Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > To me, at least one thing is certain: " my " consciousness remains > still as " me " , while the world inlcuding my body changes all the time. > > /AL The observer is the observed. The world of change being observed is none other. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " > > > > > > <danananda2004> wrote: > > > > > > > dear anders lindman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know much about dreaming... i am mostly > interested > > in > > > > > > > reality... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...knowing & walking the path??? i am the path... > > everything > > > i > > > > do > > > > > > is > > > > > > > the path... i've always been the path... i can't help but > > > walk > > > > > > it... > > > > > > > i was walking it before i knew it what it was... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't call this world reality. I call it a dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > So, now you're dreaming you're a dream character knowing > > > > > you're in a dream? > > > > > > > > > > Just another dream. > > > > > > > > > > If you have nothing to call it, it's neither dream nor > > > > > something else, other than dream. > > > > > > > > > > Just *is* -- neither being nor nonbeing. > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > I call this world a dream because it is fear-based. Fear is a > > > > temporary illusion existing as an immature part of evolution. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > Psychological fear is the emotional component of assumed > separation. > > > > > > If one doesn't assume separation, no personal psychological > > > motives, states or inferences (such as " I am > > > afraid " ) cloud " what is. " > > > > > > So emotional reactions > > > of any kind aren't an impedement: fear, desire, hatred, > > > love, joy, bliss -- whatever form experience takes, > > > is nothing more than a form experience takes. > > > > > > There is no separable entity who would prefer a state of > > > fearlessness to fear. > > > > > > What is, is - as is. > > > > > > No judgment. > > > > > > No qualification. > > > > > > All totality as is. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > Inluding the desire to become fearless! > > > > /AL > > And all other meaningless desires that go nowhere! > > -- Dan Desires are precious as long as the present moment is a misery. Desires are hopes, longings and wants. This means that desires are always about something WHICH WE DON'T HAVE RIGHT NOW. :-) I see desires as something good, but desires focused only to the present moment as infinitely better. The menu is not the dinner, the map is not the territory. I call desires that are in the present moment of now preferences. This means that preferences are WHAT WE ALWAYS HAVE RIGHT NOW. Preferences are not maps or menus but rather the dinner itself, the territory itself. :-) /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > To me, at least one thing is certain: " my " consciousness remains > > still as " me " , while the world inlcuding my body changes all the > time. > > > > /AL > > The observer is the observed. > > The world of change being observed is > none other. > > -- Dan Yes! There must be a connection between the observed and the observer, and how can something connected be separate? /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2004 --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , > " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > To me, at least one thing is certain: " my " > consciousness remains > > > still as " me " , while the world inlcuding my body > changes all the > > time. > > > > > > /AL > > Now AL ur contradicting sometime back u said im ever changing ever new n the world is past dead? > > The observer is the observed. > > > > The world of change being observed is > > none other. > > > > -- Dan > > Yes! There must be a connection between the observed > and the > observer, and how can something connected be > separate? > > /AL > > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger. http://messenger./ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , jacob mathan <jacmattvm> wrote: > > --- dan330033 <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , > > " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > <dan330033> > > > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , > > " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > " danananda2004 " > > > > > <danananda2004> wrote: > > > > > > dear anders lindman > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know much about dreaming... i am > > mostly interested in > > > > > > reality... > > > > > > > > > > > > ...knowing & walking the path??? i am the > > path... everything > > i > > > do > > > > > is > > > > > > the path... i've always been the path... i > > can't help but > > walk > > > > > it... > > > > > > i was walking it before i knew it what it > > was... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't call this world reality. I call it > > a dream. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > So, now you're dreaming you're a dream character > > knowing > > > > you're in a dream? > > > > > > > > Just another dream. > > > > > > > > If you have nothing to call it, it's neither > > dream nor > > > > something else, other than dream. > > > > > > > > Just *is* -- neither being nor nonbeing. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > I call this world a dream because it is > > fear-based. Fear is a > > > temporary illusion existing as an immature part of > > evolution. > > > > > > /AL > > > > Psychological fear is the emotional component of > > assumed separation. > > > > If one doesn't assume separation, no personal > > psychological > > motives, states or inferences (such as " I am > > afraid " ) cloud " what is. " > > > > So emotional reactions > > of any kind aren't an impedement: fear, desire, > > hatred, > > love, joy, bliss -- whatever form experience > > takes, > > is nothing more than a form experience takes. > > > > There is no separable entity who would prefer a > > state of > > fearlessness to fear. > > > > What is, is - as is. > > > > No judgment. > > > > No qualification. > > > > All totality as is. > > > > -- Dan > > > > Fear is giving importance to the body fearlessness > is ignoring the body. jac Ignoring the body also means ignoring the material world. I think I know what you mean by ignoring here - it is to actually drop all concerns about the body, the world and one's life. All concerns. To outsource all doing to That which is already doing everything: namely: Time. What is left then is this moment here and now liberated from a fake " me " . /AL > > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger. > http://messenger./ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2004 the body & the world is also " you " ... everything is " you " ... u r the world... that's y it is folly to seek anything... u r that yours danananda Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > To me, at least one thing is certain: " my " consciousness remains > still as " me " , while the world inlcuding my body changes all the time. > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " <danananda2004> wrote: > the body & the world is also " you " ... everything is " you " ... u r the > world... that's y it is folly to seek anything... u r that > > yours > > danananda Yes, but then I must see that when I meet another person, that person is also me. The material world can be seen a One single expression, an expression of an _appearant_ past. /AL > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > To me, at least one thing is certain: " my " consciousness remains > > still as " me " , while the world inlcuding my body changes all the > time. > > > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 5, 2004 that other person is u... not as " an expression of an _apparent_ past " , but, as an expression of an _apparent_ now... the entire universe dwells in u... the kingdom of heaven is within... yours danananda Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " > <danananda2004> wrote: > > the body & the world is also " you " ... everything is " you " ... u r > the > > world... that's y it is folly to seek anything... u r that > > > > yours > > > > danananda > > Yes, but then I must see that when I meet another person, that person > is also me. The material world can be seen a One single expression, > an expression of an _appearant_ past. > > /AL > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > To me, at least one thing is certain: " my " consciousness remains > > > still as " me " , while the world inlcuding my body changes all the > > time. > > > > > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " <danananda2004> wrote: > the body & the world is also " you " ... everything is " you " ... u r the > world... that's y it is folly to seek anything... u r that > > yours > > danananda Yes, this talk of transcending the body is being produced by the body. How funny! The brain, which is bodily, thinks the thought, the fingers type it. Transcendence is *now* - there is nothing which needs to be transcended or ignored -- this already always is transcendent. One moment of believing that something else could be it, and you've place yourself in irreconcilable contradiction. All the spiritual practices, teachings, and experiences will be to no avail -- and the more you do to get it -- the further away you are -- the more poses you take to assume you have it, the more difficult it becomes to die (to the image/belief mistaken as me). -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2004 keep tracing it back, dan... everything that u r seeing, u got nothing to do with... none of it is yours... you r not a person... u r not even a thing.... it's plain to see... look! Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Yes, this talk of transcending the body is being > produced by the body. > > How funny! > > The brain, which is bodily, thinks the thought, > the fingers type it. > > Transcendence is *now* - there is nothing > which needs to be transcended or ignored -- > this already always is transcendent. > > One moment of believing that something else could > be it, and you've place yourself in irreconcilable > contradiction. All the spiritual practices, teachings, > and experiences will be to no avail -- and the more > you do to get it -- the further away you are -- the > more poses you take to assume you have it, the more > difficult it becomes to die (to the image/belief > mistaken as me). > > -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " <danananda2004> wrote: > keep tracing it back, dan... everything that u r seeing, u got > nothing to do with... none of it is yours... you r not a person... u > r not even a thing.... it's plain to see... look! at what? there's only this on all sides. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2004 > >Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " ><danananda2004> wrote: > > keep tracing it back, dan... everything that u r seeing, u got > > nothing to do with... none of it is yours... you r not a person... >u > > r not even a thing.... it's plain to see... look! > >at what? > >there's only this on all sides. thumbs up!! :-) RL, FPI..........finite portal of the Infinite Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2004 nah... i didn't mean you, personally, dan... i was just speaking rhetorically... there aint nothing to see, like u said... who sees what? what sees who? it's like a freakin' abbot & costello routine... yours danananda Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > at what? > > there's only this on all sides. > Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " > <danananda2004> wrote: > > keep tracing it back, dan... everything that u r seeing, u got > > nothing to do with... none of it is yours... you r not a person... > u > > r not even a thing.... it's plain to see... look! > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " <danananda2004> wrote: > nah... i didn't mean you, personally, dan... i was just speaking > rhetorically... > > there aint nothing to see, like u said... > > who sees what? what sees who? > > it's like a freakin' abbot & costello routine... > > > > yours > > danananda How could you mean me, personally, dan? What would something like that mean, if you could mean it? -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > How could you mean me, personally, dan? > > What would something like that mean, if you could mean it? > > -- Dan like i said, i didn't mean it... it was just a manner of speaking... language is fraught with all kinds of archaic & medieval notions... the english language took form during the middle ages... most languages are obsolete... but to deal with your question in the metaphysical sense, there is no person, as such, to be considered " personally " ... we r not these bodies, these minds, these webpages, these forum discussions, this click-clack of the keyboard train of thought puffing on thru the nite... & i am not just repeating what i have read in a book... i practice what i preach... it is actually quite simple... u r not anything that can be perceived... how could it be otherwise? yours danananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " <danananda2004> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > How could you mean me, personally, dan? > > > > What would something like that mean, if you could mean it? > > > > -- Dan > > like i said, i didn't mean it... it was just a manner of speaking... > language is fraught with all kinds of archaic & medieval notions... > the english language took form during the middle ages... most > languages are obsolete... > > but to deal with your question in the metaphysical sense, there is no > person, as such, to be considered " personally " ... we r not these > bodies, these minds, these webpages, these forum discussions, this > click-clack of the keyboard train of thought puffing on thru the > nite... & i am not just repeating what i have read in a book... i > practice what i preach... > > it is actually quite simple... u r not anything that can be > perceived... how could it be otherwise? > > > > yours > > danananda Even this so-called person, and all its personalizing thoughts and behaviors, turns out to be nothing more or less than impersonal components coming together in an arrangement for a time, then dissolving. The personal is the impersonal all along. Nothing needs to be realized. The personal doesn't need to be escaped from or released. There is only this *impersonal* -- and all the personalized interactions of various beings in no way detract from *this impersonal*, interfere with it, or make it any less than it is, ever, anywhere, at any time. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 i hear ya... u sound like u espouse the buddhist doctrine of anatman... i see what u r saying, tho... ....atman/anatman... it's that ying & yang binary opposition mind- f**k, again... that whirling wheel of birth & death... it's what makes the world go round... your whirly gig danananda Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " > <danananda2004> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > > > How could you mean me, personally, dan? > > > > > > What would something like that mean, if you could mean it? > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > like i said, i didn't mean it... it was just a manner of > speaking... > > language is fraught with all kinds of archaic & medieval notions... > > the english language took form during the middle ages... most > > languages are obsolete... > > > > but to deal with your question in the metaphysical sense, there is > no > > person, as such, to be considered " personally " ... we r not these > > bodies, these minds, these webpages, these forum discussions, this > > click-clack of the keyboard train of thought puffing on thru the > > nite... & i am not just repeating what i have read in a book... i > > practice what i preach... > > > > it is actually quite simple... u r not anything that can be > > perceived... how could it be otherwise? > > > > > > > > yours > > > > danananda > > Even this so-called person, and all its personalizing > thoughts and behaviors, turns out to be nothing > more or less than impersonal components coming together > in an arrangement for a time, then dissolving. > > The personal is the impersonal all along. > > Nothing needs to be realized. > > The personal doesn't need to be escaped from or released. > > There is only this *impersonal* -- and all the personalized > interactions of various beings in no way detract from > *this impersonal*, interfere with it, or make it any > less than it is, ever, anywhere, at any time. > > -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " <danananda2004> wrote: > i hear ya... u sound like u espouse the buddhist doctrine of > anatman... i see what u r saying, tho... No, I'm just telling you how it is, according to how I'm aware of it, in language that makes sense to me. Some Buddhist language makes sense to me, other Buddhist language doesn't, and a steady diet of it simply doesn't work for me. > ...atman/anatman... it's that ying & yang binary opposition mind- > f**k, again... that whirling wheel of birth & death... it's what > makes the world go round... Sure. Except at its center, its heart - where there is no motion. > your > whirly gig > danananda > > spinning wheel, weaving worlds, Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 13, 2004 yeah... i was a buddhist years & years ago... then i got away from it for awhile... i'm a recent convert to advaita vedanta... i luv nisargadatta... but i think u guys on here already know that by now... i hear where u r coming from... but this no-self IS the self, the way i see it... & the self is like no-self (whatever that is?)... the self cannot be perceived... period... u can bullshit about it all day & all nite until u r blue in the face but it aint gonna make any difference... the self that u r cannot be perceived... it is the center of all things... it is that in which all things have their beingness... it is always already beyond... yours danananda Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " > <danananda2004> wrote: > > i hear ya... u sound like u espouse the buddhist doctrine of > > anatman... i see what u r saying, tho... > > No, I'm just telling you how it is, according to how > I'm aware of it, in language that makes sense to me. > > Some Buddhist language makes sense to me, other Buddhist > language doesn't, and a steady diet of it simply doesn't > work for me. > > > ...atman/anatman... it's that ying & yang binary opposition mind- > > f**k, again... that whirling wheel of birth & death... it's what > > makes the world go round... > > Sure. Except at its center, its heart - where there is no motion. > > > your > > whirly gig > > danananda > > > > > > spinning wheel, weaving worlds, > Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " <danananda2004> wrote: > yeah... i was a buddhist years & years ago... then i got away from it > for awhile... i'm a recent convert to advaita vedanta... i luv > nisargadatta... but i think u guys on here already know that by > now... > > i hear where u r coming from... but this no-self IS the self, the way > i see it... & the self is like no-self (whatever that is?)... the > self cannot be perceived... period... u can bullshit about it all day > & all nite until u r blue in the face but it aint gonna make any > difference... the self that u r cannot be perceived... it is the > center of all things... it is that in which all things have their > beingness... it is always already beyond... > > yours > > danananda Yes. And I see no reason or value to using the name " self " or " Self " for *this* -- which in no way has any self-qualities. Self is the central reference for experience, directionality and relationship. Self falls away here, and with it, directionality and existing in relationship to any thing, being, quality, or experience. And, of course, with no self, there is no not-self, no other-than-self. So, *this* can't be called other, any more than this can be called self. Yet, here I am relating to you, exchanging words and ideas with you. And why not? Because this which is neither self nor no-self, is all this as is, is the totality which this is. You and me conversing doesn't change anything one iota. If you like bliss and like to call this Self, so be it. Nothing is changed one way or another by what you or I say, or do, or experience, whether good or bad, positive or negative. There simply is neither good nor bad, positive nor negative, or anything else existing *here*. It comes out as a paradox in words and communication, which depend on having a relationship. Yet, there is no paradox *here* -- which is not construed of thought, not dependent on maintaining a relationship of any sort. Instantaneously yours, Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Yes. > > And I see no reason or value to using the name " self " or > " Self " for *this* -- which in no way has any self-qualities. > > Self is the central reference for experience, > directionality and relationship. > > Self falls away here, and with it, directionality and > existing in relationship to any thing, being, quality, > or experience. > > And, of course, with no self, there is no not-self, no > other-than-self. > > So, *this* can't be called other, any more than this can > be called self. > > Yet, here I am relating to you, exchanging words and ideas > with you. > > And why not? > > Because this which is neither self nor no-self, is > all this as is, is the totality which this is. > > You and me conversing doesn't change anything one iota. > > If you like bliss and like to call this Self, so be it. > > Nothing is changed one way or another by what you or I say, > or do, or experience, whether good or bad, positive or negative. > > There simply is neither good nor bad, positive nor negative, > or anything else existing *here*. > > It comes out as a paradox in words and communication, > which depend on having a relationship. > > Yet, there is no paradox *here* -- which is not construed > of thought, not dependent on maintaining > a relationship of any sort. > > Instantaneously yours, > Dan it is called self because it is what i am... i am that (as the saying goes)... the consciousness-bliss am i (self)... relationship is everything... consciousness is in absolute relationship with all... like the sun, it shines on everybody, everything... i am he as you are he as you are me & we are altogether... all is relative to all... everything is in relationship to everything... can you relate??? yours, too danananda p.s. it's all there before you even think about it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 20, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " > it is called self because it is what i am... i am that (as the saying > goes)... the consciousness-bliss am i (self)... You forgot what you told me, apparently: you are not that. That is just a passing idea and feeling. > relationship is everything... Then, there is nothing separable which can be related to something else, and relationship is nothing. > consciousness is in absolute > relationship with all... like the sun, it shines on everybody, > everything... The sun has a beginning and an end. So do ideas about consciousness. No idea is absolute, nor can any idea impart the absolute. i am he as you are he as you are me & we are > altogether... all is relative to all... everything is in relationship > to everything... > > can you relate??? I can relate to this: everything already always is everything else. > > > yours, too > > danananda > > p.s. it's all there before you even think about it True. There is no thought-dependency to *what is.* Nor is it going into one state of being through one person (say a blissful person) and into another state of being through another person (say a suffering person). " The shadow moving on the stair stirs no dust. " -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 22, 2004 sorry about the late reply, dan... it is a paradox... there is relationship... yet, there is no relatedness... everything is interrelated... yet, everything only exists in me & me alone... it is most mind boggling... i am that... i am not that... the same kind of paradox... i am that... but that which i am is only myself... it is not other... silence, really, is the best explanation... but, we primates like to talk... we are sign making animals... as you say, no being goes through one individual to another... everyone is the same being-consciousness already... everything is just a reflection of myself... that which precedes " everything " is where IT's at... " The shadow moving on the stair stirs no dust. " who said the above quote? is that you? yours danananda Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " > > > it is called self because it is what i am... i am that (as the > saying > > goes)... the consciousness-bliss am i (self)... > > You forgot what you told me, apparently: you are not that. > > That is just a passing idea and feeling. > > > relationship is everything... > > Then, there is nothing separable which can be related > to something else, and relationship is nothing. > > > consciousness is in absolute > > relationship with all... like the sun, it shines on everybody, > > everything... > > The sun has a beginning and an end. > > So do ideas about consciousness. > > No idea is absolute, nor can any idea impart the absolute. > > i am he as you are he as you are me & we are > > altogether... all is relative to all... everything is in > relationship > > to everything... > > > > can you relate??? > > I can relate to this: everything already always is > everything else. > > > > > > > yours, too > > > > danananda > > > > p.s. it's all there before you even think about it > > True. > > There is no thought-dependency to *what is.* > > Nor is it going into one state of being through one > person (say a blissful person) > and into another state of being through another > person (say a suffering person). > > " The shadow moving on the stair stirs no dust. " > > -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " > " The shadow moving on the stair stirs no dust. " > > who said the above quote? is that you? > > yours > > danananda Hi Ananda Dan Man, Enjoyed your comments. As to the above, it's an old-time Zen saying. I think it's a great articulation of a very personal experience, that isn't personal, and isn't an experience. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
