Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > Why is it that things need to be bound? > > > > > > Why can't they just be free? > > > > Free like the wind.......is a bird bound to the sky?.........is a > fish bound to the river? > > > > > > well....I quess they really are............. > > > > but why? > > > > > > why? > > > > > ................................................ ................................... > > Oh......I'm back now......how long was I out? > > > > > > t. > > I don't think you were out. A chick cannot return to being inside a shell. AL: You need to watch more cartoons! A chick can not only return to being inside a shell, it can return to stock the shelves and then buy the dozen. A chick can do anydamnthing it WANTS to - based upon the mind of the cartoonist. And so can words! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > The word " CHECKMATE " rings in toombaru's ears as he slinks away from the table. > > > " Damn that Lewis " .......he thinks to himself.... " If nothing else.....he is smart! " Bobby Fisher is green with envy. Well, maybe not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 2005 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment can come to you only when you feel > that your > > > > > > thoughts > > > > > > > > > > are no longer imortant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment is a something that is defined in what > > > appears to > > > > > > be an > > > > > > > > > infinite number of ways and it appears that thought > is the > > > > > > same. So it > > > > > > > > > appears that thought could be seen in an infinite > number of > > > > ways as > > > > > > > > > important, not important, both important and not > important, > > > > neither > > > > > > > > > important nor not important and so on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only by the thinking mind. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. and to follow, does it appear that there is a > non-thinking > > > > mind or > > > > > > > is that an oxymoron? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe there is a state of mind that is completely free from > > > > > > thoughts as the default state; where thoughts only appear in > certain > > > > > > situations which enhances those experiences instead of making > > > them dim > > > > > > as ordinary thinking does. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind accumulates many beliefs...........none of which are true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > We can begin to see all thinking as beliefs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought cannot see itself........cannot capture itself......... > > > > > > You know that electricity can hurt you......... > > > > > > You believe that you exist. > > > > > > > > > Knowing and believing....create different worlds. > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > Hi Toom, > > > > What is thought? > > > > What is knowing? > > > > Lewis > > > > > Lewis......I really don'k know what you mean bu the word " is " > > > > If you could help me out here...we could....perhaps resolve this issue. > > > t. Toom, sense playing the game of answering a question with a question. If you cannot answer say so. It is curiosity alone that questions you and Your answer will be one of many possibilities as is the nature of conventional reality. That may be hard to face, but it is not apparent why. It is not that there is not an answer that can be made. You can question others and they answer but when you are questioned answers are, on the whole, not forthcoming, and you seem contradict ever answer with some filter you use. You could explain the reason why, instead of answering with a question or a wisecrack or a disappearing act. The questions are for more detail, and is not a trap. It is for you to think about, if it moves. If what is answered does not stand up than it will be questioned. That is what goes on here in all the ways that it does. You can question. You can do those things to others why can't it happen to you? And why is it so difficult to answer simple questions? Are all the answers in, and so no answer is necessary? Than it is very easy to say so. Here it is. I will say it for all to hear. All the answers are in before they are asked! Now any one can come to me with questions and I can say. " The answer is in, You must find it, I cannot do that for you. " See simple. If they persist, I can give one or several answers with caveat so they do not think it is the final answer. That is not hard to do. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 2005 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment can come to you only when you feel > that your > > > > > > thoughts > > > > > > > > > > are no longer imortant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment is a something that is defined in what > > > appears to > > > > > > be an > > > > > > > > > infinite number of ways and it appears that thought > is the > > > > > > same. So it > > > > > > > > > appears that thought could be seen in an infinite > number of > > > > > ways as > > > > > > > > > important, not important, both important and not > important, > > > > > neither > > > > > > > > > important nor not important and so on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only by the thinking mind. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. and to follow, does it appear that there is a > non-thinking > > > > > mind or > > > > > > > is that an oxymoron? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe there is a state of mind that is completely free from > > > > > > thoughts as the default state; where thoughts only appear > in certain > > > > > > situations which enhances those experiences instead of making > > > them dim > > > > > > as ordinary thinking does. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind accumulates many beliefs...........none of which are true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Toom, > > > > > > > > What is the standard that you use to determine what is not true? > > > > > > > > How did you make that statement? > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Belief and knowledge are different. > > > > > > Knowledge can be applied to the reactions that occur within > > > physicality.....(the > > > measureable world).......Beliefs are assumptions concerning things > > > immaterial...and by > > > defintiton are all untrue.... > > > > > > Can you tell me of one of your philosophical beliefs that is true? > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > Hi Toom, > > > > What is knowledge? Is belief different than knowledge? How so? > > > > One can apply beliefs of immaterial things to reactions that " occur > > within physicality. " This is done every day all day. The sun rises in > > the east is a belief as you will see below that is used by millions of > > people everyday. > > > > Toom, what definition is that which makes " immaterial " belief or > > assumptions all untrue? > > > > And what is physicality and immaterial? > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Any belief, philosophical or other, as well as all assumptions and > > knowledge can be: > > > > true > > false > > Both true and false > > Neither true nor false or > > other > > > > Depends on the context I suppose, Toom. In some context it is taken as > > true, in others false, in others both true and false and in some cases > > neither true nor false. > > > > For example, there is the belief that the sun rises. Is this not a > > belief in terms of the physicality you mentioned above? And is this > > belief not applied by millions of farmers throughout the world, not to > > mention all the uses this belief has for business, war, ritual etc.? > > > > The Sun rises in the east (I can see it with my own eyes everyday and so > > can all others with seeing eyes.) > > > > The Sun does not rise in the east (Science shows how this is an optical > > illusion based on the earth's horizon and its rotation on its axis) > > > > The Sun both rises and does not rises in the east (Well, a farmer with > > an understanding of basic astronomy and some satellite photos will > > accept this as well as most people who do so, even though few could > > write four coherent paragraphs on how the optical illusion occurs and > > whether or not it can ever be escaped. > > > > The Sun neither rises nor does not rises in the east (From the > > perspective the sun and solar system there is neither rising or not > > rising, the word itself is inappropriate). > > > > Which one shall be chosen, Tom? > > > > All of them can be true, and all of them can be false, each outcome > > depending on the context and assumptions held at the moment in which it > > is applied. It appears that to assert one over the other for all time > > leads to confusion. So there is no need for statements of " truth " or > > " falsity " at all. Both truth and falsity in Nagarjuna's term are empty, > > without an inherent essence and therefore indefinable alone. This is the > > ole' dependent origination, Toom. > > > > Therefore, for your question cannot be answered as stated with only one > > limited option. For answer will be false or true or both or neither > > depending on what assumptions will be held when viewing the answer. That > > is why your assumption is somewhat lopsided and therefore questioned to > > bring it to balance to see the other sides to be free from certainty and > > attachment to that which is impermanent. > > > > This is one way to explain, Toom, Buddha's and Nagarjuna's way. And > > there are other ways to explain the same thing, without invoking the > > tetralemma and dependent origination. Finding those other ways is > > important not for any liberation but for...... > > > > It will do well to explore if knowledge and belief are different. It is > > not certain from here as you can imagine. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > The word " CHECKMATE " rings in toombaru's ears as he slinks away from the > table. > > > " Damn that Lewis " .......he thinks to himself.... " If nothing else.....he > is smart! " No checkmate, Toomy. The are no players remember? :-) Let's go on. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 2005 dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > The word " CHECKMATE " rings in toombaru's ears as he slinks away > from the table. > > > > > > " Damn that Lewis " .......he thinks to himself.... " If nothing > else.....he is smart! " > > Bobby Fisher is green with envy. > > Well, maybe not. No need to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment can come to you only when you feel > > that your > > > > > > > thoughts > > > > > > > > > > > are no longer imortant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment is a something that is defined in what > > > > appears to > > > > > > > be an > > > > > > > > > > infinite number of ways and it appears that thought > > is the > > > > > > > same. So it > > > > > > > > > > appears that thought could be seen in an infinite > > number of > > > > > > ways as > > > > > > > > > > important, not important, both important and not > > important, > > > > > > neither > > > > > > > > > > important nor not important and so on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only by the thinking mind. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. and to follow, does it appear that there is a > > non-thinking > > > > > > mind or > > > > > > > > is that an oxymoron? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe there is a state of mind that is completely free from > > > > > > > thoughts as the default state; where thoughts only appear > > in certain > > > > > > > situations which enhances those experiences instead of making > > > > them dim > > > > > > > as ordinary thinking does. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind accumulates many beliefs...........none of which are true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Toom, > > > > > > > > > > What is the standard that you use to determine what is not true? > > > > > > > > > > How did you make that statement? > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Belief and knowledge are different. > > > > > > > > Knowledge can be applied to the reactions that occur within > > > > physicality.....(the > > > > measureable world).......Beliefs are assumptions concerning things > > > > immaterial...and by > > > > defintiton are all untrue.... > > > > > > > > Can you tell me of one of your philosophical beliefs that is true? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > Hi Toom, > > > > > > What is knowledge? Is belief different than knowledge? How so? > > > > > > One can apply beliefs of immaterial things to reactions that " occur > > > within physicality. " This is done every day all day. The sun rises in > > > the east is a belief as you will see below that is used by millions of > > > people everyday. > > > > > > Toom, what definition is that which makes " immaterial " belief or > > > assumptions all untrue? > > > > > > And what is physicality and immaterial? > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Any belief, philosophical or other, as well as all assumptions and > > > knowledge can be: > > > > > > true > > > false > > > Both true and false > > > Neither true nor false or > > > other > > > > > > Depends on the context I suppose, Toom. In some context it is taken as > > > true, in others false, in others both true and false and in some cases > > > neither true nor false. > > > > > > For example, there is the belief that the sun rises. Is this not a > > > belief in terms of the physicality you mentioned above? And is this > > > belief not applied by millions of farmers throughout the world, not to > > > mention all the uses this belief has for business, war, ritual etc.? > > > > > > The Sun rises in the east (I can see it with my own eyes everyday and so > > > can all others with seeing eyes.) > > > > > > The Sun does not rise in the east (Science shows how this is an optical > > > illusion based on the earth's horizon and its rotation on its axis) > > > > > > The Sun both rises and does not rises in the east (Well, a farmer with > > > an understanding of basic astronomy and some satellite photos will > > > accept this as well as most people who do so, even though few could > > > write four coherent paragraphs on how the optical illusion occurs and > > > whether or not it can ever be escaped. > > > > > > The Sun neither rises nor does not rises in the east (From the > > > perspective the sun and solar system there is neither rising or not > > > rising, the word itself is inappropriate). > > > > > > Which one shall be chosen, Tom? > > > > > > All of them can be true, and all of them can be false, each outcome > > > depending on the context and assumptions held at the moment in which it > > > is applied. It appears that to assert one over the other for all time > > > leads to confusion. So there is no need for statements of " truth " or > > > " falsity " at all. Both truth and falsity in Nagarjuna's term are empty, > > > without an inherent essence and therefore indefinable alone. This is the > > > ole' dependent origination, Toom. > > > > > > Therefore, for your question cannot be answered as stated with only one > > > limited option. For answer will be false or true or both or neither > > > depending on what assumptions will be held when viewing the answer. That > > > is why your assumption is somewhat lopsided and therefore questioned to > > > bring it to balance to see the other sides to be free from certainty and > > > attachment to that which is impermanent. > > > > > > This is one way to explain, Toom, Buddha's and Nagarjuna's way. And > > > there are other ways to explain the same thing, without invoking the > > > tetralemma and dependent origination. Finding those other ways is > > > important not for any liberation but for...... > > > > > > It will do well to explore if knowledge and belief are different. It is > > > not certain from here as you can imagine. > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > The word " CHECKMATE " rings in toombaru's ears as he slinks away from the > > table. > > > > > > " Damn that Lewis " .......he thinks to himself.... " If nothing else.....he > > is smart! " > > > > No checkmate, Toomy. The are no players remember? :-) > > Let's go on. > > Lewis Where? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > .... > > Let's go on. > > > > Lewis > > > Where? To France guys, come to Paris! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > Let's go on. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Where? > > To France guys, come to Paris! ahhhhhhhhhhh yes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Let's go on. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > Where? > > > > To France guys, come to Paris! > > > > > ahhhhhhhhhhh yes will I need my sweater? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2005 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment can come to you only when you feel > > > that your > > > > > > > > thoughts > > > > > > > > > > > > are no longer imortant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment is a something that is defined in > what > > > > > appears to > > > > > > > > be an > > > > > > > > > > > infinite number of ways and it appears that > thought > > > is the > > > > > > > > same. So it > > > > > > > > > > > appears that thought could be seen in an infinite > > > number of > > > > > > > ways as > > > > > > > > > > > important, not important, both important and not > > > important, > > > > > > > neither > > > > > > > > > > > important nor not important and so on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only by the thinking mind. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. and to follow, does it appear that there is a > > > non-thinking > > > > > > > mind or > > > > > > > > > is that an oxymoron? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe there is a state of mind that is completely > free from > > > > > > > > thoughts as the default state; where thoughts only appear > > > in certain > > > > > > > > situations which enhances those experiences instead of > making > > > > > them dim > > > > > > > > as ordinary thinking does. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind accumulates many beliefs...........none of which are > true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Toom, > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the standard that you use to determine what is not > true? > > > > > > > > > > > > How did you make that statement? > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Belief and knowledge are different. > > > > > > > > > > Knowledge can be applied to the reactions that occur within > > > > > physicality.....(the > > > > > measureable world).......Beliefs are assumptions concerning things > > > > > immaterial...and by > > > > > defintiton are all untrue.... > > > > > > > > > > Can you tell me of one of your philosophical beliefs that is true? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > Hi Toom, > > > > > > > > What is knowledge? Is belief different than knowledge? How so? > > > > > > > > One can apply beliefs of immaterial things to reactions that " occur > > > > within physicality. " This is done every day all day. The sun > rises in > > > > the east is a belief as you will see below that is used by > millions of > > > > people everyday. > > > > > > > > Toom, what definition is that which makes " immaterial " belief or > > > > assumptions all untrue? > > > > > > > > And what is physicality and immaterial? > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Any belief, philosophical or other, as well as all assumptions and > > > > knowledge can be: > > > > > > > > true > > > > false > > > > Both true and false > > > > Neither true nor false or > > > > other > > > > > > > > Depends on the context I suppose, Toom. In some context it is > taken as > > > > true, in others false, in others both true and false and in some > cases > > > > neither true nor false. > > > > > > > > For example, there is the belief that the sun rises. Is this not a > > > > belief in terms of the physicality you mentioned above? And is this > > > > belief not applied by millions of farmers throughout the world, > not to > > > > mention all the uses this belief has for business, war, ritual etc.? > > > > > > > > The Sun rises in the east (I can see it with my own eyes > everyday and so > > > > can all others with seeing eyes.) > > > > > > > > The Sun does not rise in the east (Science shows how this is an > optical > > > > illusion based on the earth's horizon and its rotation on its axis) > > > > > > > > The Sun both rises and does not rises in the east (Well, a > farmer with > > > > an understanding of basic astronomy and some satellite photos will > > > > accept this as well as most people who do so, even though few could > > > > write four coherent paragraphs on how the optical illusion > occurs and > > > > whether or not it can ever be escaped. > > > > > > > > The Sun neither rises nor does not rises in the east (From the > > > > perspective the sun and solar system there is neither rising or not > > > > rising, the word itself is inappropriate). > > > > > > > > Which one shall be chosen, Tom? > > > > > > > > All of them can be true, and all of them can be false, each outcome > > > > depending on the context and assumptions held at the moment in > which it > > > > is applied. It appears that to assert one over the other for all > time > > > > leads to confusion. So there is no need for statements of > " truth " or > > > > " falsity " at all. Both truth and falsity in Nagarjuna's term > are empty, > > > > without an inherent essence and therefore indefinable alone. > This is the > > > > ole' dependent origination, Toom. > > > > > > > > Therefore, for your question cannot be answered as stated with > only one > > > > limited option. For answer will be false or true or both or neither > > > > depending on what assumptions will be held when viewing the > answer. That > > > > is why your assumption is somewhat lopsided and therefore > questioned to > > > > bring it to balance to see the other sides to be free from > certainty and > > > > attachment to that which is impermanent. > > > > > > > > This is one way to explain, Toom, Buddha's and Nagarjuna's way. And > > > > there are other ways to explain the same thing, without > invoking the > > > > tetralemma and dependent origination. Finding those other ways is > > > > important not for any liberation but for...... > > > > > > > > It will do well to explore if knowledge and belief are > different. It is > > > > not certain from here as you can imagine. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > The word " CHECKMATE " rings in toombaru's ears as he slinks away > from the > > > table. > > > > > > > > > " Damn that Lewis " .......he thinks to himself.... " If nothing > else.....he > > > is smart! " > > > > > > > > No checkmate, Toomy. The are no players remember? :-) > > > > Let's go on. > > > > Lewis > > > Where? It appears there is no one place Toomy for going on doing stuff, whatever that stuff may be. Lewis Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Eric Paroissien wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > Let's go on. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Where? > > To France guys, come to Paris! Now that you put it out, if it has weight things may start to move, so no resistance here. Let's see what goes on, Eric my dear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment can come to you only when you feel that your > > thoughts > > > > > > are no longer imortant. > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment is a something that is defined in what appears to > > be an > > > > > infinite number of ways and it appears that thought is the > > same. So it > > > > > appears that thought could be seen in an infinite number of ways as > > > > > important, not important, both important and not important, neither > > > > > important nor not important and so on. > > > > > > > > Only by the thinking mind. ;-) > > > > > > > > > Yes. and to follow, does it appear that there is a non- thinking mind or > > > is that an oxymoron? > > > > > > > I believe there is a state of mind that is completely free from > > thoughts as the default state; where thoughts only appear in certain > > situations which enhances those experiences instead of making them dim > > as ordinary thinking does. > > > > Mind accumulates many beliefs...........none of which are true. ** Including 'mind' and 'accumulation,' one might add. In fact, every word in your sentence...and mine. There's only one belief, you could say. That discreteness or separateness is perceivable. That belief is altogether surrendered/vanished, now-here. Utter transparency. Even the apparent unbearableness of it! Ken > > > t. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Eric Paroissien wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Let's go on. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > Where? > > > > To France guys, come to Paris! > > Now that you put it out, if it has weight things may start to move, so > no resistance here. Let's see what goes on, Eric my dear. You are welcome anytime Lewis! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Unfortunately u r sending a invitation now ! I would have been glad to meet u - I was in Paris two months back ! Harsha, it would be nice if we have the info of the members against (NO IAM not saying Nationality ) the country they reside. Murali, Eric Paroissien [ericparoissien] Thursday, January 20, 2005 1:23 PM Nisargadatta Re: Enlightenment Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Eric Paroissien wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Let's go on. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > Where? > > > > To France guys, come to Paris! > > Now that you put it out, if it has weight things may start to move, so > no resistance here. Let's see what goes on, Eric my dear. You are welcome anytime Lewis! ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. _____ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H \(GE Healthcare\) " <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > Unfortunately u r sending a invitation now ! > I would have been glad to meet u - I was in Paris two months back ! > Harsha, it would be nice if we have the info of the members against (NO IAM not saying Nationality ) the country they reside. > Murali, Hi Murali, so i missed you, i hope you had a good weather, it is a lottery in winter, and not quite sure in summer (not as bad as London though)... Hurg is the owner of this place and there is no tuning in member's listing to show only location; yet when you travel you can say where you go in advance to propose to meet people; Gregory Goode does so. .... ok! anyone else coming to Paris ... Kip? Werner? the Europeans? > > > > > Eric Paroissien [ericparoissien@g...] > Thursday, January 20, 2005 1:23 PM > Nisargadatta > Re: Enlightenment > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > Eric Paroissien wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Let's go on. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > Where? > > > > > > To France guys, come to Paris! > > > > Now that you put it out, if it has weight things may start to move, so > > no resistance here. Let's see what goes on, Eric my dear. > > You are welcome anytime Lewis! > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > _____ > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Ramanath, Murali H \(GE > Healthcare\) " <Murali.Ramanath@g...> wrote: > > Unfortunately u r sending a invitation now ! > > I would have been glad to meet u - I was in Paris two months back ! > > Harsha, it would be nice if we have the info of the members against > (NO IAM not saying Nationality ) the country they reside. > > Murali, > > Hi Murali, > so i missed you, i hope you had a good weather, it is a lottery in > winter, and not quite sure in summer (not as bad as London though)... > Hurg is the owner of this place and there is no tuning in member's > listing to show only location; yet when you travel you can say where > you go in advance to propose to meet people; Gregory Goode does so. > ... > ok! anyone else coming to Paris ... Kip? Werner? the Europeans? > > > > > > > > > > > Eric Paroissien [ericparoissien@g...] > > Thursday, January 20, 2005 1:23 PM > > Nisargadatta > > Re: Enlightenment > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Eric Paroissien wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > Let's go on. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where? > > > > > > > > To France guys, come to Paris! > > > > > > Now that you put it out, if it has weight things may start to > move, so > > > no resistance here. Let's see what goes on, Eric my dear. > > > > You are welcome anytime Lewis! Thank you, Eric! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Why is it that things need to be bound? > > > > > > > > > Why can't they just be free? > > > > > > Free like the wind.......is a bird bound to the sky?.........is a > > fish bound to the river? > > > > > > > > > well....I quess they really are............. > > > > > > but why? > > > > > > > > > why? > > > > > > > > .................................................................................\ ... > > > Oh......I'm back now......how long was I out? > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > I don't think you were out. A chick cannot return to being inside a shell. > > > > Why?......................Why? Evolution goes forward, never back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Why is it that things need to be bound? > > > > > > > > > Why can't they just be free? > > > > > > Free like the wind.......is a bird bound to the sky?.........is a > > fish bound to the river? > > > > > > > > > well....I quess they really are............. > > > > > > but why? > > > > > > > > > why? > > > > > > > > ................................................ > .................................. > > > Oh......I'm back now......how long was I out? > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > I don't think you were out. A chick cannot return to being inside a > shell. > > AL: You need to watch more cartoons! > A chick can not only return to being inside a shell, it can return to > stock the shelves and then buy the dozen. A chick can do anydamnthing > it WANTS to - based upon the mind of the cartoonist. > > And so can words! Yes, when evolution gets smarter, it can emulate its own going backwards. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2005 Dear Murali, That is a good suggestion. However, I am not the owner/moderator of the Niz list and, in fact, rarely post here. However, it is a natural misunderstanding as the owner of the list is named Hur and the first three letters of my name are Har. Hur and Har, what a team we make! My group and website are given below. Best wishes to all. /join Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
