Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

March 5, 2006

ok, the void for you then! make sure to write home!

have a safe trip... we'll have a talk on the rebound.

-

toombaru2006

Nisargadatta

Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:26 AM

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman wrote:

>

> careful.... that way leads to the void. missing the essentials of love is a

common ego error

The ego thinking that its concept of 'love' is of any value whatsoever.....is

a much more

common error....almost as common as the belief that it can think its way into

heaven.

toombaru

**

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.

March 5, 2006

weariness is a gift given to people with too much ego....

>;-)

-

toombaru2006

Nisargadatta

Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:29 AM

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman wrote:

>

> bliss is sometimes a stopping space in the continuum of Truth.

> -

A few shops of bliss...and the ego is merely fueled...(fooled).

There is no place for man to rest his weary head.

toombaru

**

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.

March 5, 2006

In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:32:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,

lissbon2002 writes:

> I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a

> thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive, it´s

> an image producing process, which you can see very well when you

> observe it.

>

> Len

>

> I agree with Len.

>

> Larry

March 5, 2006

In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:06:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,

lissbon2002 writes:

> I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including

> thoughts.

>

> Len

L.E: I agree with Len.

Larry

March 5, 2006

In a message dated 3/5/2006 6:03:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,

lastrain writes:

> In Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

> >

> >In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:32:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> >lissbon2002 writes:

> >

> >>I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a

> >>thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive, it´s

> >>an image producing process, which you can see very well when you

> >>observe it.

> >>

> >>Len

> >>

> >>I agree with Len.

> >>

> >>Larry

> >

>

> Nope..........'You' are not separate from the 'thought'.

>

> Go to the corner with Stephen.

>

> toombaru

>

> L.E: He didn't say he was separate from the 'thought. "

He said: " It really doesn´t take a thought to perceive a thought. Thought

itself cannot perceive,. " Reading skills problem?

Larry Epston

>

March 5, 2006

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > > >

> > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > toombaru

> > > >

> > > > nonsense.

> > > >

> > > > Len

> > > >

> > >

> > > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

> > >

> > > toombaru

> >

> > Feel your breath.

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> " My' breath?

>

> toombaru

Don´t think, feel.

Len

March 5, 2006

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

<lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 1:30:31 PM Pacific Standard

Time,

> > > > > lissbon2002@ writes:

> > > > >

> > > > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >toombaru

> > > > > >

> > > > > > nonsense.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Len

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > L.E: Depends how you look at it, and who is looking, if

> > anybody.

> > > > >

> > > > > Larry

> > > >

> > > > You see, I don´t think about it, I just look.

> > > >

> > > > Len

> > > >

> > >

> > > No..........you are the looking.

> > >

> > > toombaru

> >

> > I don´t care :-)

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> You still think that there is an I to care?

>

> toombaru

I don´t think ;-)

Len

March 5, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:12:32 -0000

> " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000

> > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> >

> > ......................................

> > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness,

> > >>

> > > Patricia

> > >

> >

> > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the illusion

of I am) is

> the

> > crux of our problem.

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there really

a 'problem'?

> >

> > Phil

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

>

> Only in mind.

>

> toombaru

>

> Yeah, it's only a problem in the mind, but that includes our

entire

> experience

Not if the problem is in thought. Then it doesn´t include our entire

experience: when the thought is gone the problem is gone, but life

goes on.

Len

> so I can't dismiss it. However, the point was that perhaps it's

only a

> problem because of a lack of understanding about what is really

desired. If we

> really love the illusion, the idea that we want out of it is

absurd.

>

> Phil

>

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:20:55 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> > >

> > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard

Time,

> > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > >

> > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000

> > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> > >

> > > ......................................

> > > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness,

> > > >>

> > > > Patricia

> > > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the illusion

of

> I am) is the

> > > crux of our problem.

> > >

> > > toombaru

> > >

> > > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there really

> a 'problem'?

> > >

> > > Phil

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > >

> >

> > Only in mind.

> >

> > toombaru

>

> Thought is the only problem.

> That´s why it´s so important to discern it from facts.

>

> len

>

> Okay, so you see a factual world, and you see thinking about that

factual

> world as different and problematic.

Yes, only thinking makes it problematic. Thinking is responsible for

al problematic emotions.

> Fine, whatever. So, does not thinking yield

> the same facts to everyone? You figure we can perceive and

experience and

> make 'choices' and come up with facts without thought?

Thoughts which are creating problems, like thinking that something

or someone should be different, can be recognized as absurd and

vanish. The rest of thoughts will stay and do their job.

Len

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:34:56 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> You see, I don´t think about it, I just look.

>

> Len

> Thinking is not required (much) in order to 'see', but it seems to

me that

> what you're looking at is physicality rather than consciousness,

which is the

> source of physicality, and so what you believe to be a fact is

actually the

> product of consciousness. Thought is what brings about this

product of

> consciousness. How ironic. In your distaste for thought, all that

you can see is the

> product of your thought, but you can't see that this is so.

>

> Phil

I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including

thoughts.

Len

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:14:41 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> > > > " Facts " exist only in thought.

> > > >

> > > > toombaru

> > >

> > > nonsense.

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> >

> > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

> >

> > toombaru

>

> Feel your breath.

>

> Len

>

> Here's something else for 'you' to 'think' about: Feeling arises

from

> thought. If you're feeling, the thought (which is 'you' perceiving

the breath)

> already snuck by without you noticing it. It can do this because,

while you

> haven't given up thinking, you have given up noticing the thinking.

>

> Phil

I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a

thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive, it´s

an image producing process, which you can see very well when you

observe it.

Len

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:14:41 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > > >

> > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > toombaru

> > > >

> > > > nonsense.

> > > >

> > > > Len

> > > >

> > >

> > > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

> > >

> > > toombaru

> >

> > Feel your breath.

> >

> > Len

> >

> > Here's something else for 'you' to 'think' about: Feeling arises

> from

> > thought. If you're feeling, the thought (which is 'you' perceiving

> the breath)

> > already snuck by without you noticing it. It can do this because,

> while you

> > haven't given up thinking, you have given up noticing the thinking.

> >

> > Phil

>

> I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a

> thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive, it´s

> an image producing process, which you can see very well when you

> observe it.

>

> Len

>

Nope.....thought just thinks it can.

toombaru

March 6, 2006

In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:24:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 5 Mar 2006 09:57:32 EST

epston

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

In a message dated 3/5/2006 4:08:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,

annaruiz writes:

> Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

> >>

> >> toombaru

> >

> >Feel your breath.

> >

> >Len

> >

>

L.E: A sneeze, a yawn, a reflex.

Larry

You mean to say there's no thought associated with these events? How is it

that you know they occur?

Phil

March 6, 2006

Yes indeedy. And nothing wrong with a rest stop now and then, unless one

falls asleep in the parking lot and forgets where he was going.

Phil

In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:24:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 5 Mar 2006 10:25:21 -0500

" Fred " <thejman

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

bliss is sometimes a stopping space in the continuum of Truth.

-

annaruiz

Nisargadatta

Sunday, March 05, 2006 7:07 AM

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:14:41 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

> wrote:

>>

>> > >

>> > > " Facts " exist only in thought.

>> > >

>> > > toombaru

>> >

>> > nonsense.

>> >

>> > Len

>> >

>>

>> Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

>>

>> toombaru

>

> Feel your breath.

>

> Len

>

> Here's something else for 'you' to 'think' about: Feeling arises from

> thought. If you're feeling, the thought (which is 'you' perceiving the

> breath)

> already snuck by without you noticing it. It can do this because, while

> you

> haven't given up thinking, you have given up noticing the thinking.

>

> Phil

...and then the long night ends

and awakening happens as who

is awakened in/as/of bliss,

pure noticing

.....This...Is.

a reoccuring dream, lost in a stream of consciousness

March 6, 2006

In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:24:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 05 Mar 2006 15:36:48 -0000

" bigwaaba " <bigwaaba

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain There is no place for man to rest his weary head.

this is funny!

It is?......Okay, thanks.

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:32:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> lissbon2002 writes:

>

> > I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a

> > thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive, it´s

> > an image producing process, which you can see very well when you

> > observe it.

> >

> > Len

> >

> > I agree with Len.

> >

> > Larry

>

Nope..........'You' are not separate from the 'thought'.

Go to the corner with Stephen.

toombaru

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:06:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> lissbon2002 writes:

>

> > I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including

> > thoughts.

> >

> > Len

>

> L.E: I agree with Len.

>

> Larry

>

Nope.

A swing.....and a miss.

Thinking that you are 'looking at thought' is merely another separate thought.

(Now think about this)

toombaru

March 6, 2006

In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:47:40 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

<lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 1:30:31 PM Pacific Standard

Time,

> > > > > lissbon2002@ writes:

> > > > >

> > > > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >toombaru

> > > > > >

> > > > > > nonsense.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Len

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > L.E: Depends how you look at it, and who is looking, if

> > anybody.

> > > > >

> > > > > Larry

> > > >

> > > > You see, I don´t think about it, I just look.

> > > >

> > > > Len

> > > >

> > >

> > > No..........you are the looking.

> > >

> > > toombaru

> >

> > I don´t care :-)

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> You still think that there is an I to care?

>

> toombaru

I don´t think ;-)

Len

That's what you think. Hehe.

Phil

March 6, 2006

In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:55:59 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:12:32 -0000

> " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000

> > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> >

> > ......................................

> > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness,

> > >>

> > > Patricia

> > >

> >

> > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the illusion

of I am) is

> the

> > crux of our problem.

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there really

a 'problem'?

> >

> > Phil

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

>

> Only in mind.

>

> toombaru

>

> Yeah, it's only a problem in the mind, but that includes our

entire

> experience

Not if the problem is in thought. Then it doesn´t include our entire

experience: when the thought is gone the problem is gone, but life

goes on.

Len

Is it possible that " thought " covers a lot more territory than you presently

allow? I would agree that thinking is the problem, but thought itself is

part of the process of perception. Without thought, there is no sensory

analysis

or stored memories of the event. As such, there can be no experience. Does a

brain dead person experience?

Phil

March 6, 2006

In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:01:09 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:20:55 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> > >

> > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard

Time,

> > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > >

> > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000

> > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> > >

> > > ......................................

> > > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness,

> > > >>

> > > > Patricia

> > > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the illusion

of

> I am) is the

> > > crux of our problem.

> > >

> > > toombaru

> > >

> > > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there really

> a 'problem'?

> > >

> > > Phil

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > >

> >

> > Only in mind.

> >

> > toombaru

>

> Thought is the only problem.

> That´s why it´s so important to discern it from facts.

>

> len

>

> Okay, so you see a factual world, and you see thinking about that

factual

> world as different and problematic.

Yes, only thinking makes it problematic. Thinking is responsible for

al problematic emotions.

> Fine, whatever. So, does not thinking yield

> the same facts to everyone? You figure we can perceive and

experience and

> make 'choices' and come up with facts without thought?

Thoughts which are creating problems, like thinking that something

or someone should be different, can be recognized as absurd and

vanish. The rest of thoughts will stay and do their job.

Len

Okay, now maybe we're getting somewhere. Now there are absurd thoughts and

there are okay thoughts that do their job. I agree, but a thinking process is

required in order to distinguish between the two, and every ego will come to

their own conclusion as to where to draw the line. One ego will notice that a

misspelled word is not of any significance and another ego will think it

reasonable or helpful to call the person an idiot.

So, isn't the idea of selecting what to think and what not to think part of

the process of perception itself, and therefore subjective, not definable or

controllable or fundamentally meaningful?

Phil

March 6, 2006

In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:04:51 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:34:56 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> You see, I don´t think about it, I just look.

>

> Len

> Thinking is not required (much) in order to 'see', but it seems to

me that

> what you're looking at is physicality rather than consciousness,

which is the

> source of physicality, and so what you believe to be a fact is

actually the

> product of consciousness. Thought is what brings about this

product of

> consciousness. How ironic. In your distaste for thought, all that

you can see is the

> product of your thought, but you can't see that this is so.

>

> Phil

I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including

thoughts.

Len

Yes, and it all requires thoughts, and so as Larry suggested, you do things

pretty much the same way everybody else does. My suspicion is that you spend

a lot of time observing your thoughts, which is not a new technique to anyone

here, I would guess. Notice that, in order for you to perceive your

thoughts, you first need to have the thought that you are going to do that,

then you

have to lose track of that thought, then allow another thought to arise, then

remember that you wanted to monitor your thoughts, and then notice the

thought that just occurred, which requires searching your memory from a

fraction

of a second ago, because you can't think one thought and watch it at the same

time.

The point is that there's a tremendous amount of mental processing going on

all the time and only a small fraction of it ever becomes conscious.

Phil

March 6, 2006

In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:08:06 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:14:41 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> > > > " Facts " exist only in thought.

> > > >

> > > > toombaru

> > >

> > > nonsense.

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> >

> > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

> >

> > toombaru

>

> Feel your breath.

>

> Len

>

> Here's something else for 'you' to 'think' about: Feeling arises

from

> thought. If you're feeling, the thought (which is 'you' perceiving

the breath)

> already snuck by without you noticing it. It can do this because,

while you

> haven't given up thinking, you have given up noticing the thinking.

>

> Phil

I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a

thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive, it´s

an image producing process, which you can see very well when you

observe it.

Len

It does take a thought to perceive a thought. Look very closely and see.

Yes, thought works with images. Thought creates the images. Where else would

they come from?

Phil

March 6, 2006

In a message dated 3/5/2006 10:28:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:28:46 EST

epston

Re: Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

In a message dated 3/5/2006 6:03:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,

lastrain writes:

> In Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

> >

> >In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:32:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> >lissbon2002 writes:

> >

> >>I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a

> >>thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive, it´s

> >>an image producing process, which you can see very well when you

> >>observe it.

> >>

> >>Len

> >>

> >>I agree with Len.

> >>

> >>Larry

> >

>

> Nope..........'You' are not separate from the 'thought'.

>

> Go to the corner with Stephen.

>

> toombaru

>

> L.E: He didn't say he was separate from the 'thought. "

He said: " It really doesn´t take a thought to perceive a thought. Thought

itself cannot perceive,. " Reading skills problem?

Larry Epston

What he's implying is that there is a thought and then there is a perceiver

of a thought, which is to say something separate from the thought.

Comprehension skills problem?

Phil

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/5/2006 6:03:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> lastrain writes:

>

> > In Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote:

> > >

> > >In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:32:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > >lissbon2002@ writes:

> > >

> > >>I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a

> > >>thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive, it´s

> > >>an image producing process, which you can see very well when you

> > >>observe it.

> > >>

> > >>Len

> > >>

> > >>I agree with Len.

> > >>

> > >>Larry

> > >

> >

> > Nope..........'You' are not separate from the 'thought'.

> >

> > Go to the corner with Stephen.

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> > L.E: He didn't say he was separate from the 'thought. "

> He said: " It really doesn´t take a thought to perceive a thought. Thought

> itself cannot perceive,. " Reading skills problem?

>

> Larry Epston

>

> >

Perhaps you could clarify what a thought actually is....and who has it.

That may simplify this discussion.

toombaru

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/5/2006 10:28:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:28:46 EST

> epston

> Re: Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> In a message dated 3/5/2006 6:03:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> lastrain writes:

>

> > In Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote:

> > >

> > >In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:32:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > >lissbon2002@ writes:

> > >

> > >>I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a

> > >>thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot

perceive, it´s

> > >>an image producing process, which you can see very well when

you

> > >>observe it.

> > >>

> > >>Len

> > >>

> > >>I agree with Len.

> > >>

> > >>Larry

> > >

> >

> > Nope..........'You' are not separate from the 'thought'.

> >

> > Go to the corner with Stephen.

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> > L.E: He didn't say he was separate from the 'thought. "

> He said: " It really doesn´t take a thought to perceive a thought.

Thought

> itself cannot perceive,. " Reading skills problem?

>

> Larry Epston

>

> What he's implying is that there is a thought and then there is a

perceiver

> of a thought, which is to say something separate from the thought.

> Comprehension skills problem?

>

> Phil

*******

Aww, shucks. That's what I wanted to write. Ya' beat me to it.

Lol.

" Silver "

Sign In

Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest