less kind terms it is " bullshit " . > > all " time " is waste. Alright, Mr. E - if that is the case that all " time " IS waste already, then time cannot BE wasted and there was no need to tell us that listening and or giving out pon tifications is a waste OF time. Since time IS waste :-) Now that the waste which is time is out of the way pray tell what is not waste - if anything? Thanks for the poem - all of it - nice, I like the wild horse running berserk style. Nowhere to go - nothing to loose - nothing to gain - just - this. Yours wastefully -Lene > if not..try to save some. > > " caring " is a fiction... > > a belief that there is " something " to " care about " .. > > that there is " someone " who SHOULD or even could " care " . > > cut to the chase i say. > > don't pussy foot around because it seems " right " or " good " . > > moral valuations are crap. > > and the fictions that spin them are as well. > > > > > > >(Lene) > > > Everything has its place in the fiction or else it's not > > a proper fiction > > > > Love and all that, compassion, hatred, and taking action > > with regard to global warming although one does not know > > what is fact and fiction in that part of the fiction, is > > ALL part of the mirage, the dream. > > > > (.b b.b.) > > of this there is no doubt here. > > if you feel comfortable wasting in a dream.. > > dream on. > > > > > > >(Lene) > > > So I wish you had not said that about waste of time > > > > (.b b.b.) > > and of course you must know how far wishes can go. > > but wait! > > we dare speak of distance.. > > when all along no such thing exists? > > only as a quality of " space " that is determined by.. > > a fictitious " time " of travel between " points " .. > > and the vice-versa definition of defining " parts " ? > > a separation of particulars which is not actual? > > we phantoms are full of bullshit one and all. > > Merry Christmas each and every one that Merry Mary believes in. > > put another nickle in Sally Anne's bottomless tin. > > it's Christmas " time " all over the world. > > and a cheerful heart is a wonderful thing. > > even though that's a bunch of bullshit too. > > > > > > > I was in Cph yesterday - it looked like a ghost-city. No > > Christmas in the main public street, no Xmas-lights - no > > ever-greens. All the little grey ghosts in the city-hall > > must have become head-less monkeys because of the summit > > meeting. This " world " is going nuttier and nuttier every > > day. > > > > But we must care, Mr. Bob; we have no choice. We are the > > " world " . We are this adventure, dream - we are the being > > it and the watching the being. > > > > By and by > > > > -Lene > > > > care not but act as though you do. > > eat...sleep...do your business. > > it doesn't matter. > > whatever gets you through the night..or day.. > > or through the incredibly dull and illusory " Life " . > > :-) > > .b b.b. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > How can there be attacment to something which is gone > > > > > > before it is known so that attachment to it can occur? > > > > > > > > > > > > Life is a dream because it is attachment to the unknown. > > > > > > > > > > > > Life is memory of the unknown. > > > > > > > > > > > > We are but memory of unknown happenings. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely is memory of the unknown speaking. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Goldilocks > > > > > > > > > > Hi Lene - > > > > > > > > > > Yes, quite so ... > > > > > > > > > > And the " I " is an attempt to maintain a center to manipulate events that already happened. > > > > > > > > > > The " I " can only be a focus on the past, on memory. > > > > > > > > > > So, when " I " attempt to act, to be, to have significance and an impact, to get results - the action is contradictory, the understanding of reality is contradictory. > > > > > > > > > > And yet, this is what is observed, across cultures, in various guises: the attempt to have an " I " that can control events as if that " I " were an existent being and an active agent that feels and does and has relationships and obtains results. > > > > > > > > > > One doesn't clear this up because one learns to think a new way. Hence, the limitation of verbal teachings. > > > > > > > > > > One clears this up through immediate insight, understanding that reveals the impossibility of the self-existence. > > > > > > > > > > Teachings that glorify the " I " as if it were an absolute of some kind are limited in scope. > > > > > > > > > > Such teachings (indeed all teachings) inevitably are undermined through understanding. Teachings are only of use to an " I " -center, if one is supposedly being maintained. > > > > > > > > > > Understanding reveals the actuality of being as it occurs - indivisible. > > > > > > > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > > > > > > > Occurrence and non-occurrence are therefore the same. > > > > > > > > > > It is only when taking a position as existing somewhere in the past that a distinction can be drawn between existing and not existing, occurring and not occurring. > > > > > > > > > > Thus, the only distinction involved in understanding is to be aware of the past, the constructed, as a trick of mind, and the present as all that is, inclusive of what we call, through our imaginary divisions: past, present, future. > > > > > > > > > > " I come not to bring peace, but a sword. " > > > > > > > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's much less dramatic than all that. > > > > > > > > what is is. > > > > > > > > beginning and end of story. > > > > > > > > there's nothing to teach. > > > > > > > > eat your meals and dump out the waste. > > > > > > > > have some fun and don't worry be happy. > > > > > > > > don't listen to pontifications. > > > > > > > > nor give out any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >(Lene) > > > > > So far so good, Mr. B. > > > > > > (.b b.b.) > > > > so that It be Known: > > > > Mr. B is THE " Mr. E " . > > > > even more inexplicable and inscrutable than the mystery that is Time. > > > > so let us proceed. > > > > > > >(Lene) > > > > > But this? > > > > > > > " it's a waste of time. " > > > > > > yes? > > > > > > > > > > > Time? > > > > > > Time is fiction -- and of course in the fiction one must > > > care! And in the fiction there is no such thing as waste > > > of time or waste of anything else - except what has been > > > thrown in to the waste-bin and is therefore called waste. > > > > > > > > this idea is a fantasy. > > > > in less kind terms it is " bullshit " . > > > > all " time " is waste. > > ********************************************************************** > Alright, Mr. E - if that is the case that all " time " IS > waste already, then time cannot BE wasted and there was > no need to tell us that listening and or giving out pon > tifications is a waste OF time. Since time IS waste :-) > > Now that the waste which is time is out of the way pray > tell what is not waste - if anything? > > Thanks for the poem - all of it - nice, I like the wild > horse running berserk style. Nowhere to go - nothing to > loose - nothing to gain - just - this. > > Yours wastefully > > -Lene no need to " tell us " ??? what " us " ? Telus is one of Canada's leading telecommunication companies. but here there is no trying to communicate with anyone. there's no one there. fact is.. there's no one here. of what use communication or telecommunication? all there is is waste. even in an illusory " physical " sense we are but tubes.. in one end out t'other. and coming into manifestation to leave it soon thereafter. eating " food " to become " food " itself for " other " tubes. a strange looping without explanation or meaning. waste is the only resultant in any system. it's a zero sum game. a wasteful thing but not a thing at all. just as you say: just so. ..b b.b. ********************************************************************** > > if not..try to save some. > > > > " caring " is a fiction... > > > > a belief that there is " something " to " care about " .. > > > > that there is " someone " who SHOULD or even could " care " . > > > > cut to the chase i say. > > > > don't pussy foot around because it seems " right " or " good " . > > > > moral valuations are crap. > > > > and the fictions that spin them are as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > >(Lene) > > > > > Everything has its place in the fiction or else it's not > > > a proper fiction > > > > > > Love and all that, compassion, hatred, and taking action > > > with regard to global warming although one does not know > > > what is fact and fiction in that part of the fiction, is > > > ALL part of the mirage, the dream. > > > > > > > > (.b b.b.) > > > > of this there is no doubt here. > > > > if you feel comfortable wasting in a dream.. > > > > dream on. > > > > > > > > > > > > >(Lene) > > > > > So I wish you had not said that about waste of time > > > > > > > > (.b b.b.) > > > > and of course you must know how far wishes can go. > > > > but wait! > > > > we dare speak of distance.. > > > > when all along no such thing exists? > > > > only as a quality of " space " that is determined by.. > > > > a fictitious " time " of travel between " points " .. > > > > and the vice-versa definition of defining " parts " ? > > > > a separation of particulars which is not actual? > > > > we phantoms are full of bullshit one and all. > > > > Merry Christmas each and every one that Merry Mary believes in. > > > > put another nickle in Sally Anne's bottomless tin. > > > > it's Christmas " time " all over the world. > > > > and a cheerful heart is a wonderful thing. > > > > even though that's a bunch of bullshit too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was in Cph yesterday - it looked like a ghost-city. No > > > Christmas in the main public street, no Xmas-lights - no > > > ever-greens. All the little grey ghosts in the city-hall > > > must have become head-less monkeys because of the summit > > > meeting. This " world " is going nuttier and nuttier every > > > day. > > > > > > But we must care, Mr. Bob; we have no choice. We are the > > > " world " . We are this adventure, dream - we are the being > > > it and the watching the being. > > > > > > By and by > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > care not but act as though you do. > > > > eat...sleep...do your business. > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > whatever gets you through the night..or day.. > > > > or through the incredibly dull and illusory " Life " . > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. -Lene Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can there be attacment to something which is gone > > > > > > > before it is known so that attachment to it can occur? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Life is a dream because it is attachment to the unknown. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Life is memory of the unknown. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are but memory of unknown happenings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely is memory of the unknown speaking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Goldilocks > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Lene - > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, quite so ... > > > > > > > > > > > > And the " I " is an attempt to maintain a center to manipulate events that already happened. > > > > > > > > > > > > The " I " can only be a focus on the past, on memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, when " I " attempt to act, to be, to have significance and an impact, to get results - the action is contradictory, the understanding of reality is contradictory. > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet, this is what is observed, across cultures, in various guises: the attempt to have an " I " that can control events as if that " I " were an existent being and an active agent that feels and does and has relationships and obtains results. > > > > > > > > > > > > One doesn't clear this up because one learns to think a new way. Hence, the limitation of verbal teachings. > > > > > > > > > > > > One clears this up through immediate insight, understanding that reveals the impossibility of the self-existence. > > > > > > > > > > > > Teachings that glorify the " I " as if it were an absolute of some kind are limited in scope. > > > > > > > > > > > > Such teachings (indeed all teachings) inevitably are undermined through understanding. Teachings are only of use to an " I " -center, if one is supposedly being maintained. > > > > > > > > > > > > Understanding reveals the actuality of being as it occurs - indivisible. > > > > > > > > > > > > " Let the dead bury their dead. " Let the " I's " be what they are - as false attempts to formulate an existing being that acts in the past. Vanished, as never having had any reality *now.* > > > > > > > > > > > > Occurrence and non-occurrence are therefore the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is only when taking a position as existing somewhere in the past that a distinction can be drawn between existing and not existing, occurring and not occurring. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, the only distinction involved in understanding is to be aware of the past, the constructed, as a trick of mind, and the present as all that is, inclusive of what we call, through our imaginary divisions: past, present, future. > > > > > > > > > > > > " I come not to bring peace, but a sword. " > > > > > > > > > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's much less dramatic than all that. > > > > > > > > > > what is is. > > > > > > > > > > beginning and end of story. > > > > > > > > > > there's nothing to teach. > > > > > > > > > > eat your meals and dump out the waste. > > > > > > > > > > have some fun and don't worry be happy. > > > > > > > > > > don't listen to pontifications. > > > > > > > > > > nor give out any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >(Lene) > > > > > > > So far so good, Mr. B. > > > > > > > > > (.b b.b.) > > > > > > so that It be Known: > > > > > > Mr. B is THE " Mr. E " . > > > > > > even more inexplicable and inscrutable than the mystery that is Time. > > > > > > so let us proceed. > > > > > > > > > >(Lene) > > > > > > > But this? > > > > > > > > > " it's a waste of time. " > > > > > > > > > yes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time? > > > > > > > > Time is fiction -- and of course in the fiction one must > > > > care! And in the fiction there is no such thing as waste > > > > of time or waste of anything else - except what has been > > > > thrown in to the waste-bin and is therefore called waste. > > > > > > > > > > > > this idea is a fantasy. > > > > > > in less kind terms it is " bullshit " . > > > > > > all " time " is waste. > > > > > > ********************************************************************** > > > > > > > Alright, Mr. E - if that is the case that all " time " IS > > waste already, then time cannot BE wasted and there was > > no need to tell us that listening and or giving out pon > > tifications is a waste OF time. Since time IS waste :-) > > > > Now that the waste which is time is out of the way pray > > tell what is not waste - if anything? > > > > Thanks for the poem - all of it - nice, I like the wild > > horse running berserk style. Nowhere to go - nothing to > > loose - nothing to gain - just - this. > > > > Yours wastefully > > > > -Lene > > no need to " tell us " ??? > > what " us " ? > > Telus is one of Canada's leading telecommunication companies. > > but here there is no trying to communicate with anyone. > > there's no one there. > > fact is.. > > there's no one here. > > of what use communication or telecommunication? > > all there is is waste. > > even in an illusory " physical " sense we are but tubes.. > > in one end out t'other. > > and coming into manifestation to leave it soon thereafter. > > eating " food " to become " food " itself for " other " tubes. > > a strange looping without explanation or meaning. > > waste is the only resultant in any system. > > it's a zero sum game. > > a wasteful thing but not a thing at all. > > just as you say: > > just so. > > .b b.b. > > > ********************************************************************** > > > > if not..try to save some. > > > > > > " caring " is a fiction... > > > > > > a belief that there is " something " to " care about " .. > > > > > > that there is " someone " who SHOULD or even could " care " . > > > > > > cut to the chase i say. > > > > > > don't pussy foot around because it seems " right " or " good " . > > > > > > moral valuations are crap. > > > > > > and the fictions that spin them are as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >(Lene) > > > > > > > Everything has its place in the fiction or else it's not > > > > a proper fiction > > > > > > > > Love and all that, compassion, hatred, and taking action > > > > with regard to global warming although one does not know > > > > what is fact and fiction in that part of the fiction, is > > > > ALL part of the mirage, the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > (.b b.b.) > > > > > > of this there is no doubt here. > > > > > > if you feel comfortable wasting in a dream.. > > > > > > dream on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >(Lene) > > > > > > > So I wish you had not said that about waste of time > > > > > > > > > > > > (.b b.b.) > > > > > > and of course you must know how far wishes can go. > > > > > > but wait! > > > > > > we dare speak of distance.. > > > > > > when all along no such thing exists? > > > > > > only as a quality of " space " that is determined by.. > > > > > > a fictitious " time " of travel between " points " .. > > > > > > and the vice-versa definition of defining " parts " ? > > > > > > a separation of particulars which is not actual? > > > > > > we phantoms are full of bullshit one and all. > > > > > > Merry Christmas each and every one that Merry Mary believes in. > > > > > > put another nickle in Sally Anne's bottomless tin. > > > > > > it's Christmas " time " all over the world. > > > > > > and a cheerful heart is a wonderful thing. > > > > > > even though that's a bunch of bullshit too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was in Cph yesterday - it looked like a ghost-city. No > > > > Christmas in the main public street, no Xmas-lights - no > > > > ever-greens. All the little grey ghosts in the city-hall > > > > must have become head-less monkeys because of the summit > > > > meeting. This " world " is going nuttier and nuttier every > > > > day. > > > > > > > > But we must care, Mr. Bob; we have no choice. We are the > > > > " world " . We are this adventure, dream - we are the being > > > > it and the watching the being. > > > > > > > > By and by > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > care not but act as though you do. > > > > > > eat...sleep...do your business. > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > whatever gets you through the night..or day.. > > > > > > or through the incredibly dull and illusory " Life " . > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > -Lene who's describing? we iz whats we iz. but OK.. let's call US: Holes 'R Us. let's run that up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes. now don't applaud. it's really nothing. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > -Lene What has never been described, has never been described. Period. Talk about nothing is talk about something. Something being called " nothing. " What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is about " something. " But, humans certainly are funny animals. Smiles, Dan 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.