Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 , Adithya K > > > > > > > > > > <adithya_comming> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is an avoidable ...act, thought or emotion that > > > > > > causes > > > > > > > > > > > ...Suffering ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is a suffering-causing act, thought or emotion > > > > > that > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > avoided ...if, there is enough Consciousness PRESENT to > > > > > > See, > > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > understand what, why, how is going on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is any suffering-causing act that can be avoided, > > > > > > > > changed or > > > > > > > > > > > transformed, if there is PRESENCE to See, examine > > and if > > > > > > > > necessary > > > > > > > > > > > ...dissolve its roots and to watch and learn from its > > > > > > > > reflection, > > > > > > > > > > > impact and after-effect! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suffering is its fruit, and unconsciousness is its > > > > > > roots. > > > > > > > > And, > > > > > > > > > > > whether one that suffers is ...body, minds, me, him, > > > > > > > > her, ...or > > > > > > > > > > them, > > > > > > > > > > > ...doesn't matter that much ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL suffering..........can be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into oblivion. True > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain it in > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any affirmation > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the affirmation: " any > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > Affirmation and negation are mutually interdependent opposites. > > > > > > > > > One cannot exist without the other. > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > How about the affirmation " the world exists " ? > > > No " thing " exists. > > > t. That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only think that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 , Adithya K > > > > > > > > > > > <adithya_comming> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is an avoidable ...act, thought or emotion > that > > > > > > > causes > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Suffering ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is a suffering-causing act, thought or > emotion > > > > > > that > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided ...if, there is enough Consciousness > PRESENT to > > > > > > > See, > > > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > understand what, why, how is going on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is any suffering-causing act that can be > avoided, > > > > > > > > > changed or > > > > > > > > > > > > transformed, if there is PRESENCE to See, examine > > > and if > > > > > > > > > necessary > > > > > > > > > > > > ...dissolve its roots and to watch and learn > from its > > > > > > > > > reflection, > > > > > > > > > > > > impact and after-effect! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suffering is its fruit, and unconsciousness is > its > > > > > > > roots. > > > > > > > > > And, > > > > > > > > > > > > whether one that suffers is ...body, minds, me, > him, > > > > > > > > > her, ...or > > > > > > > > > > > them, > > > > > > > > > > > > ...doesn't matter that much ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > suffering..........can be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into > oblivion. True > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain > it in > > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any affirmation > > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the affirmation: " any > > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > Affirmation and negation are mutually interdependent opposites. > > > > > > > > > > > > One cannot exist without the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > How about the affirmation " the world exists " ? > > > > > > No " thing " exists. > > > > > > t. > > That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only think that? Name some thing that exists, t. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > <dan330033> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > <dan330033> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > <dan330033> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Adithya K > > > > > > > > > > > > <adithya_comming> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is an avoidable ...act, thought or emotion > > that > > > > > > > > causes > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Suffering ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is a suffering-causing act, thought or > > emotion > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided ...if, there is enough Consciousness > > PRESENT to > > > > > > > > See, > > > > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand what, why, how is going on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is any suffering-causing act that can be > > avoided, > > > > > > > > > > changed or > > > > > > > > > > > > > transformed, if there is PRESENCE to See, examine > > > > and if > > > > > > > > > > necessary > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...dissolve its roots and to watch and learn > > from its > > > > > > > > > > reflection, > > > > > > > > > > > > > impact and after-effect! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suffering is its fruit, and unconsciousness is > > its > > > > > > > > roots. > > > > > > > > > > And, > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether one that suffers is ...body, minds, me, > > him, > > > > > > > > > > her, ...or > > > > > > > > > > > > them, > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...doesn't matter that much ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > > suffering..........can be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into > > oblivion. True > > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain > > it in > > > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any affirmation > > > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the affirmation: " any > > > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > Affirmation and negation are mutually interdependent opposites. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One cannot exist without the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > How about the affirmation " the world exists " ? > > > > > > > > > No " thing " exists. > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only think that? > > > > Name some thing that exists, > > > t. I really can't imagine how productive it is to engage in a conversation about exchanging ideas regarding naming things that *do* or do *not* exist. Is there a reason why you engage in it? Does it offer some purpose that I'm missing? ~G. ---- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > <dan330033> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > <dan330033> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > <dan330033> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > Adithya K > > > > > > > > > > > > > <adithya_comming> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is an avoidable ...act, thought or > emotion > > > that > > > > > > > > > causes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Suffering ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is a suffering-causing act, thought > or > > > emotion > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided ...if, there is enough > Consciousness > > > PRESENT to > > > > > > > > > See, > > > > > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand what, why, how is going on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is any suffering-causing act that > can be > > > avoided, > > > > > > > > > > > changed or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transformed, if there is PRESENCE to See, > examine > > > > > and if > > > > > > > > > > > necessary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...dissolve its roots and to watch and > learn > > > from its > > > > > > > > > > > reflection, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impact and after-effect! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suffering is its fruit, and > unconsciousness is > > > its > > > > > > > > > roots. > > > > > > > > > > > And, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether one that suffers is ...body, > minds, me, > > > him, > > > > > > > > > > > her, ...or > > > > > > > > > > > > > them, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...doesn't matter that much ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > > > suffering..........can be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into > > > oblivion. True > > > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into > awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you > explain > > > it in > > > > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any > affirmation > > > > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the > affirmation: " any > > > > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Affirmation and negation are mutually interdependent > opposites. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One cannot exist without the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > How about the affirmation " the world exists " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > No " thing " exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only think that? > > > > > > > > Name some thing that exists, > > > > > > t. > > > I really can't imagine how productive it is to engage in a > conversation about exchanging ideas regarding naming things that > *do* or do *not* exist. > > > Is there a reason why you engage in it? > > Does it offer some purpose that I'm missing? > > ~G. > ---- Name some thing that exists. t. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > <dan330033> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > <dan330033> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > <dan330033> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > > <dan330033> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > Adithya K > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <adithya_comming> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is an avoidable ...act, thought or > > emotion > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > causes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Suffering ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is a suffering-causing act, thought > > or > > > > emotion > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided ...if, there is enough > > Consciousness > > > > PRESENT to > > > > > > > > > > See, > > > > > > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand what, why, how is going on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sin is any suffering-causing act that > > can be > > > > avoided, > > > > > > > > > > > > changed or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transformed, if there is PRESENCE to See, > > examine > > > > > > and if > > > > > > > > > > > > necessary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...dissolve its roots and to watch and > > learn > > > > from its > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impact and after-effect! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suffering is its fruit, and > > unconsciousness is > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > roots. > > > > > > > > > > > > And, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether one that suffers is ...body, > > minds, me, > > > > him, > > > > > > > > > > > > her, ...or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...doesn't matter that much ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > > > > suffering..........can be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into > > > > oblivion. True > > > > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into > > awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you > > explain > > > > it in > > > > > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any > > affirmation > > > > > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the > > affirmation: " any > > > > > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Affirmation and negation are mutually interdependent > > opposites. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One cannot exist without the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > How about the affirmation " the world exists " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No " thing " exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only think that? > > > > > > > > > > > > Name some thing that exists, > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > I really can't imagine how productive it is to engage in a > > conversation about exchanging ideas regarding naming things that > > *do* or do *not* exist. > > > > > > Is there a reason why you engage in it? > > > > Does it offer some purpose that I'm missing? > > > > ~G. > > ---- > > > Name some thing that exists. > > > t. You know some thing that exists independently of other things.....Some isolated... stand-alone thing.......... Name just one such thing....If you can. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 --------------------- > > > > > > I really can't imagine how productive it is to engage in a > > > conversation about exchanging ideas regarding naming things that > > > *do* or do *not* exist. > > > > > > > > > Is there a reason why you engage in it? > > > > > > Does it offer some purpose that I'm missing? > > > > > > ~G. > > > ---- > > > > > > Name some thing that exists. > > > > > > t. > > > You know some thing that exists independently of other things.....Some isolated... > stand-alone thing.......... > > > Name just one such thing....If you can. > > > > toombaru We're waiting. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > .... > > > > > > > > > No " thing " exists. > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only think that? > > > > Name some thing that exists, > > > t. The moon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > No " thing " exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only think that? > > > > > > > > Name some thing that exists, > > > > > > t. > > The moon. NO. The moon need the space in which it spin................ something else? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No " thing " exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only think that? > > > > > > > > > > > > Name some thing that exists, > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > The moon. > > NO. > > The moon need the space in which it spin................ > > > something else? How about space then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No " thing " exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only think that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name some thing that exists, > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > The moon. > > > > NO. > > > > The moon need the space in which it spin................ > > > > > > something else? > > How about space then? Space needs something floating within it......... t. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No " thing " exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only think that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name some thing that exists, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > The moon. > > > > > > NO. > > > > > > The moon need the space in which it spin................ > > > > > > > > > something else? > > > > How about space then? > > > > Space needs something floating within it......... > > > t. What something? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No " thing " exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only think that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name some thing that exists, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > The moon. > > > > > > > > NO. > > > > > > > > The moon need the space in which it spin................ > > > > > > > > > > > > something else? > > > > > > How about space then? > > > > > > > > Space needs something floating within it......... > > > > > > t. > > What something? The something that needs space in which to float. Neither can exist alone. Nothing exists alone.............. Nothing exists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No " thing " exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only think that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name some thing that exists, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > The moon. > > > > > > > > > > NO. > > > > > > > > > > The moon need the space in which it spin................ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something else? > > > > > > > > How about space then? > > > > > > > > > > > > Space needs something floating within it......... > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > What something? > > > > > The something that needs space in which to float. > > > Neither can exist alone. > > > Nothing exists alone.............. > > > > Nothing exists. I was thinking maybe space is all there is and time and matter only deformations in space. And, of course, that space and consciousness are the same " no thing " . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > > > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No " thing " exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only > think that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name some thing that exists, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The moon. > > > > > > > > > > > > NO. > > > > > > > > > > > > The moon need the space in which it spin................ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something else? > > > > > > > > > > How about space then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Space needs something floating within it......... > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > What something? > > > > > > > > > > The something that needs space in which to float. > > > > > > Neither can exist alone. > > > > > > Nothing exists alone.............. > > > > > > > > Nothing exists. > > I was thinking maybe space is all there is and time and matter only > deformations in space. And, of course, that space and consciousness > are the same " no thing " . Those are interesting thoughts....but what are you going to do about that goose? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > > > > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No " thing " exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's true. But do you feel that, or do you only > > think that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name some thing that exists, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The moon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The moon need the space in which it spin................ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something else? > > > > > > > > > > > > How about space then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Space needs something floating within it......... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > What something? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The something that needs space in which to float. > > > > > > > > > Neither can exist alone. > > > > > > > > > Nothing exists alone.............. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing exists. > > > > I was thinking maybe space is all there is and time and matter only > > deformations in space. And, of course, that space and consciousness > > are the same " no thing " . > > > Those are interesting thoughts....but what are you going to do about that goose? Eat it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > --------------------- > > > > > > > > I really can't imagine how productive it is to engage in a > > > > conversation about exchanging ideas regarding naming things that > > > > *do* or do *not* exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a reason why you engage in it? > > > > > > > > Does it offer some purpose that I'm missing? > > > > > > > > ~G. > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > Name some thing that exists. > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > You know some thing that exists independently of other things.....Some isolated... > > stand-alone thing.......... > > > > > > Name just one such thing....If you can. > > > > > > > > toombaru > We're waiting. > > > toombaru --------- I have absolutely no idea what your on about at this point. Perhaps you could re-read my message. You haven't bothered to answer my question. You side-tracked the conversation to ask me to name something that exists? Again, re-read my message. I said: " I really can't imagine how productive it is to engage in a conversation about exchanging ideas regarding naming things that *do* or do *not* exist. Why then would I want to engage in a futile conversation about determing the existence of my computer screen since I've already determined it has no relevent purpose for me. I asked you, " Is there a reason why you engage in it? Does it offer some purpose that I'm missing? Then you go off on a nonsensical question about which I said I wasn't interested in. We're still waiting for the answer. Do you think you'll ever arrive at any place by asking this question or do you think you will eventually determine the purpose for asking it? I'm just curious. I seemed to by-pass this need to question whether or not something is real or not and analyze it under a magnifying glass. Again, I'm asking and again your not answering. No, I **don't** want to engage in a futile and pointless debate as to naming something that is real or not. You sure do have an unusual religion though. ~G. --------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > > > > > I really can't imagine how productive it is to engage in a > > > > > conversation about exchanging ideas regarding naming > things that > > > > > *do* or do *not* exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a reason why you engage in it? > > > > > > > > > > Does it offer some purpose that I'm missing? > > > > > > > > > > ~G. > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > Name some thing that exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > You know some thing that exists independently of other > things.....Some isolated... > > > stand-alone thing.......... > > > > > > > > > Name just one such thing....If you can. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We're waiting. > > > > > > toombaru > > --------- > > I have absolutely no idea what your on about at this point. > > Perhaps you could re-read my message. > > > > You haven't bothered to answer my question. You side-tracked the > conversation to ask me to name something that exists? > > Again, re-read my message. > > I said: " I really can't imagine how productive it is to engage in a > conversation about exchanging ideas regarding naming things that > *do* or do *not* exist. > > Why then would I want to engage in a futile conversation about > determing the existence of my computer screen since I've already > determined it has no relevent purpose for me. > > I asked you, " Is there a reason why you engage in it? Does it offer > some purpose that I'm missing? > > > Then you go off on a nonsensical question about which I said I > wasn't interested in. > > We're still waiting for the answer. > > Do you think you'll ever arrive at any place by asking this question > or do you think you will eventually determine the purpose for asking > it? I'm just curious. I seemed to by-pass this need to question > whether or not something is real or not and analyze it under a > magnifying glass. > > Again, I'm asking and again your not answering. No, I **don't** > want to engage in a futile and pointless debate as to naming > something that is real or not. > > You sure do have an unusual religion though. > > ~G. > --------- the question for me is why focus on whether " anything " is " something " or " nothing " and keep volleying around the phrazes, " oh, but the car doesn't *really* exist.[wink, wink] Is there some hidden grand purpose in this procedure that I'm missing? I mean, I don't bother carrying on asking myself if my hand is real or not, and then use my hand to pick something up and then come back with a response of --> my hand isn't really *real*. As if that's supposed to negate or affect that I just used it a second ago. Or I don't use my computer or car and then shoot the bull back and forth about this computer not being real. If I accept that my hand isn't real and it's all an illusion then I have 2 choices. I either don't use the thing and be done with it or I *do* use it and carry on with the business of using this thing called a hand. Note: the word " use " . So, you see it's rather irrelevent to me if the hand, body, boat, car, earth and everything else is *real* or *illusion* but rather how I'm using it and why I'm here using it. If I don't want it I don't come back to it. If I don't believe a pink unicorn exists then I don't get on it and ride it. I don't pet it. It doesn't exist. If I beleive my hand exists then I just get on about the business of using it rather then forever beating a dead horse over the fact that the horse doesn't really exist. Since y'all keep waking up each morning to this thing called an " illusion " it tells me there's something you want to do/accomplish/understand/learn about it all. Otherwise why would you be here? To debate about whether or not this " here " actually is *really* here or not here? Just to beat a dead horse over and over which doesn't really exist? I guess that's what your purpose is since that's what you're doing. And your doing it quite nicely I might add. It just doesn't hold any value for me. If the purpose in recognizing illusion is to help you not experience it then carry on. Otherwise I regard it as a waste and it only conflicts the brain as you use your hands to type on a computer that *does not* exist. ~G. --------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " <laughterx8@h...> wrote: >Since y'all keep waking up each morning to this thing called >an " illusion " it tells me there's something you want to >do/accomplish/understand/learn about it all. Otherwise why would >you be here? To debate about whether or not this " here " actually >is *really* here or not here? Just to beat a dead horse over and >over which doesn't really exist? > >I guess that's what your purpose is since that's what you're doing. > >And your doing it quite nicely I might add. >It just doesn't hold any value for me. If the purpose in >recognizing illusion is to help you not experience it then carry >on. Otherwise I regard it as a waste and it only conflicts the >brain as you use your hands to type on a computer that *does not* >exist. Wow, great, this had to be said! Another thing that bothers me with this " everything is illusion thing " is: when this thought (which it merely is) is not thought to the end, we are left in childish stupidity (or insanity, which it sadly can become). Once we find " everything is illusion " the next questions are: 1.illusion in relation to which " truth " ? 2.who is the instance that is able to judge something as " illusion " ? Until those questions sincerely are faced we are still in the kindergarden. S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " > <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > >Since y'all keep waking up each morning to this thing called > >an " illusion " it tells me there's something you want to > >do/accomplish/understand/learn about it all. Otherwise why would > >you be here? To debate about whether or not this " here " actually > >is *really* here or not here? Just to beat a dead horse over and > >over which doesn't really exist? > > > >I guess that's what your purpose is since that's what you're doing. > > > >And your doing it quite nicely I might add. > >It just doesn't hold any value for me. If the purpose in > >recognizing illusion is to help you not experience it then carry > >on. Otherwise I regard it as a waste and it only conflicts the > >brain as you use your hands to type on a computer that *does not* > >exist. > > Wow, great, this had to be said! Another thing that bothers me with > this " everything is illusion thing " is: when this thought (which it > merely is) is not thought to the end, we are left in childish > stupidity (or insanity, which it sadly can become). > > Once we find " everything is illusion " the next questions are: > > 1.illusion in relation to which " truth " ? > 2.who is the instance that is able to judge something as " illusion " ? > > Until those questions sincerely are faced we are still in the > kindergarden. > S. With the assumption of weness.....comes the assumption of otherness.......and the curtains open......the play begins......... Welcome to the Zombee Jamboree. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL suffering..........can be > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into oblivion. True > > > > > awareness > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain it in > > > another way? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > No. > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > -- Dan > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any affirmation > includes its own negation " , then how about the affirmation: " any > affirmation includes its own negation " > > ? It's not a snare, it's the way it is. It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else has ever written. If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL suffering..........can > be > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into oblivion. > True > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain it in > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any affirmation > > includes its own negation " , then how about the affirmation: " any > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > ? > > It's not a snare, it's the way it is. > > It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else > has ever written. > > If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. > > -- Dan We can by this surely see the limits of logic. Wasn't it Gödel who said that no logical system is complete? Believeing that the intellect can find the answer to any fundamental question is propably a recipe for struggle. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Hmm, hmm, And you, Anders, have always an answer - even if one hasn't asked you for one. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL suffering..........can > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into oblivion. > > True > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain it in > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any affirmation > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the affirmation: " any > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > ? > > > > It's not a snare, it's the way it is. > > > > It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else > > has ever written. > > > > If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. > > > > -- Dan > > We can by this surely see the limits of logic. Wasn't it Gödel who > said that no logical system is complete? Believeing that the intellect > can find the answer to any fundamental question is propably a recipe > for struggle. > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hmm, hmm, > > And you, Anders, have always an answer - even if one hasn't asked you > for one. > > Werner Other than others on this list, dear Werner, he formulates his ideas as suggestions, and does not let them appear as the only truth. > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > suffering..........can > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into oblivion. > > > True > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain it > in > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any > affirmation > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the affirmation: " any > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > It's not a snare, it's the way it is. > > > > > > It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else > > > has ever written. > > > > > > If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > We can by this surely see the limits of logic. Wasn't it Gödel who > > said that no logical system is complete? Believeing that the > intellect > > can find the answer to any fundamental question is propably a recipe > > for struggle. > > > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: >With the assumption of weness.....comes the assumption of >otherness.......and the curtains open......the play begins......... Did you ever ask yourself the question, where this play is taking place? What is the name of the stage? S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Hi Stefan, Not to misunderstand me, I always was an admirer of Ander's humor and have friendly feeling towards him. But I nevertheless feel free to express when I am not convinced of his ideas or if I found some contradictions. But I can understand that you want to takes a bit his side because in the last days he was the target of much criticism and sarcasm. But, who ever steps into public spotlight has to take into account not only to get applauded but also will meet sharp eyes and ears and even flying eggs and tomatoes Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Hmm, hmm, > > > > And you, Anders, have always an answer - even if one hasn't asked > you > > for one. > > > > Werner > > Other than others on this list, dear Werner, he formulates his ideas > as suggestions, and does not let them appear as the only truth. > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > > suffering..........can > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into > oblivion. > > > > True > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain > it > > in > > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any > > affirmation > > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the affirmation: > " any > > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > It's not a snare, it's the way it is. > > > > > > > > It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else > > > > has ever written. > > > > > > > > If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > We can by this surely see the limits of logic. Wasn't it Gödel > who > > > said that no logical system is complete? Believeing that the > > intellect > > > can find the answer to any fundamental question is propably a > recipe > > > for struggle. > > > > > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
