Guest guest Report post Posted March 10, 2006 [Can we] so listen and observe, without the word, without remembrance, without all the movement of thought? Which means, complete attention; attention, not from a center but attention which has no center. If you have a center from which you are attending, that is merely a form of concentration. But if you are attending and there is no center, it means that you are giving complete attention; in that attention there is no time. J Krishnamurti -- The Network of Thought Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > [Can we] so listen and observe, without the word, without > remembrance, without all the movement of thought? Which > means, complete attention; attention, not from a center but > attention which has no center. If you have a center from > which you are attending, that is merely a form of > concentration. But if you are attending and there is no > center, it means that you are giving complete attention; in > that attention there is no time. > > J Krishnamurti -- The Network of Thought > Well said, but let´s not forget the necessity of attention for ones own self-centredness, without which the center will always remain active. At least this is how it seems to me. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 10, 2006 Until each heart beat isn`t fully danced, I will be restless, I will ask for the impossible, I will look for what cannot be seen, I will try to remember what I never forgot. Time can only stop, When I can stop in time. When melting into it, That second becomes the only one, Time stops. There is no one anymore, No-One is its fullness, No one is its fairness. .....deep peace.... Patricia > ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > [Can we] so listen and observe, without the word, without > > remembrance, without all the movement of thought? Which > > means, complete attention; attention, not from a center but > > attention which has no center. If you have a center from > > which you are attending, that is merely a form of > > concentration. But if you are attending and there is no > > center, it means that you are giving complete attention; in > > that attention there is no time. > > > > J Krishnamurti -- The Network of Thought > > > > > Well said, but let´s not forget the necessity of attention for ones > own self-centredness, without which the center will always remain > active. At least this is how it seems to me. > > Len > " Attention from a center " -- as he describes -- is the cause of self-centeredness, not the other way around. That is my view of this. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > [Can we] so listen and observe, without the word, without > > > remembrance, without all the movement of thought? Which > > > means, complete attention; attention, not from a center but > > > attention which has no center. If you have a center from > > > which you are attending, that is merely a form of > > > concentration. But if you are attending and there is no > > > center, it means that you are giving complete attention; in > > > that attention there is no time. > > > > > > J Krishnamurti -- The Network of Thought > > > > > > > > > Well said, but let´s not forget the necessity of attention for ones > > own self-centredness, without which the center will always remain > > active. At least this is how it seems to me. > > > > Len > > > > " Attention from a center " -- as he describes -- is the cause > of self-centeredness, not the other way around. That is my > view of this. > > Bill > Attention to the 'self' is the gravity around which the mnemonic debris swirls. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [Can we] so listen and observe, without the word, without > > > > remembrance, without all the movement of thought? Which > > > > means, complete attention; attention, not from a center but > > > > attention which has no center. If you have a center from > > > > which you are attending, that is merely a form of > > > > concentration. But if you are attending and there is no > > > > center, it means that you are giving complete attention; in > > > > that attention there is no time. > > > > > > > > J Krishnamurti -- The Network of Thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well said, but let´s not forget the necessity of attention for ones > > > own self-centredness, without which the center will always remain > > > active. At least this is how it seems to me. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > " Attention from a center " -- as he describes -- is the cause > > of self-centeredness, not the other way around. That is my > > view of this. > > > > Bill > > > > > Attention to the 'self' is the gravity around which the mnemonic debris swirls. > > Its time to sing your own song. > > toombaru > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 12, 2006 > > > > > > > > > [Can we] so listen and observe, without the word, without > > > remembrance, without all the movement of thought? Which > > > means, complete attention; attention, not from a center but > > > attention which has no center. If you have a center from > > > which you are attending, that is merely a form of > > > concentration. But if you are attending and there is no > > > center, it means that you are giving complete attention; in > > > that attention there is no time. > > > > > > J Krishnamurti -- The Network of Thought > > > > > > > > > Well said, but let´s not forget the necessity of attention for ones > > own self-centredness, without which the center will always remain > > active. At least this is how it seems to me. > > > > Len > > > > " Attention from a center " -- as he describes -- is the cause > of self-centeredness, not the other way around. That is my > view of this. > > Bill > Attention to the 'self' is the gravity around which the mnemonic debris swirls. toombaru it is juicy, it is pure joy, it is sparkling with fresh laughter and the only thing to be given is your open heart. Call it attention if you must. Patricia ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 12, 2006 In a message dated 3/12/2006 4:23:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, lissbon2002 writes: > >>> > >>> [Can we] so listen and observe, without the word, without > >>> remembrance, without all the movement of thought? Which > >>> means, complete attention; attention, not from a center but > >>> attention which has no center. If you have a center from > >>> which you are attending, that is merely a form of > >>> concentration. But if you are attending and there is no > >>> center, it means that you are giving complete attention; in > >>> that attention there is no time. > >>> > >>> J Krishnamurti -- The Network of Thought > >>> > >> > >> > >>Well said, but let´s not forget the necessity of attention for > ones > >>own self-centredness, without which the center will always > remain > >>active. At least this is how it seems to me. > >> > >>Len > >> > > > > " Attention from a center " -- as he describes -- is the cause > >of self-centeredness, not the other way around. That is my > >view of this. > > > >Bill > > > > Yes, but focusing on attention without a centre is itself a self- > centred movement in which the attention for the self-centredness > easily gets lost. A matter of making centrelessnesss into a kind of > desirable state. > It´s a paradox, but sometimes, there is just spontaneous attention > for the self-centred activity, without a goal, without > centrelessness as some kind of ideal. > > Len L.E: Krishnamurti was a fraud. He holds out carrots just in front of your nose that are not real. Year after year, same old crap. Master of the unattainable. If that's a virtue, so be it. You have to listen to how he unrolls one impossible goal after another with no way to get there or here. Compare him to Eckhart Tolle for instance who is much more humane. Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 12, 2006 In a message dated 3/12/2006 5:03:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, lastrain writes: > If you got that from his teaching........it is enough. > > toombaru > > L.E: More than enough. Watch out! Vomit coming! > > Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > [Can we] so listen and observe, without the word, without > > > remembrance, without all the movement of thought? Which > > > means, complete attention; attention, not from a center but > > > attention which has no center. If you have a center from > > > which you are attending, that is merely a form of > > > concentration. But if you are attending and there is no > > > center, it means that you are giving complete attention; in > > > that attention there is no time. > > > > > > J Krishnamurti -- The Network of Thought > > > > > > > > > Well said, but let´s not forget the necessity of attention for ones > > own self-centredness, without which the center will always remain > > active. At least this is how it seems to me. > > > > Len > > > > " Attention from a center " -- as he describes -- is the cause > of self-centeredness, not the other way around. That is my > view of this. > > Bill Yes, but focusing on attention without a centre is itself a self- centred movement in which the attention for the self-centredness easily gets lost. A matter of making centrelessnesss into a kind of desirable state. It´s a paradox, but sometimes, there is just spontaneous attention for the self-centred activity, without a goal, without centrelessness as some kind of ideal. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/12/2006 4:23:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > >>> > > >>> [Can we] so listen and observe, without the word, without > > >>> remembrance, without all the movement of thought? Which > > >>> means, complete attention; attention, not from a center but > > >>> attention which has no center. If you have a center from > > >>> which you are attending, that is merely a form of > > >>> concentration. But if you are attending and there is no > > >>> center, it means that you are giving complete attention; in > > >>> that attention there is no time. > > >>> > > >>> J Krishnamurti -- The Network of Thought > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >>Well said, but let´s not forget the necessity of attention for > > ones > > >>own self-centredness, without which the center will always > > remain > > >>active. At least this is how it seems to me. > > >> > > >>Len > > >> > > > > > > " Attention from a center " -- as he describes -- is the cause > > >of self-centeredness, not the other way around. That is my > > >view of this. > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > > > Yes, but focusing on attention without a centre is itself a self- > > centred movement in which the attention for the self-centredness > > easily gets lost. A matter of making centrelessnesss into a kind of > > desirable state. > > It´s a paradox, but sometimes, there is just spontaneous attention > > for the self-centred activity, without a goal, without > > centrelessness as some kind of ideal. > > > > Len > > L.E: Krishnamurti was a fraud. He holds out carrots just in front of your > nose that are not real. Year after year, same old crap. Master of the > unattainable. If you got that from his teaching........it is enough. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 13, 2006 --- epston a écrit : In a message dated 3/12/2006 4:23:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, lissbon2002 writes: > >>> > >>> [Can we] so listen and observe, without the word, without > >>> remembrance, without all the movement of thought? Which > >>> means, complete attention; attention, not from a center but > >>> attention which has no center. If you have a center from > >>> which you are attending, that is merely a form of > >>> concentration. But if you are attending and there is no > >>> center, it means that you are giving complete attention; in > >>> that attention there is no time. > >>> > >>> J Krishnamurti -- The Network of Thought > >>> > >> > >> > >>Well said, but let´s not forget the necessity of attention for > ones > >>own self-centredness, without which the center will always > remain > >>active. At least this is how it seems to me. > >> > >>Len > >> > > > > " Attention from a center " -- as he describes -- is the cause > >of self-centeredness, not the other way around. That is my > >view of this. > > > >Bill > > > > Yes, but focusing on attention without a centre is itself a self- > centred movement in which the attention for the self-centredness > easily gets lost. A matter of making centrelessnesss into a kind of > desirable state. > It´s a paradox, but sometimes, there is just spontaneous attention > for the self-centred activity, without a goal, without > centrelessness as some kind of ideal. > > Len L.E: Krishnamurti was a fraud. He holds out carrots just in front of your nose that are not real. Year after year, same old crap. Master of the unattainable. If that's a virtue, so be it. You have to listen to how he unrolls one impossible goal after another with no way to get there or here. Compare him to Eckhart Tolle for instance who is much more humane. Larry Epston ..<You have to listen to how he unrolls one impossible goal after another with no way to get there or here.> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 13, 2006 --- epston a écrit : In a message dated 3/12/2006 4:23:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, lissbon2002 writes: > >>> > >>> [Can we] so listen and observe, without the word, without > >>> remembrance, without all the movement of thought? Which > >>> means, complete attention; attention, not from a center but > >>> attention which has no center. If you have a center from > >>> which you are attending, that is merely a form of > >>> concentration. But if you are attending and there is no > >>> center, it means that you are giving complete attention; in > >>> that attention there is no time. > >>> > >>> J Krishnamurti -- The Network of Thought > >>> > >> > >> > >>Well said, but let´s not forget the necessity of attention for > ones > >>own self-centredness, without which the center will always > remain > >>active. At least this is how it seems to me. > >> > >>Len > >> > > > > " Attention from a center " -- as he describes -- is the cause > >of self-centeredness, not the other way around. That is my > >view of this. > > > >Bill > > > > Yes, but focusing on attention without a centre is itself a self- > centred movement in which the attention for the self-centredness > easily gets lost. A matter of making centrelessnesss into a kind of > desirable state. > It´s a paradox, but sometimes, there is just spontaneous attention > for the self-centred activity, without a goal, without > centrelessness as some kind of ideal. > > Len L.E: Krishnamurti was a fraud. He holds out carrots just in front of your nose that are not real. Year after year, same old crap. Master of the unattainable. If that's a virtue, so be it. You have to listen to how he unrolls one impossible goal after another with no way to get there or here. Compare him to Eckhart Tolle for instance who is much more humane. Larry Epston ...<You have to listen to how he unrolls one impossible goal after another with no way to get there or here..> So attention is a goal ? a place to reach? because K. adjonctions are all about paying attention my dear, Not complicated to understand but lots of letting go, and utter simplicity. Patricia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- epston a écrit : > > > > In a message dated 3/12/2006 4:23:39 PM Pacific > Standard Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > >>> > > >>> [Can we] so listen and observe, without the > word, without > > >>> remembrance, without all the movement of > thought? Which > > >>> means, complete attention; attention, not from > a center but > > >>> attention which has no center. If you have a > center from > > >>> which you are attending, that is merely a form > of > > >>> concentration. But if you are attending and > there is no > > >>> center, it means that you are giving complete > attention; in > > >>> that attention there is no time. > > >>> > > >>> J Krishnamurti -- The Network of Thought > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >>Well said, but let´s not forget the necessity of > attention for > > ones > > >>own self-centredness, without which the center > will always > > remain > > >>active. At least this is how it seems to me. > > >> > > >>Len > > >> > > > > > > " Attention from a center " -- as he describes -- is > the cause > > >of self-centeredness, not the other way around. > That is my > > >view of this. > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > > > Yes, but focusing on attention without a centre is > itself a self- > > centred movement in which the attention for the > self-centredness > > easily gets lost. A matter of making centrelessnesss > into a kind of > > desirable state. > > It´s a paradox, but sometimes, there is just > spontaneous attention > > for the self-centred activity, without a goal, > without > > centrelessness as some kind of ideal. > > > > Len > > L.E: Krishnamurti was a fraud. He holds out carrots > just in front of your > nose that are not real. Year after year, same old > crap. Master of the > unattainable. If that's a virtue, so be it. You have > to listen to how he unrolls one > impossible goal after another with no way to get there > or here. Compare him > to Eckhart Tolle for instance who is much more > humane. > > Larry Epston > you seem to have listened to him year after year trying to get that carrot and after having met your big delusion you met a bit of consolation in the arms of Tolle. Ah, these humans!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/12/2006 4:23:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > >>> > > >>> [Can we] so listen and observe, without the word, without > > >>> remembrance, without all the movement of thought? Which > > >>> means, complete attention; attention, not from a center but > > >>> attention which has no center. If you have a center from > > >>> which you are attending, that is merely a form of > > >>> concentration. But if you are attending and there is no > > >>> center, it means that you are giving complete attention; in > > >>> that attention there is no time. > > >>> > > >>> J Krishnamurti -- The Network of Thought > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >>Well said, but let´s not forget the necessity of attention for > > ones > > >>own self-centredness, without which the center will always > > remain > > >>active. At least this is how it seems to me. > > >> > > >>Len > > >> > > > > > > " Attention from a center " -- as he describes -- is the cause > > >of self-centeredness, not the other way around. That is my > > >view of this. > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > > > Yes, but focusing on attention without a centre is itself a self- > > centred movement in which the attention for the self-centredness > > easily gets lost. A matter of making centrelessnesss into a kind of > > desirable state. > > It´s a paradox, but sometimes, there is just spontaneous attention > > for the self-centred activity, without a goal, without > > centrelessness as some kind of ideal. > > > > Len > > L.E: Krishnamurti was a fraud. He holds out carrots just in front of your > nose that are not real. Year after year, same old crap. Master of the > unattainable. If that's a virtue, so be it. You have to listen to how he unrolls one > impossible goal after another with no way to get there or here. Compare him > to Eckhart Tolle for instance who is much more humane. > > Larry Epston Hmmm... to me many things he said are simply true, no doubt about it. But he tends to be general, so general that it´s not evident to understand him. If I understand what he says it´s because I´ve seen it myself, without his guidance. And, to be true, when I read him, and he´s speaking about something which I know from my own perception, I sometimes have a feeling that if I hadn´t already seen it for myself, his explanation wouldn´t help me either. It almost seems to make it more complicated then it needs to be, and at the same time too general. Still a brilliant and true teaching, but the way he presents it - maybe not very accessible. I wonder by the way whether such a thing as an accessible teaching exists at all. Finally K has said one important thing: find it out for yourself. But he didn´t say how, so even this one one must find out for oneself ;-) Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 13, 2006 > L.E: Krishnamurti was a fraud. He holds out carrots > just in front of your > nose that are not real. Year after year, same old > crap. Master of the > unattainable. If that's a virtue, so be it. You have > to listen to how he unrolls one > impossible goal after another with no way to get there > or here. Compare him > to Eckhart Tolle for instance who is much more > humane. > > Larry Epston > you seem to have listened to him year after year trying to get that carrot and after having met your big delusion you met a bit of consolation in the arms of Tolle. Ah, these humans!!! L.E: It may seem so, but no, I never got connected to K. I always felt uncomfortable with his speeches and life. Never felt an attraction. Allan Watts and Nisargatta have always been in the center of my spotlight. And I find no consolation in the arms of Tolle. I'm presently studying his book and find some huge weirdness here and there. I've written some about it, but have yet to put in on the Niz. There's a lot to say about Tolle, I'm working on it. He's a fairly positive force though, so to speak. Larry Epston ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 14, 2006 In a message dated 3/14/2006 7:56:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:29:33 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Complete attention Hmmm... to me many things he said are simply true, no doubt about it. But he tends to be general, so general that it´s not evident to understand him. If I understand what he says it´s because I´ve seen it myself, without his guidance. And, to be true, when I read him, and he´s speaking about something which I know from my own perception, I sometimes have a feeling that if I hadn´t already seen it for myself, his explanation wouldn´t help me either. It almost seems to make it more complicated then it needs to be, and at the same time too general. Still a brilliant and true teaching, but the way he presents it - maybe not very accessible. I wonder by the way whether such a thing as an accessible teaching exists at all. Finally K has said one important thing: find it out for yourself. But he didn´t say how, so even this one one must find out for oneself ;-) Len It's my view that nobody ever truly knows anything by reading/hearing the words of another. If it's not seen within, they're nothing but words and concepts that serve more as objects to stumble over than rungs on a ladder. Here, for example, the views of others are either agreed with, and therefore reinforced, or they are disagreed with in an attempt to reinforce what is believed. This is what causes discussions to run in circles and go nowhere in particular. There are, of course, exceptions. Howsoever, since the words of others are our own creative focus, there's the possibility of using them as a catalyst to look within and find a greater truth, whether or not this truth is a reflection of the words read. This occurs to me on a daily basis, sometimes several times a day, and that's why I'm here. In that sense, it makes no difference at all whether or not others agree or disagree. I'm grateful for the help you've all provided. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 14, 2006 --- ADHHUB a écrit : In a message dated 3/14/2006 7:56:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:29:33 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Complete attention Hmmm... to me many things he said are simply true, no doubt about it. But he tends to be general, so general that it´s not evident to understand him. If I understand what he says it´s because I´ve seen it myself, without his guidance. And, to be true, when I read him, and he´s speaking about something which I know from my own perception, I sometimes have a feeling that if I hadn´t already seen it for myself, his explanation wouldn´t help me either. It almost seems to make it more complicated then it needs to be, and at the same time too general. Still a brilliant and true teaching, but the way he presents it - maybe not very accessible. I wonder by the way whether such a thing as an accessible teaching exists at all. Finally K has said one important thing: find it out for yourself. But he didn´t say how, so even this one one must find out for oneself ;-) Len It's my view that nobody ever truly knows anything by reading/hearing the words of another. If it's not seen within, they're nothing but words and concepts that serve more as objects to stumble over than rungs on a ladder. Here, for example, the views of others are either agreed with, and therefore reinforced, or they are disagreed with in an attempt to reinforce what is believed. This is what causes discussions to run in circles and go nowhere in particular. There are, of course, exceptions. Howsoever, since the words of others are our own creative focus, there's the possibility of using them as a catalyst to look within and find a greater truth, whether or not this truth is a reflection of the words read. This occurs to me on a daily basis, sometimes several times a day, and that's why I'm here. In that sense, it makes no difference at all whether or not others agree or disagree. I'm grateful for the help you've all provided. Phil to a God seeking heart, Every thing takes back to God. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/14/2006 7:56:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:29:33 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Complete attention > Hmmm... to me many things he said are simply true, no doubt about it. > But he tends to be general, so general that it´s not evident to > understand him. If I understand what he says it´s because I´ve seen > it myself, without his guidance. And, to be true, when I read him, > and he´s speaking about something which I know from my own > perception, I sometimes have a feeling that if I hadn´t already seen > it for myself, his explanation wouldn´t help me either. It almost > seems to make it more complicated then it needs to be, and at the > same time too general. > Still a brilliant and true teaching, but the way he presents it - > maybe not very accessible. I wonder by the way whether such a thing > as an accessible teaching exists at all. Finally K has said one > important thing: find it out for yourself. But he didn´t say how, so > even this one one must find out for oneself ;-) > > Len > It's my view that nobody ever truly knows anything by reading/hearing the > words of another. If it's not seen within, they're nothing but words and > concepts that serve more as objects to stumble over than rungs on a ladder. Precisely. > Here, > for example, the views of others are either agreed with, and therefore > reinforced, or they are disagreed with in an attempt to reinforce what is believed. > This is what causes discussions to run in circles and go nowhere in > particular. There are, of course, exceptions. > > Howsoever, since the words of others are our own creative focus, there's the > possibility of using them as a catalyst to look within and find a greater > truth, whether or not this truth is a reflection of the words read. This occurs > to me on a daily basis, sometimes several times a day, and that's why I'm > here. In that sense, it makes no difference at all whether or not others agree > or disagree. I'm grateful for the help you've all provided. > > Phil Beautifully said Phil. Ditto. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 16, 2006 OConnor Patricia <gdtige Nisargadatta Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:23:13 +0100 (CET) Re: Re: Complete attention ...<You have to listen to how he unrolls one impossible goal after another with no way to get there or here..> So attention is a goal ? a place to reach? because K. adjonctions are all about paying attention my dear, Not complicated to understand but lots of letting go, and utter simplicity. Patricia L. E: When it comes to paying attentions I'd rather be hit with a zen teacher's stick then be bored to death by that monotonous rambling that only says " look at me. " I'm the great teacher of ultimate truth, over and over. Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > > > OConnor Patricia <gdtige > Nisargadatta > Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:23:13 +0100 (CET) > Re: Re: Complete attention > > > > ..<You have to listen to how he unrolls one > impossible goal after another with no way to get there > or here..> > So attention is a goal ? a place to reach? > because K. adjonctions are all about paying attention > my dear, > Not complicated to understand but lots of letting go, > and utter simplicity. > Patricia > L. E: When it comes to paying attentions I'd rather be hit with a zen teacher's stick > then be bored to death by that monotonous rambling that only says " look at me. " I'm the > great teacher of ultimate truth, over and over. > Larry Epston > It a teacher does not resonate with you....pass on. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 16, 2006 Implicityly and explicitly, we are always engaged in " impression management " ( Goffman,1956) governing, guiding, and controling our own actions, acting in accordance with the type of person we wish to appear. toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > > > OConnor Patricia <gdtige > Nisargadatta > Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:23:13 +0100 (CET) > Re: Re: Complete attention > > > > ..<You have to listen to how he unrolls one > impossible goal after another with no way to get there > or here..> > So attention is a goal ? a place to reach? > because K. adjonctions are all about paying attention > my dear, > Not complicated to understand but lots of letting go, > and utter simplicity. > Patricia > L. E: When it comes to paying attentions I'd rather be hit with a zen teacher's stick > then be bored to death by that monotonous rambling that only says " look at me. " I'm the > great teacher of ultimate truth, over and over. > Larry Epston > It a teacher does not resonate with you....pass on. 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
Guest guest Report post Posted March 16, 2006 I think Tony Stubbs - or actually Arial that he was channeling - has said it best. The first line of the first paragraph of the first chapter in the book What is Lightbody says: " Ascension is nothing more than a shift in vibration. " Those aren't the exact words. I'm quoting from memory. So what does that mean? It means that we are in the third dimension and we are transforming ourselves inside a physical body, that has a personality attached, in such a way that we can shift into another dimension. Some say 4th. Some say 5th. Some say a certain octave on a scale above this one. Etc., etc. I personally don't feel that part matters much. What really matters is that in order to live in this higher dimension (whatever it's called) requires that we transmute the density of the dimension we're in. And that is NO SMALL TASK. That's really what the entire journey is all about - who we are becoming. We NEVER get there. Even in the other dimensions the beings are evolving there too. It is a constant spiral of evolution for us individually and as a soul group and as a species and as a planet and as a universe, etc. Antwan Penn <esiasemanuel wrote: Implicityly and explicitly, we are always engaged in " impression management " ( Goffman,1956) governing, guiding, and controling our own actions, acting in accordance with the type of person we wish to appear. toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > > > OConnor Patricia <gdtige > Nisargadatta > Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:23:13 +0100 (CET) > Re: Re: Complete attention > > > > ..<You have to listen to how he unrolls one > impossible goal after another with no way to get there > or here..> > So attention is a goal ? a place to reach? > because K. adjonctions are all about paying attention > my dear, > Not complicated to understand but lots of letting go, > and utter simplicity. > Patricia > L. E: When it comes to paying attentions I'd rather be hit with a zen teacher's stick > then be bored to death by that monotonous rambling that only says " look at me. " I'm the > great teacher of ultimate truth, over and over. > Larry Epston > It a teacher does not resonate with you....pass on. 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
Guest guest Report post Posted March 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , Antwan Penn <esiasemanuel wrote: > > Implicityly and explicitly, we are always engaged in " impression management " ( Goffman, 1956) governing, guiding, and controling our own actions, acting in accordance with the type of person we wish to appear. > Nope. We are merely the mechanisms through which that activity flows. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , Antwan Penn <esiasemanuel wrote: > > > I think Tony Stubbs - or actually Arial that he was channeling - has said it best. The first line of the first paragraph of the first chapter in the book What is Lightbody says: " Ascension is nothing more than a shift in vibration. " Those aren't the exact words. I'm quoting from memory. > So what does that mean? It means that we are in the third dimension and we are transforming ourselves inside a physical body, that has a personality attached, in such a way that we can shift into another dimension. Some say 4th. Some say 5th. Some say a certain octave on a scale above this one. Etc., etc. I personally don't feel that part matters much. What really matters is that in order to live in this higher dimension (whatever it's called) requires that we transmute the density of the dimension we're in. And that is NO SMALL TASK. > That's really what the entire journey is all about - who we are becoming. We NEVER get there. Even in the other dimensions the beings are evolving there too. It is a constant spiral of evolution for us individually and as a soul group and as a species and as a planet and as a universe, etc. > Canned religiosity. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
