Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Do not trust the content of consciousness to be objective about that > > which it imagines to be beyond its imaginary prison. > > > > The 'self' exists only behind prison walls. > > > > It IS the prison. > > > > to imagine a perceiving of > the " prison " of another... > > is... > > ------------------ It can only be self-commentary. It boils down to, " whatever feels imprisoning to me, ends up being myself. " .... hmm, sounds a lot like something I read in a Buddhist text once. ;-) -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > Do not trust the content of consciousness to be objective about that > > > which it imagines to be beyond its imaginary prison. > > > > > > The 'self' exists only behind prison walls. > > > > > > It IS the prison. > > > > > > > to imagine a perceiving of > > the " prison " of another... > > > > is... > > The understanding that the prison is imaginary.....as is the psychological center that claims ownership of that imagination......is the freedom that forever will elude the self. You may come in.........but you have to leave that little monkey outside. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > Do not trust the content of consciousness to be objective about that > > > > which it imagines to be beyond its imaginary prison. > > > > > > > > The 'self' exists only behind prison walls. > > > > > > > > It IS the prison. > > > > > > > > > > to imagine a perceiving of > > > the " prison " of another... > > > > > > is... > > > > > > The understanding that the prison is imaginary.....as is the > psychological center that claims ownership of that imagination......is > the freedom that forever will elude the self. > > > You may come in.........but you have to leave that little monkey outside. > > > > toombaru > there is a river flowing thru me Hanuman laughs swimming upstream ;-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > Very good then....if he can't tell you what truth is, you cannot tell > > him what your statement regarding same means. And without meaning, no > > statement of anything can be made. You will agree that your statement > > is as meaningless and non-existent then as 'truth'.....whatever you > > call it.As defined(a word that itself means 'limitation'), > > all 'things' are only a partial aspect of whatever 'is', and cannot > > be further elucidated by or for anyone at any time.. anywhere.. Why > > say anything then. I speak and write for the same illusory reasons > > you do toom. And if we are to take every word thus rendered and ask > > for a 'true' definition.....well it's ridiculous. What's the true > > meaning of truth? what's behind the word or meaning of truth. > > Whats...it's a rats trap and you know it. Sounds profound but it > > ain't. > > > > .......bob > > Indeed. > > Let's just notice that we agree that concepts have limitations, and > that concepts can't be used to fully explain what those limitations are... > > ... and move on. > > ;-) > > -- D. > The " we " that you refer to is nothing other then those very limitations. Conceptual mind can never understand or see beyond its own condition. So.........from there there....... will be no movin on. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <anabebe57 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Do not trust the content of consciousness to be objective > about that > > > > > which it imagines to be beyond its imaginary prison. > > > > > > > > > > The 'self' exists only behind prison walls. > > > > > > > > > > It IS the prison. > > > > > > > > > > > > > to imagine a perceiving of > > > > the " prison " of another... > > > > > > > > is... > > > > > > > > > > The understanding that the prison is imaginary.....as is the > > psychological center that claims ownership of that > imagination......is > > the freedom that forever will elude the self. > > > > > > You may come in.........but you have to leave that little monkey > outside. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > there is a river flowing thru me > Hanuman laughs > swimming upstream ;-) OXOXOXOXO > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > The " we " that you refer to is nothing other then those very limitations. > > Conceptual mind can never understand or see beyond its own condition. > > > So.........from there there....... will be no movin on. > > > > > > toombaru The limitations are in what you say here, as well. And this. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > The " we " that you refer to is nothing other then those very limitations. > > > > Conceptual mind can never understand or see beyond its own condition. > > > > > > So.........from there there....... will be no movin on. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > The limitations are in what you say here, as well. > > And this. > > -- D. > I know............ain't that a pisser? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- pliantheart <illusyn@> a �crit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > > > <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > " pliantheart " <illusyn@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > " toombaru2006 " > > > > <lastrain@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > " pliantheart " > > > > <illusyn@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > " toombaru2006 " > > > > > > <lastrain@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > " kenj02001 " > > > > > > <kenj02001@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > > > > > > > <lastrain@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " > > > > > > > > <kenj02001@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > " toombaru2006 " > > > > > > > > > > > > <lastrain@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > Nisargadatta , > > > > > " lissbon2002 " > > > > > > > > > > > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self knowledge is all ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be true........ > > > > if there were a self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** OY!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Same ol', same ol' ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was never about > > > > 'entity' nor entity > > > > denied. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So avoidance can be > > > > relinquished...now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's about self-activity, > > > > energy, intent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That, and the > > > > awareness-of-that, is > > > > inseparably > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the hypnotic delusion of > > > > I am. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It will appear real......until > > > > it doesn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** self-centering > > > > motion/emotion toward an > > > > imaginary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > center of perception, > > > > knowing and being never > > > > > > required > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any I-am state or self. It's > > > > real enough, as an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > action. It's suffering--the > > > > first noble > > > > truth, the > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grace. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Truth' needs a home. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not true, AT ALL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Truth needs X " > > > > > > > > > > > > not true AT ALL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is like saying, " What Is needs > > > > ____ " > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing that can go into that > > > > ____. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Truth' does not exist in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You did not write: 'Truth' does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > You wrote: 'Truth' does not exist in > > > > nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very different statements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it is not whether Truth exists or not. > > > > > > > > > > Existence as attribute does not apply to > > > > Truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So we cannot meaningfully discuss here > > > > existence of Truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there can be no doubt: > > > > > > > > > > Truth is the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you expect me to *say*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hasn't it been clear from this discussion > > > > > > > > that such could never be *said*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, Truth is the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is the case.........what is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if you do not know > > > > > > I cannot tell you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot tell me because 'truth' is merely a > > > > word......a concept > > > > > that arises from and is relative only to that pseudo > > > > realm in which > > > > > the pseudo-self floats in dream-time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > the answer you write here > > > > you write *for yourself* > > > > > > > > I have no answer for you > > > > > > > > my lips are sealed! > > > > > > > > it is good to seal it, before it gets to dry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Open it up. > > > > > > Let it bleed out into the hot desert sands...into this searing light. > > > > > > Its time is up. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > there is that which words > > cannot touch > > > > how can one know it then, > > if not for words to designate? > > > > call it mystery > > > > > > You cannot know it........You CAN be it. > > > toombaru > yeah... something like that... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 > > The " we " that you refer to is nothing other then those very limitations. > > > > Conceptual mind can never understand or see beyond its own condition. > > > > > > So.........from there there....... will be no movin on. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > The limitations are in what you say here, as well. > > And this. > > -- D. > Does a rich man talk about escaping poverty? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > The " we " that you refer to is nothing other then those very > limitations. > > > > > > Conceptual mind can never understand or see beyond its own condition. > > > > > > > > > So.........from there there....... will be no movin on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > The limitations are in what you say here, as well. > > > > And this. > > > > -- D. > > > > B: Does a rich man talk about escaping poverty? D: Not if he's passed through the eye of the needle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The " we " that you refer to is nothing other then those very > > limitations. > > > > > > > > Conceptual mind can never understand or see beyond its own > condition. > > > > > > > > > > > > So.........from there there....... will be no movin on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > The limitations are in what you say here, as well. > > > > > > And this. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > B: Does a rich man talk about escaping poverty? > > D: Not if he's passed through the eye of the needle. another really cool question: does the poor man talk about escaping riches?......not if he's caught in the needle of his eye. In his case the problem is as thin and small as a needle...not as big as the log lying in the eye of the rich guy. That's how he can see so much more and stuff. Now as regards the size of either one's camel..........well that's another story. .......bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
