Guest guest Report post Posted March 16, 2006 wow! toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: 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 ** 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 finitude- To be carefully distinguished from " mortality. " Finitude refers not to the fact that man dies but to the fact that as a free choice of his own project of being, he makes himself finite by excluding other possibilities each time that he chooses the one which he prefers. Man would thus because of his facticity be finite even if immortal. toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: 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 ** 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: > > finitude- To be carefully distinguished from " mortality. " Finitude refers not to the fact that man dies but to the fact that as a free choice of his own project of being, he makes himself finite by excluding other possibilities each time that he chooses the one which he prefers. Man would thus because of his facticity be finite even if immortal. canned religiosity toombaru > > toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: 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 ** > > 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 --- epston a écrit : 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 I`ll come over with my ox nerve and beat you to resurection. I am not going to enjoy it, mind you. Patricia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 17, 2006 In a message dated 3/16/2006 10:52:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, lastrain writes: > We are merely the mechanisms through which that activity flows. > > toombaru > > L.E: We are not " mechanisms. " Where did you ever learn such a thing? > Tell me your teacher's name and I will hit him with my big stick. > > Larry Epston > www.epston.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 18, 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 ************ Larry, Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. " Silver " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 18, 2006 In a message dated 3/18/2006 5:26:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:54:36 EST epston Re: Re: Complete attention In a message dated 3/16/2006 10:52:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, lastrain writes: > We are merely the mechanisms through which that activity flows. > > toombaru > > L.E: We are not " mechanisms. " Where did you ever learn such a thing? > Tell me your teacher's name and I will hit him with my big stick. > > Larry Epston Mechanisms hitting other mechanisms with sticks is silly. ~ Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 18, 2006 In a message dated 3/18/2006 9:18:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB writes: > In a message dated 3/18/2006 5:26:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:54:36 EST > epston > Re: Re: Complete attention > > In a message dated 3/16/2006 10:52:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, > lastrain writes: > > >We are merely the mechanisms through which that activity flows. > > > >toombaru > > > >L.E: We are not " mechanisms. " Where did you ever learn such a thing? > >Tell me your teacher's name and I will hit him with my big stick. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > Mechanisms hitting other mechanisms with sticks is silly. ~ > > Phil L.E: Not so. Did you ever see the programs where robots that poeple make fight and try to destroy each other? Lots of people took it very seriously and enjoyed it. Although, perhaps to some it was silly. But humans and other organisms are not mechanisms or machines. And if you can't be serious, get out of the meditation hall or I'll hit you with my stick as well as that other ding-bat. And don't call me a mechanism or I'll hit you twice. Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 2006 In a message dated 3/19/2006 8:50:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 03:26:01 EST epston Re: Complete attention In a message dated 3/18/2006 9:18:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB writes: > In a message dated 3/18/2006 5:26:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:54:36 EST > epston > Re: Re: Complete attention > > In a message dated 3/16/2006 10:52:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, > lastrain writes: > > >We are merely the mechanisms through which that activity flows. > > > >toombaru > > > >L.E: We are not " mechanisms. " Where did you ever learn such a thing? > >Tell me your teacher's name and I will hit him with my big stick. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > Mechanisms hitting other mechanisms with sticks is silly. ~ > > Phil L.E: Not so. Did you ever see the programs where robots that poeple make fight and try to destroy each other? Lots of people took it very seriously and enjoyed it. Although, perhaps to some it was silly. But humans and other organisms are not mechanisms or machines. And if you can't be serious, get out of the meditation hall or I'll hit you with my stick as well as that other ding-bat. And don't call me a mechanism or I'll hit you twice. Larry Epston Okay, Larry mechanism. Whatever you say. ~ Here's how I see it, and maybe if I'm careful, I can get everybody to disagree with me at once. I see no independent volition in the human. I see patterns of thought, feeling, memory, experience. I see an ego identity developing by default. I see thought arising from very subtle levels of mind out of a vague sense of lack, as well as thoughts triggered by sensory perception. I see choiceless choices that can occur no other way: inevitable outcomes of conditioning and internal dynamics that result from that conditioning. However, there's clearly something that exists. When I look 'back' at this existence, I trip over the mind of this mechanism and objectively view it through mind. This obviously is problematic, but that's how it is right now. What I see is existence staring back at me. It's not thinking, not choosing, not feeling. It just is. This mechanism is clearly the means by which this existence thinks, feels and chooses. In this sense, it's not entirely accurate to say that there is nothing that thinks. The existence that is living through this mechanism is what makes thinking/feeling possible. Even though all thought and feeling originates from this existence, it doesn't emerge as thought or feeling, but rather in the form of something I can't quite grasp; perhaps awareness or beingness, but something fundamental to this existence. This gets 'converted' to thought in the mechanism. Feeling arises from thought. Perception, itself, arises from this existence, and so all things are contained within it. There is nothing other than IT. The really odd thing is that, although the human is capable of thought, and can therefore ponder it's Self (which is existence), it cannot awaken itself because it is not the Self. The choices made from this mechanism have no more effect than the choices made by a dream character, and for the same reason. This existence, while it certainly does exist, does not have the Self awareness capability that it acquires through it's human thinking mechanism, and so it cannot choose to awaken. Even if it could choose, it has no desire to do so, since desire arises in the human mechanism as well. The overall sense is that of a seeming process of experience that is so delicately balanced that it appears to be on the verge of awakening to itself all the time. Sometimes, it's unclear exactly what keeps this from happening, but then I recognize the desire to remain and continue the experience. When the experience is complete, awakening occurs spontaneously and naturally in the same way, and for the same reason, that we awaken from our nightly dreams. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/19/2006 8:50:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 19 Mar 2006 03:26:01 EST > epston > Re: Complete attention > > In a message dated 3/18/2006 9:18:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, > ADHHUB > writes: > > > In a message dated 3/18/2006 5:26:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:54:36 EST > > epston > > Re: Re: Complete attention > > > > In a message dated 3/16/2006 10:52:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > lastrain writes: > > > > >We are merely the mechanisms through which that activity flows. > > > > > >toombaru > > > > > >L.E: We are not " mechanisms. " Where did you ever learn such a thing? > > >Tell me your teacher's name and I will hit him with my big stick. > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > Mechanisms hitting other mechanisms with sticks is silly. ~ > > > > Phil > > L.E: Not so. Did you ever see the programs where robots that poeple make > fight and try to destroy each other? Lots of people took it very seriously > and > enjoyed it. Although, perhaps to some it was silly. But humans and other > organisms are not mechanisms or machines. And if you can't be serious, get > out of > the meditation hall or I'll hit you with my stick as well as that other > ding-bat. And don't call me a mechanism or I'll hit you twice. > > Larry Epston > > > > Okay, Larry mechanism. Whatever you say. ~ > Here's how I see it, and maybe if I'm careful, I can get everybody to > disagree with me at once. I see no independent volition in the human. I see > patterns of thought, feeling, memory, experience. I see an ego identity developing > by default. I see thought arising from very subtle levels of mind out of a > vague sense of lack, as well as thoughts triggered by sensory perception. I see > choiceless choices that can occur no other way: inevitable outcomes of > conditioning and internal dynamics that result from that conditioning. > > However, there's clearly something that exists. When I look 'back' at this > existence, I trip over the mind of this mechanism and objectively view it > through mind. This obviously is problematic, but that's how it is right now. What > I see is existence staring back at me. It's not thinking, not choosing, not > feeling. It just is. This mechanism is clearly the means by which this > existence thinks, feels and chooses. > > In this sense, it's not entirely accurate to say that there is nothing that > thinks. The existence that is living through this mechanism is what makes > thinking/feeling possible. Even though all thought and feeling originates from > this existence, it doesn't emerge as thought or feeling, but rather in the > form of something I can't quite grasp; perhaps awareness or beingness, but > something fundamental to this existence. This gets 'converted' to thought in the > mechanism. Feeling arises from thought. Perception, itself, arises from this > existence, and so all things are contained within it. There is nothing other > than IT. > > The really odd thing is that, although the human is capable of thought, and > can therefore ponder it's Self (which is existence), it cannot awaken itself > because it is not the Self. The choices made from this mechanism have no more > effect than the choices made by a dream character, and for the same reason. > This existence, while it certainly does exist, does not have the Self > awareness capability that it acquires through it's human thinking mechanism, and so > it cannot choose to awaken. Even if it could choose, it has no desire to do > so, since desire arises in the human mechanism as well. > > The overall sense is that of a seeming process of experience that is so > delicately balanced that it appears to be on the verge of awakening to itself all > the time. Sometimes, it's unclear exactly what keeps this from happening, > but then I recognize the desire to remain and continue the experience. When the > experience is complete, awakening occurs spontaneously and naturally in the > same way, and for the same reason, that we awaken from our nightly dreams. > > Phil ************* Have you ever had a spontaneous erection or does it just work mechanically? Let's ask that lady friend of yours, shall we? " Silver " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 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. > > > > toombaru > " the gravity around which the mnemonic debris swirls " a wonderful phrase... and it is clear in such there is no *real core*... the *implied core* is the illusion and the implied core is really the gravity itself. when the vacuity of it all is seen, what gravity could there be? Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige 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 > 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 >>> Speaking from the heart, of the heart, as this, can be a lonely place. Know what I mean? Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 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 > > > > 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 > Re: " A matter of making centrelessnesss into a kind of desirable state. " An incredible waste of energy to make centerlessness a kind of desirable state! Attention without a center is nothing to focus on. It is what remains when all the focusing " efforts " are abandoned. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2006 > > > Re: > " A matter of making centrelessnesss into a kind of > desirable state. " > > An incredible waste of energy to make centerlessness > a kind of desirable state! W: yes! LOL!!! > > Attention without a center is nothing to focus on. > It is what remains when all the focusing " efforts " > are abandoned. > > > Bill > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > 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 > > > > > > > > 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 > > > Re: > " A matter of making centrelessnesss into a kind of > desirable state. " > > An incredible waste of energy to make centerlessness > a kind of desirable state! > > Attention without a center is nothing to focus on. > It is what remains when all the focusing " efforts " > are abandoned. > > > Bill So maybe we can stop talking about it. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 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 >>> Speaking from the heart, of the heart, as this, can be a lonely place. Know what I mean? Bill ............................................. You are back! Yes...and yet as you know..your very strenght is the essence of aloness, only there can you fully meet others.. in unity then.. 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 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige 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 > > > 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 > > >>> > > Speaking from the heart, of the heart, as this, > can be a lonely place. Know what I mean? > > > Bill > ............................................ > You are back! > Yes...and yet as you know..your very strenght is the essence of aloness, only there can you fully meet others.. in unity then.. Patricia >>> very insightful statement! it takes real courage, though, doesn't it... because there *can* be slings and arrows the sense of a stranger in a strange land and yet all of that *doesn't really matter* once that heart has lifted beyond the pale shadows of earthly existence Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 20, 2006 --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit : Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige 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 > > > 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 > > >>> > > Speaking from the heart, of the heart, as this, > can be a lonely place. Know what I mean? > > > Bill > ............................................ > You are back! > Yes...and yet as you know..your very strenght is the essence of aloness, only there can you fully meet others.. in unity then.. Patricia >>> very insightful statement! it takes real courage, though, doesn't it... because there *can* be slings and arrows the sense of a stranger in a strange land and yet all of that *doesn't really matter* once that heart has lifted beyond the pale shadows of earthly existence Bill ...................................................... the strange land is less unwelcoming if The stranger doesn`t lack trust.. It is also a road that one has to thread..sooner or later...so why not now. And as one goes, sound is revealed, light starts breaking in...and the feeling of aloness tastes different..fuller..if I may say? 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 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- billrishel <illusyn a �crit�: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia > <gdtige@> 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 > > > > > 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 > > > > >>> > > > > Speaking from the heart, of the heart, as this, > > can be a lonely place. Know what I mean? > > > > > > Bill > > ............................................ > > You are back! > > > Yes...and yet as you know..your very strenght is the > essence of aloness, > only there can you fully meet others.. > in unity then.. > Patricia > > >>> > > very insightful statement! > > it takes real courage, though, doesn't it... > > because there *can* be slings and arrows > > the sense of a stranger in a strange land > > and yet > > all of that *doesn't really matter* > once that heart has lifted > beyond the pale shadows > of earthly existence > Bill > ..................................................... the strange land is less unwelcoming if The stranger doesn`t lack trust.. It is also a road that one has to thread..sooner or later...so why not now. And as one goes, sound is revealed, light starts breaking in...and the feeling of aloness tastes different..fuller..if I may say? Patricia ~~~~~~ re: > once that heart has lifted > beyond the pale shadows > of earthly existence and so, then not a strange land, but not even a " land " really. as for " fuller " ... when the tapestry of time unravels what remains is Fullness Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 21, 2006 In a message dated 3/21/2006 3:32:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:50:52 -0500 epston Re: Complete Attention-Phil I don't need anything from anyone. Nobody's words here are any more useful to me than mine are to them. All the words are, at best, one individual's exploration that has nothing to do with me, or at worst, a set of projections, fears and an attempt to get me to struggle with your own ignorance. Nobody listens to anyone else, and you're not supposed to. You're supposed to be listening to yourself, Phil L.E: DO you grow your own wheat, carrots, tomatoes and pinapples? Do you fix your own compter, your plumbing, your electrical power when it goes out. Did you build your own car? " don't need anyone? " What a strange thing to write. And when you listen to another, you ARE listening you yourself. You are the only one here in a deep way. It is all self-talking, the whole created universe, everything. It is all talking to yourself. You are so incredibly WRONG! MISTAKEN! but then, your mistake is mine in the deeper sense of things. So I have to say, when I read your words, HOW CAN I BE THAT STUPID! Larry Epston Ahhh, an excellent question! Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
