Guest guest Report post Posted March 5, 2006 In a message dated 3/5/2006 6:08:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, lastrain writes: > >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 L.E: I agree with you, but that's not what he is talking about. He is using language to describe experience, perception which is not a thought, but he is using thought/language to describe it to you. Isn't that obvious? And so are you, and from your ego which you won't admit. Because without an ego, the ego, your organism's ego, you couldn't be talking or writing or communicating. Seems to me. Having an ego isn't bad, it's what is the nature of your ego. Kind, mean, cruel, generous, etc. Every human, and maybe every mammel has an ego, is an ego although a few can discard it, or minimize it. Why argue about it? The self that has the ego needs the ego to communicate. Without the ego, the self is silent, it just is, exists, is present in the moment. The statement, " I have an ego, or my ego, or my self, " implies there is someone or something behind or originating the ego like a lobster who has a shell. At some point, the shell is not the lobster, but before that point, it is the lobster. Perhaps you are a being without an ego anymore, but why make a big deal out of it. You are still the same organism that had an ego for a long time before discarding it, perhaps. Like a lobster that can eventually, but not before, discard its shell. Larry Epston www.epston.com > > > > > - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 6:08:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, > lastrain writes: > > > >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 > > L.E: I agree with you, but that's not what he is talking about. > He is using language to describe experience, perception which is not a > thought, but he is using thought/language to describe it to you. Hummm ....using thought to describe that which isn't thought. Are you sure that you want to stick with that? Isn't that > obvious? Not at all. And so are you, and from your ego which you won't admit. Because without > an ego, the ego, your organism's ego, you couldn't be talking or writing or > communicating. Seems to me. I forgot......What is the ego again. > Having an ego isn't bad, What is the nature of this 'thing' that has an ego? it's what is the nature of your ego. Kind, mean, > cruel, generous, etc. Every human, and maybe every mammel has an ego, is an ego . Nope. > although a few can discard it, or minimize it. Like they can discard their shadow? Why argue about it? The self > that has the ego needs the ego to communicate. Where do you get this stuff. Without the ego, the self is > silent, it just is, exists, is present in the moment. The statement, " I have an > ego, or my ego, or my self, " implies there is someone or something behind or > originating the ego like a lobster who has a shell. At some point, the shell > is not the lobster, but before that point, it is the lobster. Perhaps you are > a being without an ego anymore, but why make a big deal out of it. You are > still the same organism that had an ego for a long time before discarding it, > perhaps. Like a lobster that can eventually, but not before, discard its shell. > > > Larry Epston > www.epston.com Larry..................Go to the corner. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:01:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, lastrain writes: > L.E: I agree with you, but that's not what he is talking about. > >He is using language to describe experience, perception which is not a > >thought, but he is using thought/language to describe it to you. > > > Toombaru: Hummm ....using thought to describe that which isn't thought. > > Are you sure that you want to stick with that? L.E: Why is that a problem for you? A burp or fart is not a thought, and hearing it or smelling it is not a thought, but talking about it or writing about it is. We use thinking and talking to communicate about actual events all the time. The actual events are not thinking unless we get into the " everything is a dream " or a thought in the mind of the divine again. If the divine or infinite consciousness is making all this reality up then I suppose everything is a thought in the Infinite Mind. But in our ordinary world we can make distinctions between things, events and thoughts. Larry Epston > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 4:34:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, wwoehr writes: > > What would Larry do without the " Divine " ? > > He would be a shabby little human as you and me, wouldn't he ? > > Werner L.E: The " divine " is just something to talk about, nothing more. And I don't see we humans as " shabby " as you do. We are life along with all the rest of life. It just is and I accpet that. Always so negaitive. Larry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:01:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, > lastrain writes: > > > L.E: I agree with you, but that's not what he is talking about. > > >He is using language to describe experience, perception which is not a > > >thought, but he is using thought/language to describe it to you. > > > > > > Toombaru: Hummm ....using thought to describe that which isn't thought. > > > > Are you sure that you want to stick with that? > > L.E: Why is that a problem for you? A burp or fart is not a thought, and > hearing it or smelling it is not a thought, but talking about it or writing about > it is. We use thinking and talking to communicate about actual events all the > time. The actual events are not thinking unless we get into the " everything > is a dream " or a thought in the mind of the divine again. If the divine or > infinite consciousness is making all this reality up then I suppose everything > is a thought in the Infinite Mind. But in our ordinary world we can make > distinctions between things, events and thoughts. > > Larry Epston > larry, what you write is so weak. and that conclusion with Infinite Mind and ordinary world... disgusting Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 What would Larry do without the " Divine " ? He would be a shabby little human as you and me, wouldn't he ? Werner Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:01:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > L.E: I agree with you, but that's not what he is talking about. > > > >He is using language to describe experience, perception which is > not a > > > >thought, but he is using thought/language to describe it to you. > > > > > > > > > Toombaru: Hummm ....using thought to describe that which isn't > thought. > > > > > > Are you sure that you want to stick with that? > > > > L.E: Why is that a problem for you? A burp or fart is not a > thought, and > > hearing it or smelling it is not a thought, but talking about it or > writing about > > it is. We use thinking and talking to communicate about actual > events all the > > time. The actual events are not thinking unless we get into > the " everything > > is a dream " or a thought in the mind of the divine again. If the > divine or > > infinite consciousness is making all this reality up then I suppose > everything > > is a thought in the Infinite Mind. But in our ordinary world we > can make > > distinctions between things, events and thoughts. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > larry, what you write is so weak. and that conclusion with Infinite > Mind and ordinary world... disgusting > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 Hmm, Larry, The Devine is just something to talk about ? Ok forget it and now let us talk about you anus, do you wash it regularily ? Werner Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/6/2006 4:34:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, > wwoehr writes: > > > > > What would Larry do without the " Divine " ? > > > > He would be a shabby little human as you and me, wouldn't he ? > > > > Werner > > L.E: The " divine " is just something to talk about, nothing more. > And I don't see we humans as " shabby " as you do. We are life along with all > the rest of life. It just is and I accpet that. Always so negaitive. > > Larry > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:01:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > L.E: I agree with you, but that's not what he is talking about. > > > >He is using language to describe experience, perception which is > not a > > > >thought, but he is using thought/language to describe it to you. > > > > > > > > > Toombaru: Hummm ....using thought to describe that which isn't > thought. > > > > > > Are you sure that you want to stick with that? > > > > L.E: Why is that a problem for you? A burp or fart is not a > thought, and > > hearing it or smelling it is not a thought, but talking about it or > writing about > > it is. We use thinking and talking to communicate about actual > events all the > > time. The actual events are not thinking unless we get into > the " everything > > is a dream " or a thought in the mind of the divine again. If the > divine or > > infinite consciousness is making all this reality up then I suppose > everything > > is a thought in the Infinite Mind. But in our ordinary world we > can make > > distinctions between things, events and thoughts. > > > > Larry Epston > > it is all weak because it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about. it is clear by your own words. all distinctions you write about are based on thought. it is disgusting because you are trying to present your suppositions as something with some validity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:01:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, > lastrain writes: > > > L.E: I agree with you, but that's not what he is talking about. > > >He is using language to describe experience, perception which is not a > > >thought, but he is using thought/language to describe it to you. > > > > > > Toombaru: Hummm ....using thought to describe that which isn't thought. > > > > Are you sure that you want to stick with that? > > L.E: Why is that a problem for you? A burp or fart is not a thought, and > hearing it or smelling it is not a thought, but talking about it or writing about > it is. We use thinking and talking to communicate about actual events all the > time. The actual events are not thinking unless we get into the " everything > is a dream " or a thought in the mind of the divine again. If the divine or > infinite consciousness is making all this reality up then I suppose everything > is a thought in the Infinite Mind. But in our ordinary world we can make > distinctions between things, events and thoughts. > > Larry Epston > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me something that doesn't have a name. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 " The true Guru will never humiliate you, nor will he estrange you from yourself. He will constantly bring you back to the fact of your inherent perfection and encourage you to seek within. He knows you need nothing, not even him, and is never tired of reminding you. But the self-appointed Guru is more concerned with himself than with his disciples. " - Nisargadatta Maharaj InnerQuest has been promoting Ramesh Balsekar since 1996 and many people have visited him through our recommendation. Therefore, I feel that it is my duty to inform everyone of the traps and contradictions that have recently become apparent in Ramesh's 'teaching', which he claims is part of the Advaita Truth. A true Advaita master would never abuse or ask anything from his disciples for his own interest. Ramesh conveniently uses Advaitic concepts, like 'non-doership', to permit any kind of behaviour. When he claims that " he is not the doer " , then one has to ask, " Who then is asking for sexual favours from his disciples? " The Self never asks for anything because It is complete and that is why a true master has no desire. Ranjit Maharaj and Nisargadatta Maharaj (Ramesh's Master) are both disciples of the great Master Siddharameshwar Maharaj. I had the extreme good luck to spend much time together with Ranjit Maharaj, in his small room in Bombay, in Paris and in Brittany. I saw that He was an authentic Master, living from the Final Reality - That which we all are, beyond name and form, beyond all knowledge. When He taught, He always said, " This is not my teaching. All credit goes to my Master. " He was extremely devoted to His Master and to Freedom. His essential message was: " How can something exist in nothing? " , which is the true Advaita teaching. Maharaj would say, " You suffer because you have taken the touch of the mind and have love for the illusion. In Reality, nothing happens and nothing is real. The choice is yours now - either you take it to heart or you do not. " Sri Ranjit lived by His words and had no interest, whatsoever, in 'worldly affairs'. For me, He was Absolutely Free and a real Advaita teacher. Below is an account written by a good friend of mine who attended the last Kovalam retreat in December 2004 with Ramesh in Kerala, South India. Considering the seriousness of the situation, I feel the necessity to act by conveying his account to sincere seekers of Freedom. I have always felt that once the truth of a situation is revealed, I must follow my heart and act upon it out of deep respect for the Truth. Following my heart, in the light of Advaita, has always been my true Master. I encourage you to listen to your heart after reading the account below. Darrell InnerQuest, Paris ACCOUNT FROM AN ATTENDEE OF THE KOVALAM 2004 RETREAT I hope that what I have written below will serve to reveal actual facts, and thereby lead the reader to investigate the reality of the deeper meaning behind those facts. Two years ago I traveled to Bombay for my first meeting with Ramesh Balsekar, in order to verify whether his teachings were genuine or not. I subsequently went there to see Ramesh again several times. The last time I saw Ramesh was in Kovalam, Kerala in December 2004. These are some of the things, which I observed occur in Bombay and at Kovalam. In Bombay, in the large room, next door to the satsang room in Ramesh's residence, I noticed numerous photographs of Ramesh, some of which showed him when he was young, in a pose like that of a statue of a Greek athlete of antiquity. Every photograph was for sale at a rather high price for India. I was puzzled, ill at ease, finding it surprising, and even out of place, that a 'sage' would expose his physical body in such a way and make money out of selling photographs such as these. Before seeing these photos, I had just been listening to Ramesh give a rather basic talk on humility, and on the absence of pride and arrogance in a sage. And here I was face to face with these more or less questionable photographs being sold in apparent total contradiction to the discourse I had just heard. I also noticed books being sold on the premises. Many people purchase books there, and I often heard Ramesh himself encourage visitors to buy copies. The sale of the audio recording of the day's talk on a CD caught my attention because of its price: 500 rupees, (approximately $12 US, or 9 Euros), which is also a high price for India. One fact which always surprised and shocked me was that Ramesh often told his listeners that he only teaches those who already live a comfortable life, those who have no material worries. Clearly, Ramesh's visitors are neither poor or financially needy, and many are actually wealthy. One cannot avoid noticing that money appears to be quite important to Ramesh. On one of my stays in Bombay, I asked Ramesh questions on the absolute essential truth (paramartha satya), and on the relative expressed truth (samvritti satya). These words relate to traditional Indian teachings. I ever only received vague and superficial answers from him, which did not help me at all. If Ramesh was not responding clearly, I wondered whether it was due to ignorance on his part, or due to lack of understanding of the questions? Then, I made my way to the 2004 Kovalam seminar. Among the 155 participants representing about twenty countries were two wealthy Indians. Half of the attendees were meeting Ramesh for the first time. A group of Germans, who seemed to have known Ramesh for a long time, were organizing and running the seminar. The general content of what was being taught at the seminar was identical to what I had already heard in Bombay. The first thing which struck me was Ramesh's response to a psychiatric medical doctor of Jewish origin who spoke of the suffering that had pursued him all his life. His father had died in the Nazi camps. The fact that he had never met his father had always been a source of major suffering for him. His sincere account was touching as he expressed it openly in front of everyone. Ramesh's callous response was, " This is just a happening, and you have not had any choice. You can only accept! " I will add that on several occasions Ramesh put " a Hitler and hundreds of Mother Teresas " on the same level. I wondered why Ramesh approached someone's suffering with such shocking and useless words. (I will remark here that several participants were of Jewish origin.) Then this same doctor asked Ramesh, " I have the impression of a feeling of energy in your presence, could you explain why to me? " Ramesh's nonsequitur response was, " You have spent a thousand Euros for this seminar, but if you come to my house, it is free. Although this should not prevent you from making a donation. " The German staff had a lot of fun with this reply. The topic of donations was raised several times during the seminar. Each time, Ramesh reminded the audience that the donations which benefit the donor, are those which 'pinch' the donor, and that without " feeling this pain " the donation cannot be positive for the donor. A young American of Russian origin, who was very shocked by these words, spoke to several of us and expressed his indignation, " But how can a guru ask for money like this? " Right up to the last day, this chap was very unhappy about how the seminar was turning out. He was not the only one to be so shocked. Several of us came to understand that the profits from the seminar turned out to be quite a large sum for Ramesh. It is a known fact that using pseudo-spirituality as a means to pressure people into giving large sums of money has always been a handy way for the teacher to grow rich at the expense of others. On the second to last day, the German organizer handed each participant a paper which explained how hard the cooks worked in the hotel where we had our meals. On this paper, he suggested that each one of us give a tip of 1,500 rupees at the end of the seminar. A tip which he would personally hand out. (To the cooks, we wondered?) Several people expressed their indignation at being requested to give such a large sum of money (the price of the seminar being already high), as well as their doubts as to where this money was actually going. One of them told me: " It is impossible that this organizer would hand 225,000 rupees, [approximately $5,000 US, or 4,000 Euros] over to the cooks. I do not believe it! " I also saw that the price of the books being sold at Kovalam was higher than their usual price. Toward the middle of the seminar, several women appeared to be quite ill at ease and unhappy, whereas they did not appear at all like that at the beginning. Ramesh's German staff themselves appeared a little agitated, distant, preoccupied and difficult to approach. I observed all of this wondering what could be the reason. A young American woman, who appeared to be unhappier than the others, seemed quite affected. She remained isolated, sad and withdrawn in her own corner. A Mexican American man was comforting her. He did the same for several women who appeared to go to him for support. Two other men were also offering them help. Again, I was wondering what was going on. At the end of the second to last satsang, a young western doctor, who had studied traditional Indian medicine, asked Ramesh: " Do you think that a guru can use his teaching to justify his own actions, to justify his own behavior? " The question was direct. Ramesh appeared to be taken aback, and gave a vague reply, " Whatever happens is only an event, the will of God, a cosmic law... and the guru is not concerned by the event. " As it was the end of that satsang, a woman came out to play the harmonium and sing a devotional song. During the week Ramesh told a story, (which he also told in Bombay), about the sex life of a well known guru who lived not far from Bangalore. A disciple, who had been with this guru for over twenty years, caught him in the middle of a sex act with young boys. He had never previously known that his guru did this. Very shocked, he came back to see the guru telling him that he could not tolerate such actions, and that he was leaving the ashram immediately. The guru's response was, " You have created the problem. Now you have to solve it! " Ramesh expressed his agreement with this response and said, " Everything is only an event ruled by cosmic law and by divine will... It is the programming of the body-mind mechanism... and nothing can be done about it... the guru is not concerned! " Ramesh then told us another similar story about another guru living near Bombay. I later took it that he was referring to Satya Sai Baba and Muktananda respectively. Then he attempted to impugn the moral standing of Nisargadatta Maharaj himself. I asked myself: " Why is Ramesh telling these upsetting/sordid stories that shock so many people in the assembly? " I had the feeling that he was attempting to 'destroy' the criteria of what an authentic guru is. Ramesh added that he taught a 'negative path', and that Nisargadatta Maharaj taught a 'positive path', meaning that he, Ramesh taught only the 'neti, neti,' 'not this, not this,' (or 'negative' approach, which uses concepts to lead beyond all concepts), whereas Maharaj taught a 'positive' approach, relying on whatever the concepts point to as being real. I remember that these words raised indignation in several people. After the satsang, an English lady came to share her annoyance with me: " Nisargadatta teaching a 'positive path'?!... What does Ramesh mean to say about him? It is not true. Maharaj has always taught the 'negative way'! " I also disagreed with Ramesh's words. An important moment took place when Ramesh stated that bhakti (devotion to God) was totally useless and had no meaning, and that only jnana (knowledge) was important. He added, " You are probably surprised to hear this, because it must be the first time you are hearing it, isn't it? " A man seated behind me started crying, as if he had just lost all references. I tried to comfort him as well as I could. I was troubled and disturbed seeing the impact Ramesh's words were having on the psyche of this sensitive spiritual seeker. Simply speaking, I felt that Ramesh was trying to say to us that he was the only one who had right understanding, and not the gurus who had gone before him. I was bewildered. Later, a young Australian student in neuro-psychology told me that Ramesh's behavior and demeanor were troubling to him. On the second to last day, I was informed by a lady participant that Ramesh had had a mistress for a number of years (as well as other women before that), and since the relationship had to be kept hidden, his mistress was suffering from this abnormal and difficult situation. I also was told that the events with women taking place in Kovalam also took place in Ramesh's Bombay home. I could not believe my ears. I wonder if Mrs. Balsekar and her children know about all this, and if so, how they feel? Then came the last morning. The organizer of the seminar gave a long speech to us from the platform. He went on for about twenty minutes before Ramesh arrived. The organizer appeared visibly troubled and ill at ease. He said, " I have known Ramesh for twenty-five years. Each one of us has his faults and his qualities... Even if Ramesh has some faults, I am ever grateful to him. For me this seminar is important... " Then, he traced back his history with Ramesh. I and some of the participants looked at each other. We felt we knew what was troubling him, (the news about Ramesh and women). But we were far from imagining what was about to happen, of which we were all going to be witnesses. At the very beginning of the satsang, a woman, who was about fifty years old, and who had known him for a long time, spoke to Ramesh in tears, saying, " Why? Why do you do this... with your teaching...? " She was distraught and at a loss, apparently torn between a teaching which she considered to be essential, and a series of facts which she was now discovering. Then the young western doctor asked Ramesh, " Do you have a mistress? " Ramesh responded, " No, no. " At that point Ramesh was lying. He went on to then say, " Each event is just a 'happening', a part of the body-mind mechanism's programming, and the guru is not affected... " Ramesh then pulled out a paper which had been placed next to him, and read a letter of apology which he had prepared beforehand, " If I have hurt you I apologize... But all this is only a happening, and it does not concern me... " I observed the German organizer at the back of the room, who seemed very uneasy. It seemed to me that he had known about it all, and for a long time. In the end, it appeared to me that Ramesh simply did not give a damn about the hurt he had caused. He said, " You have created the problem. Now solve it... you have been asking me for hugs and whatever happened afterwards is your fault... I have nothing to do with it... It is you who are creating the problem. " The young American woman, who had appeared unhappy and withdrawn on the previous days, and whose emotional condition I now surmised was probably the result of Ramesh's sexual advances, stood up and addressed herself to him by reading a quote from Shakespeare. Ramesh responded by saying that he had never read anything of Shakespeare. She then asked him several times: " Do you plan to stop behaving in this criminal way? " She spoke quite forcefully. (Oddly enough, some of the participants said later during the meal that she should not have spoken out.). This appeared to be a very difficult moment for Ramesh, as this young woman had been very determined in her manner of speech. Then another woman of German origin, (but living in the US), stood up and expressed her indignation by telling him how much she had trusted him, saying that Ramesh was going to have to face others, as well as those who still trusted him, and those who did not trust him any longer, including some men. An old time disciple, whose name is Elka, tried to defend Ramesh, but she was not very convincing considering what had just been said and heard. I was struck by the way people looked at the end of the seminar, by the way that 'denial' seemed to play its part as a protective mechanism against anguish and anxiety, and by the emotional shock which the poor participants seemed to be in, not knowing what they should do or think. For my part, I left the seminar with a feeling of disgust, as well as a feeling of compassion for all those who undoubtedly would be suffering from such a strange experience. What shocked me the most at the end, was to see that what had just been undeniably heard, was already being 'denied' by some of the participants. I have written all of this from memory, and I regret not having had the presence of mind to write down or record what I heard as it was happening. I know that some of the participants did so, and I would encourage them to share with others their direct recording of the events which took place. I would also advise everyone to practice viveka (discrimination) in considering the events which occurred, and in considering the worth of Ramesh Balsekar as a spiritual teacher in the light of such events. I am in full agreement with Timothy Conway's two essays below (after the message from Wayne Liquorman). They show an evident erudition guided by an authentic understanding of the paths to realization, one of which is Advaita Vedanta. Nirodhânanda March 25th, 2005 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:01:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > L.E: I agree with you, but that's not what he is talking about. > > > >He is using language to describe experience, perception which is not a > > > >thought, but he is using thought/language to describe it to you. > > > > > > > > > Toombaru: Hummm ....using thought to describe that which isn't thought. > > > > > > Are you sure that you want to stick with that? > > > > L.E: Why is that a problem for you? A burp or fart is not a thought, and > > hearing it or smelling it is not a thought, but talking about it or writing about > > it is. We use thinking and talking to communicate about actual events all the > > time. The actual events are not thinking unless we get into the " everything > > is a dream " or a thought in the mind of the divine again. If the divine or > > infinite consciousness is making all this reality up then I suppose everything > > is a thought in the Infinite Mind. But in our ordinary world we can make > > distinctions between things, events and thoughts. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me something that doesn't have a name. > > > > toombaru ********** Do you know how to do Interac E-Mail Money Transfers? In Canada we have a whole line of No Name brands at the grocery store. Ah, never mind. You get to keep your money. No Name is the name of the line. Shucks. " Silver " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 9:54:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:27:12 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:01:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, > lastrain writes: > > > L.E: I agree with you, but that's not what he is talking about. > > >He is using language to describe experience, perception which is not a > > >thought, but he is using thought/language to describe it to you. > > > > > > Toombaru: Hummm ....using thought to describe that which isn't thought. > > > > Are you sure that you want to stick with that? > > L.E: Why is that a problem for you? A burp or fart is not a thought, and > hearing it or smelling it is not a thought, but talking about it or writing about > it is. We use thinking and talking to communicate about actual events all the > time. The actual events are not thinking unless we get into the " everything > is a dream " or a thought in the mind of the divine again. If the divine or > infinite consciousness is making all this reality up then I suppose everything > is a thought in the Infinite Mind. But in our ordinary world we can make > distinctions between things, events and thoughts. > > Larry Epston > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me something that doesn't have a name. toombaru You're asking Larry to communicate this to you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 8:29:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, lastrain writes: > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me something that > doesn't have a name. > > toombaru > > L.E: Come here and I'll hit you with my big stick. > > Larry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 5:30:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB writes: > >> > >>Toombaru: Hummm ....using thought to describe that which isn't thought. > >> > >>Are you sure that you want to stick with that? > > > >L.E: Why is that a problem for you? A burp or fart is not a thought, and > >hearing it or smelling it is not a thought, but talking about it or > writing about > > it is. We use thinking and talking to communicate about actual events all > the > >time. The actual events are not thinking unless we get into the > " everything > >is a dream " or a thought in the mind of the divine again. If the divine > or > >infinite consciousness is making all this reality up then I suppose > everything > >is a thought in the Infinite Mind. But in our ordinary world we can make > > distinctions between things, events and thoughts. > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me something that > doesn't have a name. > > toombaru > > > L.E: As I already wrote, " come here and I'll hit you with my big stick. " > > Larry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 6, 2006 In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:56:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 02:28:55 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/6/2006 9:54:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:27:12 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:01:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > L.E: I agree with you, but that's not what he is talking about. > > > >He is using language to describe experience, perception which is not a > > > >thought, but he is using thought/language to describe it to you. > > > > > > > > > Toombaru: Hummm ....using thought to describe that which isn't thought. > > > > > > Are you sure that you want to stick with that? > > > > L.E: Why is that a problem for you? A burp or fart is not a thought, and > > hearing it or smelling it is not a thought, but talking about it or > writing about > > it is. We use thinking and talking to communicate about actual events all > the > > time. The actual events are not thinking unless we get into the > " everything > > is a dream " or a thought in the mind of the divine again. If the divine > or > > infinite consciousness is making all this reality up then I suppose > everything > > is a thought in the Infinite Mind. But in our ordinary world we can make > > distinctions between things, events and thoughts. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me something that > doesn't have a name. > > > > toombaru > > > > You're asking Larry to communicate this to you? > > The offer is extended to all. toombaru The offer is meaningless. There is no disagreement. Larry already said " A burp or fart is not a thought, and > > hearing it or smelling it is not a thought, but talking about it or > writing about > > it is.. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 7, 2006 What occurs to me is the remarkable convenience of such an approach. First of all, the process of negation of the illusion, or for that matter words themselves, is child's play since the answer is always 'no' within the defined context. There is no risk of being wrong or challenged. Secondly, even if one gets brave and offers a conceptual understanding, it need never be defended since the author can simply conceptually vanish at any uncomfortable moment, or choose to negate argument or the counter argument. So, yes, any sort of communication is of questionable value to begin with. In a message dated 3/6/2006 7:53:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 22:50:54 -0500 " Fred " <thejman Re: Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking having a discussion with someone who really isn't here seems redumbdant - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Monday, March 06, 2006 10:06 PM Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me > > > something that > > > > > doesn't have a name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're asking Larry to communicate this to you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The offer is extended to all. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are still to deliver on > > > your year old " promise " , Toombaru! > > > > > > Quit it . . . > > > > > > > > > I offered a hundred thousand dollars to anyone who could tell me > what 'enlightenment' > > was...........To date there are no takers. > > Here: > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enlightenment > > en.light.en.ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ltn-mnt) > n. > > The act or a means of enlightening. > The state of being enlightened. > > Enlightenment A philosophical movement of the 18th century that > emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted > doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian > reforms. > > Buddhism & Hinduism. A blessed state in which the individual > transcends desire and suffering and attains Nirvana. > > > Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, > Fourth Edition > 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. > > > > > > > > Every seeker wants it.......but not one knows what it is. > > > > > > Do you find that odd? > > > > toombaru > > > Gee..........I'm afraid that I still can't really see what 'enlightenment' really is. Enlightenment: the state of being enlightened. (see what I mean) Perhaps it would help if you could explain to whom this blessed speculation could apply. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/6/2006 9:54:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:27:12 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:01:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > L.E: I agree with you, but that's not what he is talking about. > > > >He is using language to describe experience, perception which is not a > > > >thought, but he is using thought/language to describe it to you. > > > > > > > > > Toombaru: Hummm ....using thought to describe that which isn't thought. > > > > > > Are you sure that you want to stick with that? > > > > L.E: Why is that a problem for you? A burp or fart is not a thought, and > > hearing it or smelling it is not a thought, but talking about it or > writing about > > it is. We use thinking and talking to communicate about actual events all > the > > time. The actual events are not thinking unless we get into the > " everything > > is a dream " or a thought in the mind of the divine again. If the divine > or > > infinite consciousness is making all this reality up then I suppose > everything > > is a thought in the Infinite Mind. But in our ordinary world we can make > > distinctions between things, events and thoughts. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me something that > doesn't have a name. > > > > toombaru > > > > You're asking Larry to communicate this to you? > > The offer is extended to all. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 7, 2006 [...] > > > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me something that > > doesn't have a name. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > You're asking Larry to communicate this to you? > > > > > > > The offer is extended to all. > > toombaru > You are still to deliver on your year old " promise " , Toombaru! Quit it . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me > something that > > > doesn't have a name. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > You're asking Larry to communicate this to you? > > > > > > > > > > > > The offer is extended to all. > > > > toombaru > > > > > You are still to deliver on > your year old " promise " , Toombaru! > > Quit it . . . > I offered a hundred thousand dollars to anyone who could tell me what 'enlightenment' was...........To date there are no takers. Every seeker wants it.......but not one knows what it is. Do you find that odd? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me > > something that > > > > doesn't have a name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're asking Larry to communicate this to you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The offer is extended to all. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > You are still to deliver on > > your year old " promise " , Toombaru! > > > > Quit it . . . > > > > > I offered a hundred thousand dollars to anyone who could tell me what 'enlightenment' > was...........To date there are no takers. Here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enlightenment en•light•en•ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ltn-mnt) n. The act or a means of enlightening. The state of being enlightened. Enlightenment A philosophical movement of the 18th century that emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms. Buddhism & Hinduism. A blessed state in which the individual transcends desire and suffering and attains Nirvana. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. > > Every seeker wants it.......but not one knows what it is. > > > Do you find that odd? > > toombaru > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me > > > something that > > > > > doesn't have a name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're asking Larry to communicate this to you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The offer is extended to all. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are still to deliver on > > > your year old " promise " , Toombaru! > > > > > > Quit it . . . > > > > > > > > > I offered a hundred thousand dollars to anyone who could tell me > what 'enlightenment' > > was...........To date there are no takers. > > Here: > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enlightenment > > en•light•en•ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ltn-mnt) > n. > > The act or a means of enlightening. > The state of being enlightened. > > Enlightenment A philosophical movement of the 18th century that > emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted > doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian > reforms. > > Buddhism & Hinduism. A blessed state in which the individual > transcends desire and suffering and attains Nirvana. > > > Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, > Fourth Edition > 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. > > > > > > > > Every seeker wants it.......but not one knows what it is. > > > > > > Do you find that odd? > > > > toombaru > > > Gee..........I'm afraid that I still can't really see what 'enlightenment' really is. Enlightenment: the state of being enlightened. (see what I mean) Perhaps it would help if you could explain to whom this blessed speculation could apply. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me > > > > something that > > > > > > doesn't have a name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're asking Larry to communicate this to you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The offer is extended to all. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are still to deliver on > > > > your year old " promise " , Toombaru! > > > > > > > > Quit it . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > I offered a hundred thousand dollars to anyone who could tell me > > what 'enlightenment' > > > was...........To date there are no takers. > > > > Here: > > > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enlightenment > > > > en•light•en•ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ltn-mnt) > > n. > > > > The act or a means of enlightening. > > The state of being enlightened. > > > > Enlightenment A philosophical movement of the 18th century that > > emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted > > doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian > > reforms. > > > > Buddhism & Hinduism. A blessed state in which the individual > > transcends desire and suffering and attains Nirvana. > > > > > > Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, > > Fourth Edition > > 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every seeker wants it.......but not one knows what it is. > > > > > > > > > Do you find that odd? > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > Gee..........I'm afraid that I still can't really see what 'enlightenment' really is. > > > Enlightenment: the state of being enlightened. > > (see what I mean) Buddhism & Hinduism: A blessed state in which the ___individual___ transcends desire and suffering and attains Nirvana. > > > Perhaps it would help if you could explain to whom this blessed speculation could apply. > > > > toombaru > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " > <adithya_comming@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me > > > > > something that > > > > > > > doesn't have a name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're asking Larry to communicate this to you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The offer is extended to all. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are still to deliver on > > > > > your year old " promise " , Toombaru! > > > > > > > > > > Quit it . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I offered a hundred thousand dollars to anyone who could tell > me > > > what 'enlightenment' > > > > was...........To date there are no takers. > > > > > > Here: > > > > > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enlightenment > > > > > > en•light•en•ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ltn-mnt) > > > n. > > > > > > The act or a means of enlightening. > > > The state of being enlightened. > > > > > > Enlightenment A philosophical movement of the 18th century that > > > emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted > > > doctrines and traditions and that brought about many > humanitarian > > > reforms. > > > > > > Buddhism & Hinduism. A blessed state in which the individual > > > transcends desire and suffering and attains Nirvana. > > > > > > > > > Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English > Language, > > > Fourth Edition > > > 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every seeker wants it.......but not one knows what it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you find that odd? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gee..........I'm afraid that I still can't really see > what 'enlightenment' really is. > > > > > > Enlightenment: the state of being enlightened. > > > > (see what I mean) > > > Buddhism & Hinduism: A blessed state > in which the ___individual___ > transcends desire and suffering > and attains Nirvana. > Kinda like a dark becomes enlightened when the sun comes up? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:56:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 07 Mar 2006 02:28:55 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/6/2006 9:54:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:27:12 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:01:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > L.E: I agree with you, but that's not what he is talking about. > > > > >He is using language to describe experience, perception which is not > a > > > > >thought, but he is using thought/language to describe it to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > Toombaru: Hummm ....using thought to describe that which isn't > thought. > > > > > > > > Are you sure that you want to stick with that? > > > > > > L.E: Why is that a problem for you? A burp or fart is not a thought, > and > > > hearing it or smelling it is not a thought, but talking about it or > > writing about > > > it is. We use thinking and talking to communicate about actual events > all > > the > > > time. The actual events are not thinking unless we get into the > > " everything > > > is a dream " or a thought in the mind of the divine again. If the > divine > > or > > > infinite consciousness is making all this reality up then I suppose > > everything > > > is a thought in the Infinite Mind. But in our ordinary world we can > make > > > distinctions between things, events and thoughts. > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me something that > > doesn't have a name. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > You're asking Larry to communicate this to you? > > > > > > > The offer is extended to all. > > toombaru > > > > The offer is meaningless. There is no disagreement. Larry already said " A > burp or fart is not a thought, and > > > hearing it or smelling it is not a thought, but talking about it or > > writing about > > > it is.. " > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 7, 2006 having a discussion with someone who really isn't here seems redumbdant - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Monday, March 06, 2006 10:06 PM Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can tell me > > > something that > > > > > doesn't have a name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're asking Larry to communicate this to you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The offer is extended to all. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are still to deliver on > > > your year old " promise " , Toombaru! > > > > > > Quit it . . . > > > > > > > > > I offered a hundred thousand dollars to anyone who could tell me > what 'enlightenment' > > was...........To date there are no takers. > > Here: > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enlightenment > > en.light.en.ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ltn-mnt) > n. > > The act or a means of enlightening. > The state of being enlightened. > > Enlightenment A philosophical movement of the 18th century that > emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted > doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian > reforms. > > Buddhism & Hinduism. A blessed state in which the individual > transcends desire and suffering and attains Nirvana. > > > Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, > Fourth Edition > 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. > > > > > > > > Every seeker wants it.......but not one knows what it is. > > > > > > Do you find that odd? > > > > toombaru > > > Gee..........I'm afraid that I still can't really see what 'enlightenment' really is. Enlightenment: the state of being enlightened. (see what I mean) Perhaps it would help if you could explain to whom this blessed speculation could apply. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
