Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest guest

whats the purpose in fighting with words

By Guest guest, in Advaita Vedanta

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

<pliantheart@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > <pliantheart@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Thinking that you are not the one that imagines

> things.....is

> > > > > separation.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thinking that separation does not exist......brings it to

> > > > > existence.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thinking is......itself separation.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > (Era......this one's for you)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > toombaru

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I never think

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > > > >

> > > > > but thinking happens...

> > > > >

> > > > > thinking is not a " doing " by a somebody...

> > > > >

> > > > > but if the car keys get lost there is

> > > > > some thinking going on to find them.

> > > > >

> > > > > " inner dialog " and thinking are not the same.

> > > > >

> > > > > there can be an end to " inner dialog " ...

> > > > >

> > > > > but there is still thinking...

> > > > >

> > > > > there is still problem solving...

> > > > >

> > > > > thinking can be silent, " in the dark " as it were...

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Bill

> > > > >

> > > > it seems that you are emphasizing thought and its movement

in

> > time

> > > > created by itself...I emphasize no thing...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > >

> > > if that is what seems to you... then you have got it wrong.

> > >

> > > I in no way emphasize thought.

> > >

> > > I said that thinking happens, and that there is thinking

> > > that is not characterized by thought.

> > >

> > > So absurd! You say I am emphasizing thought and I didn't

> > > even use the word " thought " !

> > >

> > > What do you do for a living? Do you have to work?

> > > Do you ever have to solve problems?

> > > Solving problems involves thinking by definition.

> > >

> > > But that thinking does not need to entail " inner dialog "

> > > or " thought chains " . The solving of a problem can be

> > > in effect " dreamed " . It is a deep, mysterious process.

> > > But it is still rightfully called " thinking " ... even if

> > > it is very different from what people ordinarily call

> > > thinking.

> > >

> > > As I said, solving problems entails thinking.

> > > What if you lose your car keys? How do you find them?

> > > Do you ever solve any " problems " ... ?

> > >

> > > Bill

> > >

> >

> > I never solve any " problems " ...

> > ...iietsa

> >

>

> So explain that a little more.

> Do you work for a living?

> What do you do all day?

> If you just sit staring at the wall,

> walking in nature etc. then lovely,

> and sure, no problem solving.

.......I only dont create problems...

.......so naturaly there are no problems to be solved...

> Do you drive?

> You never answered my question as to

> what you do if you lose your car keys.

......if the car keys are lost...the car keys are lost...

......I just dont make a problem out of it...

> What if something you regularly use stops working

> correctly?

.....working correctly is only an idea about how it should be..

.....the fact is what is...and that good enough for me

.....no need to make a problem to be solved out of it...

> Do you just throw it away and get a new one?

> Or do you try to figure our what is wrong with it?

.....there is nothing wrong with it...

.....even if the mind is saying that there is...

.....only dont trust your mind...it creates all the appearent

problems...iietsa

> Bill

>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

<pliantheart@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thinking that you are not the one that imagines

> > things.....is

> > > > > > separation.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thinking that separation does not exist......brings it

to

> > > > > > existence.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thinking is......itself separation.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > (Era......this one's for you)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > toombaru

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I never think

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > but thinking happens...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > thinking is not a " doing " by a somebody...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > but if the car keys get lost there is

> > > > > > some thinking going on to find them.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " inner dialog " and thinking are not the same.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there can be an end to " inner dialog " ...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > but there is still thinking...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there is still problem solving...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > thinking can be silent, " in the dark " as it were...

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Bill

> > > > > >

> > > > > it seems that you are emphasizing thought and its movement

in

> > > time

> > > > > created by itself...I emphasize no thing...

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > > > if that is what seems to you... then you have got it wrong.

> > > >

> > > > I in no way emphasize thought.

> > > >

> > > > I said that thinking happens, and that there is thinking

> > > > that is not characterized by thought.

> > > >

> > > > So absurd! You say I am emphasizing thought and I didn't

> > > > even use the word " thought " !

> > > >

> > > > What do you do for a living? Do you have to work?

> > > > Do you ever have to solve problems?

> > > > Solving problems involves thinking by definition.

> > > >

> > > > But that thinking does not need to entail " inner dialog "

> > > > or " thought chains " . The solving of a problem can be

> > > > in effect " dreamed " . It is a deep, mysterious process.

> > > > But it is still rightfully called " thinking " ... even if

> > > > it is very different from what people ordinarily call

> > > > thinking.

> > > >

> > > > As I said, solving problems entails thinking.

> > > > What if you lose your car keys? How do you find them?

> > > > Do you ever solve any " problems " ... ?

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > > >

> > >

> > > I never solve any " problems " ...

> > > ...iietsa

> > >

> >

> > So explain that a little more.

> > Do you work for a living?

> > What do you do all day?

> > If you just sit staring at the wall,

> > walking in nature etc. then lovely,

> > and sure, no problem solving.

> >

> > Do you drive?

> > You never answered my question as to

> > what you do if you lose your car keys.

> >

> > What if something you regularly use stops working

> > correctly?

> > Do you just throw it away and get a new one?

> > Or do you try to figure our what is wrong with it?

> >

> > Bill

> >

>

>

> Here, again. The only difference between what Bill is saying and

what

> iietsa is saying, is emphasis. One emphasis results in Bill's

prose,

> the other results in iietsa's poetry. And this whole relationship,

> here, is like that between Zorba and the intellectual.

>

> It makes a good movie. But both characters are absolutely

necessary

> for there to be any narrative.

>

> One is attached to attachment, the other to detachment. Both love.

>

> But love, is neither.

>

> ~*~

>

why attach attachment to what I am ?

....iietsa

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

<dennis_travis33 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> <pliantheart@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > > > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking that you are not the one that imagines

> > > things.....is

> > > > > > > separation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking that separation does not exist......brings it

> to

> > > > > > > existence.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking is......itself separation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > (Era......this one's for you)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > toombaru

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I never think

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but thinking happens...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > thinking is not a " doing " by a somebody...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but if the car keys get lost there is

> > > > > > > some thinking going on to find them.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " inner dialog " and thinking are not the same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there can be an end to " inner dialog " ...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but there is still thinking...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there is still problem solving...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > thinking can be silent, " in the dark " as it were...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Bill

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > it seems that you are emphasizing thought and its movement

> in

> > > > time

> > > > > > created by itself...I emphasize no thing...

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > > > if that is what seems to you... then you have got it wrong.

> > > > >

> > > > > I in no way emphasize thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > I said that thinking happens, and that there is thinking

> > > > > that is not characterized by thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > So absurd! You say I am emphasizing thought and I didn't

> > > > > even use the word " thought " !

> > > > >

> > > > > What do you do for a living? Do you have to work?

> > > > > Do you ever have to solve problems?

> > > > > Solving problems involves thinking by definition.

> > > > >

> > > > > But that thinking does not need to entail " inner dialog "

> > > > > or " thought chains " . The solving of a problem can be

> > > > > in effect " dreamed " . It is a deep, mysterious process.

> > > > > But it is still rightfully called " thinking " ... even if

> > > > > it is very different from what people ordinarily call

> > > > > thinking.

> > > > >

> > > > > As I said, solving problems entails thinking.

> > > > > What if you lose your car keys? How do you find them?

> > > > > Do you ever solve any " problems " ... ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Bill

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I never solve any " problems " ...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > So explain that a little more.

> > > Do you work for a living?

> > > What do you do all day?

> > > If you just sit staring at the wall,

> > > walking in nature etc. then lovely,

> > > and sure, no problem solving.

> > >

> > > Do you drive?

> > > You never answered my question as to

> > > what you do if you lose your car keys.

> > >

> > > What if something you regularly use stops working

> > > correctly?

> > > Do you just throw it away and get a new one?

> > > Or do you try to figure our what is wrong with it?

> > >

> > > Bill

> > >

> >

> >

> > Here, again. The only difference between what Bill is saying and

> what

> > iietsa is saying, is emphasis. One emphasis results in Bill's

> prose,

> > the other results in iietsa's poetry. And this whole relationship,

> > here, is like that between Zorba and the intellectual.

> >

> > It makes a good movie. But both characters are absolutely necessary

> > for there to be any narrative.

> >

> > One is attached to attachment, the other to detachment. Both love.

> >

> > But love, is neither.

> >

> > ~*~

>

>

> there is only one relationship existing......

>

> the one of the dream-bubble....to the real Self.....

>

> if you would be....this your " love " .....

>

> then there would be no " others " ....which are in relationship to

> each.....

>

> your attachment to this your " love " ......is like the attachment to

> the dream you had last night.....

>

> wake up

>

> Marc

>

>

 

Not " my " love.

Just Love.

 

You/me

ARE attachment

Relationship

IS attachment

 

Only

Love

Is neither attachment

Nor detachment

 

~*~

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> <pliantheart@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > > > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking that you are not the one that imagines

> > > things.....is

> > > > > > > separation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking that separation does not exist......brings it

> to

> > > > > > > existence.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking is......itself separation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > (Era......this one's for you)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > toombaru

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I never think

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but thinking happens...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > thinking is not a " doing " by a somebody...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but if the car keys get lost there is

> > > > > > > some thinking going on to find them.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " inner dialog " and thinking are not the same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there can be an end to " inner dialog " ...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but there is still thinking...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there is still problem solving...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > thinking can be silent, " in the dark " as it were...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Bill

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > it seems that you are emphasizing thought and its movement

> in

> > > > time

> > > > > > created by itself...I emphasize no thing...

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > > > if that is what seems to you... then you have got it wrong.

> > > > >

> > > > > I in no way emphasize thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > I said that thinking happens, and that there is thinking

> > > > > that is not characterized by thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > So absurd! You say I am emphasizing thought and I didn't

> > > > > even use the word " thought " !

> > > > >

> > > > > What do you do for a living? Do you have to work?

> > > > > Do you ever have to solve problems?

> > > > > Solving problems involves thinking by definition.

> > > > >

> > > > > But that thinking does not need to entail " inner dialog "

> > > > > or " thought chains " . The solving of a problem can be

> > > > > in effect " dreamed " . It is a deep, mysterious process.

> > > > > But it is still rightfully called " thinking " ... even if

> > > > > it is very different from what people ordinarily call

> > > > > thinking.

> > > > >

> > > > > As I said, solving problems entails thinking.

> > > > > What if you lose your car keys? How do you find them?

> > > > > Do you ever solve any " problems " ... ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Bill

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I never solve any " problems " ...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > So explain that a little more.

> > > Do you work for a living?

> > > What do you do all day?

> > > If you just sit staring at the wall,

> > > walking in nature etc. then lovely,

> > > and sure, no problem solving.

> > >

> > > Do you drive?

> > > You never answered my question as to

> > > what you do if you lose your car keys.

> > >

> > > What if something you regularly use stops working

> > > correctly?

> > > Do you just throw it away and get a new one?

> > > Or do you try to figure our what is wrong with it?

> > >

> > > Bill

> > >

> >

> >

> > Here, again. The only difference between what Bill is saying and

> what

> > iietsa is saying, is emphasis. One emphasis results in Bill's

> prose,

> > the other results in iietsa's poetry. And this whole relationship,

> > here, is like that between Zorba and the intellectual.

> >

> > It makes a good movie. But both characters are absolutely

> necessary

> > for there to be any narrative.

> >

> > One is attached to attachment, the other to detachment. Both love.

> >

> > But love, is neither.

> >

> > ~*~

> >

> why attach attachment to what I am ?

> ...iietsa

>

 

You, iitsa, ARE love, and I said love is beyond either attachment or

detachment.

 

~*~

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

<pliantheart@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > > > > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thinking that you are not the one that imagines

> > > > things.....is

> > > > > > > > separation.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thinking that separation does not exist......brings

it

> > to

> > > > > > > > existence.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thinking is......itself separation.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > (Era......this one's for you)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > toombaru

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I never think

> > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > but thinking happens...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > thinking is not a " doing " by a somebody...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > but if the car keys get lost there is

> > > > > > > > some thinking going on to find them.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " inner dialog " and thinking are not the same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > there can be an end to " inner dialog " ...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > but there is still thinking...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > there is still problem solving...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > thinking can be silent, " in the dark " as it were...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Bill

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > it seems that you are emphasizing thought and its

movement

> > in

> > > > > time

> > > > > > > created by itself...I emphasize no thing...

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > >

> > > > > > if that is what seems to you... then you have got it

wrong.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I in no way emphasize thought.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I said that thinking happens, and that there is thinking

> > > > > > that is not characterized by thought.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So absurd! You say I am emphasizing thought and I didn't

> > > > > > even use the word " thought " !

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What do you do for a living? Do you have to work?

> > > > > > Do you ever have to solve problems?

> > > > > > Solving problems involves thinking by definition.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But that thinking does not need to entail " inner dialog "

> > > > > > or " thought chains " . The solving of a problem can be

> > > > > > in effect " dreamed " . It is a deep, mysterious process.

> > > > > > But it is still rightfully called " thinking " ... even if

> > > > > > it is very different from what people ordinarily call

> > > > > > thinking.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As I said, solving problems entails thinking.

> > > > > > What if you lose your car keys? How do you find them?

> > > > > > Do you ever solve any " problems " ... ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Bill

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I never solve any " problems " ...

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > So explain that a little more.

> > > > Do you work for a living?

> > > > What do you do all day?

> > > > If you just sit staring at the wall,

> > > > walking in nature etc. then lovely,

> > > > and sure, no problem solving.

> > > >

> > > > Do you drive?

> > > > You never answered my question as to

> > > > what you do if you lose your car keys.

> > > >

> > > > What if something you regularly use stops working

> > > > correctly?

> > > > Do you just throw it away and get a new one?

> > > > Or do you try to figure our what is wrong with it?

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Here, again. The only difference between what Bill is saying

and

> > what

> > > iietsa is saying, is emphasis. One emphasis results in Bill's

> > prose,

> > > the other results in iietsa's poetry. And this whole

relationship,

> > > here, is like that between Zorba and the intellectual.

> > >

> > > It makes a good movie. But both characters are absolutely

necessary

> > > for there to be any narrative.

> > >

> > > One is attached to attachment, the other to detachment. Both

love.

> > >

> > > But love, is neither.

> > >

> > > ~*~

> >

> >

> > there is only one relationship existing......

> >

> > the one of the dream-bubble....to the real Self.....

> >

> > if you would be....this your " love " .....

> >

> > then there would be no " others " ....which are in relationship to

> > each.....

> >

> > your attachment to this your " love " ......is like the attachment

to

> > the dream you had last night.....

> >

> > wake up

> >

> > Marc

> >

> >

>

> Not " my " love.

> Just Love.

>

> You/me

> ARE attachment

> Relationship

> IS attachment

>

> Only

> Love

> Is neither attachment

> Nor detachment

>

> ~*~

 

....you mean....just the dream-bubble?....

 

:)

 

Marc

>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

<pliantheart@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > > > > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thinking that you are not the one that imagines

> > > > things.....is

> > > > > > > > separation.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thinking that separation does not exist......brings

it

> > to

> > > > > > > > existence.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thinking is......itself separation.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > (Era......this one's for you)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > toombaru

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I never think

> > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > but thinking happens...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > thinking is not a " doing " by a somebody...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > but if the car keys get lost there is

> > > > > > > > some thinking going on to find them.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " inner dialog " and thinking are not the same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > there can be an end to " inner dialog " ...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > but there is still thinking...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > there is still problem solving...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > thinking can be silent, " in the dark " as it were...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Bill

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > it seems that you are emphasizing thought and its

movement

> > in

> > > > > time

> > > > > > > created by itself...I emphasize no thing...

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > >

> > > > > > if that is what seems to you... then you have got it

wrong.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I in no way emphasize thought.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I said that thinking happens, and that there is thinking

> > > > > > that is not characterized by thought.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So absurd! You say I am emphasizing thought and I didn't

> > > > > > even use the word " thought " !

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What do you do for a living? Do you have to work?

> > > > > > Do you ever have to solve problems?

> > > > > > Solving problems involves thinking by definition.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But that thinking does not need to entail " inner dialog "

> > > > > > or " thought chains " . The solving of a problem can be

> > > > > > in effect " dreamed " . It is a deep, mysterious process.

> > > > > > But it is still rightfully called " thinking " ... even if

> > > > > > it is very different from what people ordinarily call

> > > > > > thinking.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As I said, solving problems entails thinking.

> > > > > > What if you lose your car keys? How do you find them?

> > > > > > Do you ever solve any " problems " ... ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Bill

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I never solve any " problems " ...

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > So explain that a little more.

> > > > Do you work for a living?

> > > > What do you do all day?

> > > > If you just sit staring at the wall,

> > > > walking in nature etc. then lovely,

> > > > and sure, no problem solving.

> > > >

> > > > Do you drive?

> > > > You never answered my question as to

> > > > what you do if you lose your car keys.

> > > >

> > > > What if something you regularly use stops working

> > > > correctly?

> > > > Do you just throw it away and get a new one?

> > > > Or do you try to figure our what is wrong with it?

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Here, again. The only difference between what Bill is saying

and

> > what

> > > iietsa is saying, is emphasis. One emphasis results in Bill's

> > prose,

> > > the other results in iietsa's poetry. And this whole

relationship,

> > > here, is like that between Zorba and the intellectual.

> > >

> > > It makes a good movie. But both characters are absolutely

> > necessary

> > > for there to be any narrative.

> > >

> > > One is attached to attachment, the other to detachment. Both

love.

> > >

> > > But love, is neither.

> > >

> > > ~*~

> > >

> > why attach attachment to what I am ?

> > ...iietsa

> >

>

> You, iitsa, ARE love, and I said love is beyond either attachment or

> detachment.

>

> ~*~

 

 

i would say.......

you, iitsa,....Are....a real Mickeymouse!.....

because Mickeymouse is behond either attachment/detachment

 

:)

 

Marc

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

<dennis_travis33 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> <pliantheart@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > > > > > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thinking that you are not the one that imagines

> > > > > things.....is

> > > > > > > > > separation.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thinking that separation does not exist......brings

> it

> > > to

> > > > > > > > > existence.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thinking is......itself separation.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > (Era......this one's for you)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > toombaru

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I never think

> > > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > but thinking happens...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > thinking is not a " doing " by a somebody...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > but if the car keys get lost there is

> > > > > > > > > some thinking going on to find them.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > " inner dialog " and thinking are not the same.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > there can be an end to " inner dialog " ...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > but there is still thinking...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > there is still problem solving...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > thinking can be silent, " in the dark " as it were...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Bill

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > it seems that you are emphasizing thought and its

> movement

> > > in

> > > > > > time

> > > > > > > > created by itself...I emphasize no thing...

> > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > if that is what seems to you... then you have got it

> wrong.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I in no way emphasize thought.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I said that thinking happens, and that there is thinking

> > > > > > > that is not characterized by thought.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So absurd! You say I am emphasizing thought and I didn't

> > > > > > > even use the word " thought " !

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What do you do for a living? Do you have to work?

> > > > > > > Do you ever have to solve problems?

> > > > > > > Solving problems involves thinking by definition.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But that thinking does not need to entail " inner dialog "

> > > > > > > or " thought chains " . The solving of a problem can be

> > > > > > > in effect " dreamed " . It is a deep, mysterious process.

> > > > > > > But it is still rightfully called " thinking " ... even if

> > > > > > > it is very different from what people ordinarily call

> > > > > > > thinking.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As I said, solving problems entails thinking.

> > > > > > > What if you lose your car keys? How do you find them?

> > > > > > > Do you ever solve any " problems " ... ?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Bill

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I never solve any " problems " ...

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > So explain that a little more.

> > > > > Do you work for a living?

> > > > > What do you do all day?

> > > > > If you just sit staring at the wall,

> > > > > walking in nature etc. then lovely,

> > > > > and sure, no problem solving.

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you drive?

> > > > > You never answered my question as to

> > > > > what you do if you lose your car keys.

> > > > >

> > > > > What if something you regularly use stops working

> > > > > correctly?

> > > > > Do you just throw it away and get a new one?

> > > > > Or do you try to figure our what is wrong with it?

> > > > >

> > > > > Bill

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Here, again. The only difference between what Bill is saying

> and

> > > what

> > > > iietsa is saying, is emphasis. One emphasis results in Bill's

> > > prose,

> > > > the other results in iietsa's poetry. And this whole

> relationship,

> > > > here, is like that between Zorba and the intellectual.

> > > >

> > > > It makes a good movie. But both characters are absolutely

> > > necessary

> > > > for there to be any narrative.

> > > >

> > > > One is attached to attachment, the other to detachment. Both

> love.

> > > >

> > > > But love, is neither.

> > > >

> > > > ~*~

> > > >

> > > why attach attachment to what I am ?

> > > ...iietsa

> > >

> >

> > You, iitsa, ARE love, and I said love is beyond either attachment or

> > detachment.

> >

> > ~*~

>

>

> i would say.......

> you, iitsa,....Are....a real Mickeymouse!.....

> because Mickeymouse is behond either attachment/detachment

>

> :)

>

> Marc

>

 

I do say....

you, Marc,.......Are......a real dreambubble!.......

because dreambubble is behold

 

Behold!

 

((-;

 

~*~

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > > > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa "

<iietsa@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > > > > > > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thinking that you are not the one that imagines

> > > > > > things.....is

> > > > > > > > > > separation.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thinking that separation does not

exist......brings

> > it

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > existence.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thinking is......itself separation.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > (Era......this one's for you)

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > toombaru

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I never think

> > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > but thinking happens...

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > thinking is not a " doing " by a somebody...

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > but if the car keys get lost there is

> > > > > > > > > > some thinking going on to find them.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > " inner dialog " and thinking are not the same.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > there can be an end to " inner dialog " ...

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > but there is still thinking...

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > there is still problem solving...

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > thinking can be silent, " in the dark " as it

were...

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Bill

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > it seems that you are emphasizing thought and its

> > movement

> > > > in

> > > > > > > time

> > > > > > > > > created by itself...I emphasize no thing...

> > > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > if that is what seems to you... then you have got it

> > wrong.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I in no way emphasize thought.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I said that thinking happens, and that there is

thinking

> > > > > > > > that is not characterized by thought.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So absurd! You say I am emphasizing thought and I

didn't

> > > > > > > > even use the word " thought " !

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What do you do for a living? Do you have to work?

> > > > > > > > Do you ever have to solve problems?

> > > > > > > > Solving problems involves thinking by definition.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But that thinking does not need to entail " inner

dialog "

> > > > > > > > or " thought chains " . The solving of a problem can be

> > > > > > > > in effect " dreamed " . It is a deep, mysterious process.

> > > > > > > > But it is still rightfully called " thinking " ... even

if

> > > > > > > > it is very different from what people ordinarily call

> > > > > > > > thinking.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As I said, solving problems entails thinking.

> > > > > > > > What if you lose your car keys? How do you find them?

> > > > > > > > Do you ever solve any " problems " ... ?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Bill

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I never solve any " problems " ...

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So explain that a little more.

> > > > > > Do you work for a living?

> > > > > > What do you do all day?

> > > > > > If you just sit staring at the wall,

> > > > > > walking in nature etc. then lovely,

> > > > > > and sure, no problem solving.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you drive?

> > > > > > You never answered my question as to

> > > > > > what you do if you lose your car keys.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What if something you regularly use stops working

> > > > > > correctly?

> > > > > > Do you just throw it away and get a new one?

> > > > > > Or do you try to figure our what is wrong with it?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Bill

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Here, again. The only difference between what Bill is

saying

> > and

> > > > what

> > > > > iietsa is saying, is emphasis. One emphasis results in

Bill's

> > > > prose,

> > > > > the other results in iietsa's poetry. And this whole

> > relationship,

> > > > > here, is like that between Zorba and the intellectual.

> > > > >

> > > > > It makes a good movie. But both characters are absolutely

> > > > necessary

> > > > > for there to be any narrative.

> > > > >

> > > > > One is attached to attachment, the other to detachment.

Both

> > love.

> > > > >

> > > > > But love, is neither.

> > > > >

> > > > > ~*~

> > > > >

> > > > why attach attachment to what I am ?

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > You, iitsa, ARE love, and I said love is beyond either

attachment or

> > > detachment.

> > >

> > > ~*~

> >

> >

> > i would say.......

> > you, iitsa,....Are....a real Mickeymouse!.....

> > because Mickeymouse is behond either attachment/detachment

> >

> > :)

> >

> > Marc

> >

>

> I do say....

> you, Marc,.......Are......a real dreambubble!.......

> because dreambubble is behold

>

> Behold!

>

> ((-;

>

> ~*~

 

 

LOL

 

 

>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> <pliantheart@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thinking that you are not the one that imagines

> > things.....is

> > > > > > separation.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thinking that separation does not exist......brings it

to

> > > > > > existence.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thinking is......itself separation.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > (Era......this one's for you)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > toombaru

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I never think

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > but thinking happens...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > thinking is not a " doing " by a somebody...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > but if the car keys get lost there is

> > > > > > some thinking going on to find them.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " inner dialog " and thinking are not the same.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there can be an end to " inner dialog " ...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > but there is still thinking...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there is still problem solving...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > thinking can be silent, " in the dark " as it were...

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Bill

> > > > > >

> > > > > it seems that you are emphasizing thought and its movement

> in

> > > time

> > > > > created by itself...I emphasize no thing...

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > > > if that is what seems to you... then you have got it wrong.

> > > >

> > > > I in no way emphasize thought.

> > > >

> > > > I said that thinking happens, and that there is thinking

> > > > that is not characterized by thought.

> > > >

> > > > So absurd! You say I am emphasizing thought and I didn't

> > > > even use the word " thought " !

> > > >

> > > > What do you do for a living? Do you have to work?

> > > > Do you ever have to solve problems?

> > > > Solving problems involves thinking by definition.

> > > >

> > > > But that thinking does not need to entail " inner dialog "

> > > > or " thought chains " . The solving of a problem can be

> > > > in effect " dreamed " . It is a deep, mysterious process.

> > > > But it is still rightfully called " thinking " ... even if

> > > > it is very different from what people ordinarily call

> > > > thinking.

> > > >

> > > > As I said, solving problems entails thinking.

> > > > What if you lose your car keys? How do you find them?

> > > > Do you ever solve any " problems " ... ?

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > > >

> > >

> > > I never solve any " problems " ...

> > > ...iietsa

> > >

> >

> > So explain that a little more.

> > Do you work for a living?

> > What do you do all day?

> > If you just sit staring at the wall,

> > walking in nature etc. then lovely,

> > and sure, no problem solving.

> ......I only dont create problems...

> ......so naturaly there are no problems to be solved...

> > Do you drive?

> > You never answered my question as to

> > what you do if you lose your car keys.

> .....if the car keys are lost...the car keys are lost...

> .....I just dont make a problem out of it...

> > What if something you regularly use stops working

> > correctly?

> ....working correctly is only an idea about how it should be..

> ....the fact is what is...and that good enough for me

> ....no need to make a problem to be solved out of it...

> > Do you just throw it away and get a new one?

> > Or do you try to figure our what is wrong with it?

> ....there is nothing wrong with it...

> ....even if the mind is saying that there is...

> ....only dont trust your mind...it creates all the appearent

> problems...iietsa

 

I'm not talking about " personal problems " where there

is personal angst involved, as in " I have a problem " ... etc.

 

I do software engineering work. There are problems to be

solved. I don't fuss about them... they just soak in and

solve themselves, really. But it seems to me that whatever

is going on that results in a solution should properly be

called thinking.

 

If you get a new piece of furniture and have to figure

out how to rearrange the room to fit it in, that is

a problem. Right? But such things never come up in your

life, is that what you are saying?

 

And do you mind my asking what you do during the day?

Do you work iietsa? Or is that too personal a question?

Seems a lot of folks on nondual lists don't like to give

any personal details, as if that would pollute the

pristine non-dual purity of their non-selves. Which is

a sign of a very shallow understanding in my view.

 

Bill

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > <pliantheart@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > > > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking that you are not the one that imagines

> > > things.....is

> > > > > > > separation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking that separation does not exist......brings it

> to

> > > > > > > existence.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking is......itself separation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > (Era......this one's for you)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > toombaru

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I never think

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but thinking happens...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > thinking is not a " doing " by a somebody...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but if the car keys get lost there is

> > > > > > > some thinking going on to find them.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " inner dialog " and thinking are not the same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there can be an end to " inner dialog " ...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but there is still thinking...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there is still problem solving...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > thinking can be silent, " in the dark " as it were...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Bill

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > it seems that you are emphasizing thought and its movement

> > in

> > > > time

> > > > > > created by itself...I emphasize no thing...

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > > > if that is what seems to you... then you have got it wrong.

> > > > >

> > > > > I in no way emphasize thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > I said that thinking happens, and that there is thinking

> > > > > that is not characterized by thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > So absurd! You say I am emphasizing thought and I didn't

> > > > > even use the word " thought " !

> > > > >

> > > > > What do you do for a living? Do you have to work?

> > > > > Do you ever have to solve problems?

> > > > > Solving problems involves thinking by definition.

> > > > >

> > > > > But that thinking does not need to entail " inner dialog "

> > > > > or " thought chains " . The solving of a problem can be

> > > > > in effect " dreamed " . It is a deep, mysterious process.

> > > > > But it is still rightfully called " thinking " ... even if

> > > > > it is very different from what people ordinarily call

> > > > > thinking.

> > > > >

> > > > > As I said, solving problems entails thinking.

> > > > > What if you lose your car keys? How do you find them?

> > > > > Do you ever solve any " problems " ... ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Bill

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I never solve any " problems " ...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > So explain that a little more.

> > > Do you work for a living?

> > > What do you do all day?

> > > If you just sit staring at the wall,

> > > walking in nature etc. then lovely,

> > > and sure, no problem solving.

> > ......I only dont create problems...

> > ......so naturaly there are no problems to be solved...

> > > Do you drive?

> > > You never answered my question as to

> > > what you do if you lose your car keys.

> > .....if the car keys are lost...the car keys are lost...

> > .....I just dont make a problem out of it...

> > > What if something you regularly use stops working

> > > correctly?

> > ....working correctly is only an idea about how it should be..

> > ....the fact is what is...and that good enough for me

> > ....no need to make a problem to be solved out of it...

> > > Do you just throw it away and get a new one?

> > > Or do you try to figure our what is wrong with it?

> > ....there is nothing wrong with it...

> > ....even if the mind is saying that there is...

> > ....only dont trust your mind...it creates all the appearent

> > problems...iietsa

>

> I'm not talking about " personal problems " where there

> is personal angst involved, as in " I have a problem " ... etc.

>

> I do software engineering work. There are problems to be

> solved. I don't fuss about them... they just soak in and

> solve themselves, really. But it seems to me that whatever

> is going on that results in a solution should properly be

> called thinking.

>

> If you get a new piece of furniture and have to figure

> out how to rearrange the room to fit it in, that is

> a problem. Right? But such things never come up in your

> life, is that what you are saying?

>

> And do you mind my asking what you do during the day?

> Do you work iietsa? Or is that too personal a question?

> Seems a lot of folks on nondual lists don't like to give

> any personal details, as if that would pollute the

> pristine non-dual purity of their non-selves. Which is

> a sign of a very shallow understanding in my view.

>

> Bill

>

 

So, what's the problem? Engineers tend to such literal truth!

 

All you have to do is bridge the gap yourself. Why so fixated on

prose? You cry for Patricia's poetry why not laugh for iietsa's?

 

~*~

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

<pliantheart@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > <pliantheart@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > > > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking that you are not the one that imagines

> > > things.....is

> > > > > > > separation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking that separation does not exist......brings

it

> to

> > > > > > > existence.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking is......itself separation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > (Era......this one's for you)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > toombaru

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I never think

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but thinking happens...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > thinking is not a " doing " by a somebody...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but if the car keys get lost there is

> > > > > > > some thinking going on to find them.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " inner dialog " and thinking are not the same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there can be an end to " inner dialog " ...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but there is still thinking...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there is still problem solving...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > thinking can be silent, " in the dark " as it were...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Bill

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > it seems that you are emphasizing thought and its

movement

> > in

> > > > time

> > > > > > created by itself...I emphasize no thing...

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > > > if that is what seems to you... then you have got it wrong.

> > > > >

> > > > > I in no way emphasize thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > I said that thinking happens, and that there is thinking

> > > > > that is not characterized by thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > So absurd! You say I am emphasizing thought and I didn't

> > > > > even use the word " thought " !

> > > > >

> > > > > What do you do for a living? Do you have to work?

> > > > > Do you ever have to solve problems?

> > > > > Solving problems involves thinking by definition.

> > > > >

> > > > > But that thinking does not need to entail " inner dialog "

> > > > > or " thought chains " . The solving of a problem can be

> > > > > in effect " dreamed " . It is a deep, mysterious process.

> > > > > But it is still rightfully called " thinking " ... even if

> > > > > it is very different from what people ordinarily call

> > > > > thinking.

> > > > >

> > > > > As I said, solving problems entails thinking.

> > > > > What if you lose your car keys? How do you find them?

> > > > > Do you ever solve any " problems " ... ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Bill

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I never solve any " problems " ...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > So explain that a little more.

> > > Do you work for a living?

> > > What do you do all day?

> > > If you just sit staring at the wall,

> > > walking in nature etc. then lovely,

> > > and sure, no problem solving.

> > ......I only dont create problems...

> > ......so naturaly there are no problems to be solved...

> > > Do you drive?

> > > You never answered my question as to

> > > what you do if you lose your car keys.

> > .....if the car keys are lost...the car keys are lost...

> > .....I just dont make a problem out of it...

> > > What if something you regularly use stops working

> > > correctly?

> > ....working correctly is only an idea about how it should be..

> > ....the fact is what is...and that good enough for me

> > ....no need to make a problem to be solved out of it...

> > > Do you just throw it away and get a new one?

> > > Or do you try to figure our what is wrong with it?

> > ....there is nothing wrong with it...

> > ....even if the mind is saying that there is...

> > ....only dont trust your mind...it creates all the appearent

> > problems...iietsa

>

> I'm not talking about " personal problems " where there

> is personal angst involved, as in " I have a problem " ... etc.

>

> I do software engineering work. There are problems to be

> solved. I don't fuss about them... they just soak in and

> solve themselves, really. But it seems to me that whatever

> is going on that results in a solution should properly be

> called thinking.

>

> If you get a new piece of furniture and have to figure

> out how to rearrange the room to fit it in, that is

> a problem. Right? But such things never come up in your

> life, is that what you are saying?

 

> And do you mind my asking what you do during the day?

> Do you work iietsa? Or is that too personal a question?

> Seems a lot of folks on nondual lists don't like to give

> any personal details, as if that would pollute the

> pristine non-dual purity of their non-selves. Which is

> a sign of a very shallow understanding in my view.

 

> Bill

>

.....rearanging furnitures...is surely not a problem....

.....I dont mind you asking anything...but asking what I do is

indicating that I am the body...dont you agree ?

and of course you are not seriously interested in the body...are

you ?

....iietsa

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

....if all the fighting with words would come to an end...

....then what...

....nothing left to fuss about...

....in fact this is the fact that we cannot face...

....in reality there is nothing wrong...

....nothing there to correct...

....nothing to add...

....nothing to take away...

....what is simply is...

....

....iietsa

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> ...if all the fighting with words would come to an end...

> ...then what...

> ...nothing left to fuss about...

> ...in fact this is the fact that we cannot face...

> ...in reality there is nothing wrong...

> ...nothing there to correct...

> ...nothing to add...

> ...nothing to take away...

> ...what is simply is...

> ...

> ...iietsa

>

Fussing never ends

It just is.

 

Only the dead

Know the end of war.

 

Would you

We just shrivel up and die?

 

Your fussing

About fussing

Just is

 

Your preference

That we just shrivel up and die

 

Just is

 

~*~

Sky

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> >

> > ...if all the fighting with words would come to an end...

> > ...then what...

> > ...nothing left to fuss about...

> > ...in fact this is the fact that we cannot face...

> > ...in reality there is nothing wrong...

> > ...nothing there to correct...

> > ...nothing to add...

> > ...nothing to take away...

> > ...what is simply is...

> > ...

> > ...iietsa

> >

> Fussing never ends

> It just is.

>

> Only the dead

> Know the end of war.

>

> Would you

> We just shrivel up and die?

>

> Your fussing

> About fussing

> Just is

>

> Your preference

> That we just shrivel up and die

>

> Just is

>

> ~*~

> Sky

>

openness is welcoming the fussing...

but it is not involved in the fussing...

....iietsa

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> <pliantheart@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart "

> > > > <pliantheart@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking that you are not the one that imagines

> > > things.....is

> > > > > > > separation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking that separation does not exist......brings it

> to

> > > > > > > existence.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thinking is......itself separation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > (Era......this one's for you)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > toombaru

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I never think

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but thinking happens...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > thinking is not a " doing " by a somebody...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but if the car keys get lost there is

> > > > > > > some thinking going on to find them.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " inner dialog " and thinking are not the same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there can be an end to " inner dialog " ...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > but there is still thinking...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there is still problem solving...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > thinking can be silent, " in the dark " as it were...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Bill

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > it seems that you are emphasizing thought and its movement

> in

> > > > time

> > > > > > created by itself...I emphasize no thing...

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > > > if that is what seems to you... then you have got it wrong.

> > > > >

> > > > > I in no way emphasize thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > I said that thinking happens, and that there is thinking

> > > > > that is not characterized by thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > So absurd! You say I am emphasizing thought and I didn't

> > > > > even use the word " thought " !

> > > > >

> > > > > What do you do for a living? Do you have to work?

> > > > > Do you ever have to solve problems?

> > > > > Solving problems involves thinking by definition.

> > > > >

> > > > > But that thinking does not need to entail " inner dialog "

> > > > > or " thought chains " . The solving of a problem can be

> > > > > in effect " dreamed " . It is a deep, mysterious process.

> > > > > But it is still rightfully called " thinking " ... even if

> > > > > it is very different from what people ordinarily call

> > > > > thinking.

> > > > >

> > > > > As I said, solving problems entails thinking.

> > > > > What if you lose your car keys? How do you find them?

> > > > > Do you ever solve any " problems " ... ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Bill

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I never solve any " problems " ...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > So explain that a little more.

> > > Do you work for a living?

> > > What do you do all day?

> > > If you just sit staring at the wall,

> > > walking in nature etc. then lovely,

> > > and sure, no problem solving.

> > >

> > > Do you drive?

> > > You never answered my question as to

> > > what you do if you lose your car keys.

> > >

> > > What if something you regularly use stops working

> > > correctly?

> > > Do you just throw it away and get a new one?

> > > Or do you try to figure our what is wrong with it?

> > >

> > > Bill

> > >

> >

> >

> > Here, again. The only difference between what Bill is saying and

> what

> > iietsa is saying, is emphasis. One emphasis results in Bill's

> prose,

> > the other results in iietsa's poetry. And this whole relationship,

> > here, is like that between Zorba and the intellectual.

> >

> > It makes a good movie. But both characters are absolutely

> necessary

> > for there to be any narrative.

> >

> > One is attached to attachment, the other to detachment. Both love.

> >

> > But love, is neither.

> >

> > ~*~

> >

> why attach attachment to what I am ?

> ...iietsa

 

with neither attachment or detachment, what is, is, as is.

 

if love, then love.

 

if hate, then hate.

 

if indifference, then indifference.

 

if aversion, then aversion.

 

if attraction, then attraction.

 

if gain, then gain.

 

if loss, then loss.

 

the unspeakable, beyond gain or loss, we will never experience nor convey.

 

-- Dan

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

<dennis_travis33 wrote:

 

> i would say.......

> you, iitsa,....Are....a real Mickeymouse!.....

> because Mickeymouse is behond either attachment/detachment

>

> :)

>

> Marc

 

yes, thanks for this, Marc.

 

i would say .... i .....

 

i am .....

 

a real Goofey ....

 

because Goofey is beyond either attachment/detachment to Mickey or Minnie.

 

-- Dan

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart

wrote:

 

> I'm not talking about " personal problems " where there

> is personal angst involved, as in " I have a problem " ... etc.

>

> I do software engineering work. There are problems to be

> solved. I don't fuss about them... they just soak in and

> solve themselves, really. But it seems to me that whatever

> is going on that results in a solution should properly be

> called thinking.

>

> If you get a new piece of furniture and have to figure

> out how to rearrange the room to fit it in, that is

> a problem. Right? But such things never come up in your

> life, is that what you are saying?

>

> And do you mind my asking what you do during the day?

> Do you work iietsa? Or is that too personal a question?

> Seems a lot of folks on nondual lists don't like to give

> any personal details, as if that would pollute the

> pristine non-dual purity of their non-selves. Which is

> a sign of a very shallow understanding in my view.

>

> Bill

 

You make a good point about thinking, Bill.

 

Thinking doesn't interfere with what thought can't touch.

 

Thought has its part to play in the big picture.

 

There is no problem with thoughts occurring, the friction is in trying

to exist as a being that would use thoughts to resolve some kind of

problem that the being feels it is carrying around with it.

 

That being is itself the " carrying " ... if the carrying is " dissolved "

(to use that metaphor I disparaged earlier), the being isn't there to

make a commentary about how to end the carrying.

 

So, all our comments are just expressed thought processes.

 

To assume that something beyond thought is expressing through some

thoughts and not others, is silly, and is just another thought!

 

-- Dan

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

 

> >

> ....rearanging furnitures...is surely not a problem....

> ....I dont mind you asking anything...but asking what I do is

> indicating that I am the body...dont you agree ?

> and of course you are not seriously interested in the body...are

> you ?

> ...iietsa

 

if you are exluding the body, then you are positing something outside

of yourself.

 

if something is outside of you, you are divided.

 

.....dan

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

 

in part:

 

> Your fussing

> About fussing

> Just is

 

 

> ~*~

> Sky

>

 

 

Nice!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

>

> > i would say.......

> > you, iitsa,....Are....a real Mickeymouse!.....

> > because Mickeymouse is behond either attachment/detachment

> >

> > :)

> >

> > Marc

>

> yes, thanks for this, Marc.

>

> i would say .... i .....

>

> i am .....

>

> a real Goofey ....

>

> because Goofey is beyond either attachment/detachment to Mickey or

Minnie.

>

> -- Dan

 

 

lol

 

....i would say....

 

i am Dan/Marc/Goofey/Mickey/Minnie.....

 

:)

 

Marc

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

>

> > >

> > ....rearanging furnitures...is surely not a problem....

> > ....I dont mind you asking anything...but asking what I do is

> > indicating that I am the body...dont you agree ?

> > and of course you are not seriously interested in the body...are

> > you ?

> > ...iietsa

>

> if you are exluding the body, then you are positing something

outside

> of yourself.

>

> if something is outside of you, you are divided.

>

> ....dan

>

its more like the body is a thing within me among all other things...

I just dont identify with things...division is not

possible...because I am not a thing...

....iietsa

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> > > ....rearanging furnitures...is surely not a problem....

> > > ....I dont mind you asking anything...but asking what I do is

> > > indicating that I am the body...dont you agree ?

> > > and of course you are not seriously interested in the body...are

> > > you ?

> > > ...iietsa

> >

> > if you are exluding the body, then you are positing something

> outside

> > of yourself.

> >

> > if something is outside of you, you are divided.

> >

> > ....dan

> >

> its more like the body is a thing within me among all other things...

> I just dont identify with things...division is not

> possible...because I am not a thing...

> ...iietsa

 

yes, what is not a thing, includes all things, without making them

into things.

 

never has ceased doing this, never began doing it.

 

the benevolence of the imperceptible, nonexistent god/tao.

 

-- dan

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Go To Topic Listing

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

IndiaDivine Telegram Group IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group


×
×
  • Create New...