Guest guest Report post Posted January 29, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: >>It is very difficult......in a world that exists entirely of >>conceptual objects....to speak of a world that doesn't. Stefan: >would you care to explain, what is a " conceptual object " ? >Stefan Toombaru: >There are no separate " objects " in nature. >What is a 'mountain'...a wave....a river'? >Objects exist...and have a separate reality.... only within the >conceptual mind. Hi Toombaru, thanks for your explanation, but still, sorry if I insist. I do not understand to what you are referring when you mention " conceptual objects " , especially since you deny the existence of separate objects in general. Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 29, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , diana shellam <diana.shellam@> > wrote: > > > > without which there would be no expererences, diana. > > > > > " Experience " is an ideation. > > Does a deer have 'experiences'? > > > toombaru > Ask the deer....if you can! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , diana shellam <diana.shellam@> > > wrote: > > > > > > without which there would be no expererences, diana. > > > > > > > > > " Experience " is an ideation. > > > > Does a deer have 'experiences'? > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > Ask the deer....if you can! heard in deer heaven: " Bambi said when that nice member of the National Rifle Association, and wonderful dad and raconteur, blew her brains out at the end of the movie....she didn't feel a thing " . she proved that deers have NO experiences, and that all that hocus pocus about caring for the little doe bambi-wambi crap was all nothing but old smoke among filthy animal mirrors. life is much sweeter when viewing it correctly with wisdom and fearlessness. children should enjoy this too. and the hunter and his dear wife, and his pals who come over for weekend football, all ate well for several weeks too kiddies! ..b bobji baba Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > >>It is very difficult......in a world that exists entirely of > >>conceptual objects....to speak of a world that doesn't. > > Stefan: > >would you care to explain, what is a " conceptual object " ? > >Stefan > > Toombaru: > > >There are no separate " objects " in nature. > >What is a 'mountain'...a wave....a river'? > >Objects exist...and have a separate reality.... only within the > >conceptual mind. > > Hi Toombaru, > > thanks for your explanation, but still, sorry if I insist. I do not > understand to what you are referring when you mention " conceptual > objects " , especially since you deny the existence of separate objects > in general. > > Greetings > Stefan > I don't know how else to say it. Where does the 'mountain' end and the 'valley' begin? When does the wave become once again the ocean? Actually both the 'mountain'....the 'valley' ....and the wave exist as separate entities only within the conceptual mind of man. Mind constructs a model of its perceptions by assigning names. It then assumes that this post-it world has its own reality......and creates an imaginary self at the center of the swirling mnemonic debris. This phenomenon is what the sages refer to as 'the dream' from which the illusory self struggles to escape. Seeing this for what it is...... is the only 'awakening' available. But once glimpsed............. Oh baby! toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 ok what about my dog when theres a tree he pees against it? toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: --- In Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > >>It is very difficult......in a world that exists entirely of > >>conceptual objects....to speak of a world that doesn't. > > Stefan: > >would you care to explain, what is a " conceptual object " ? > >Stefan > > Toombaru: > > >There are no separate " objects " in nature. > >What is a 'mountain'...a wave....a river'? > >Objects exist...and have a separate reality.... only within the > >conceptual mind. > > Hi Toombaru, > > thanks for your explanation, but still, sorry if I insist. I do not > understand to what you are referring when you mention " conceptual > objects " , especially since you deny the existence of separate objects > in general. > > Greetings > Stefan > I don't know how else to say it. Where does the 'mountain' end and the 'valley' begin? When does the wave become once again the ocean? Actually both the 'mountain'....the 'valley' ....and the wave exist as separate entities only within the conceptual mind of man. Mind constructs a model of its perceptions by assigning names. It then assumes that this post-it world has its own reality......and creates an imaginary self at the center of the swirling mnemonic debris. This phenomenon is what the sages refer to as 'the dream' from which the illusory self struggles to escape. Seeing this for what it is...... is the only 'awakening' available. But once glimpsed............. Oh baby! toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , diana shellam <diana.shellam wrote: > > ok what about my dog when theres a tree he pees against it? .....tree..........seed......seedling......swirling branches......leaves falling.....tree...falling ..........egg....sperm.....embryo....puppy.........dog.......urinating .........you..........observing......... ......me......observing......... ..........very mysterious.... hummmmmmmmmmmm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Stefan: >thanks for your explanation, but still, sorry if I insist. I do not >understand to what you are referring when you mention " conceptual >objects " , especially since you deny the existence of separate objects >in general. Toombaru: >I don't know how else to say it. >Where does the 'mountain' end and the 'valley' begin? >When does the wave become once again the ocean? >Actually both the 'mountain', the 'valley' and the wave exist as >separate entities only within the conceptual mind of man. >Mind constructs a model of its perceptions by assigning names. >It then assumes that this post-it world has its own reality and >creates an imaginary self at the center of the swirling mnemonic >debris. >This phenomenon is what the sages refer to as 'the dream' from which >the illusory self struggles to escape. >Seeing this for what it is is the only 'awakening' available. >But once glimpsed............. >Oh baby! Hi Toombaru, you write: " I don't know how else to say it " . Maybe, would you have known if you only had tried? I have no problem with your scribbling, I think for most here this is pretty common stuff. But in the light of my question, with all due respect, this looks like an attempt to avoid the issue. I have the impression you enjoy to juggle with phrases and ideas which you have catched here and there and you hope their grandiosity will give the emptiness some meaning. Gosh, you even refer to " the sages " as if they where some authorities that can safe our butt! As I see it, all this small talk serves to keep our minds busy and entertained. Plus it gives us this extra bonus of ego inflating pseudo spiritual grandiosity and cleverness. Now let me explain why I was asking my questions. It had evoked my curiosity when you talked about " conceptual objects " . I was wondering why you are assuming the existence of objects and not just go away with conceptualization itself. Your phrasing sounded odd to me and I felt it could be worthwhile to dig deeper. I guess for an average intelligent mind it is not very difficult to understand that everything perceived is conceptual. The interesting part comes thereafter. If you are content with those beautiful glimpses you mentioned, be blessed! But stop to impose them on others. There has been a time when the question about " objects or not " was almost a question of life and death for me. It may be so for others as well. I hope I did not sound too disrespectful, I often like your way of phrasing things, even when I disagree. But if you would like an earnest discussion, my question still stands. Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , diana shellam <diana.shellam@> > wrote: > > > > ok what about my dog when theres a tree he pees against it? > > > > ....tree..........seed......seedling......swirling > branches......leaves falling.....tree...falling > .........egg....sperm.....embryo....puppy.........dog.......urinating > > > ........you..........observing......... > > > > .....me......observing......... > > > .........very mysterious.... > > > hummmmmmmmmmmm a memorial moment from Hallmark! a magic moment from Kodak! a very bad verse from : ? and the Mysterians! wondering, pissing, swirling.... dogs, trees, embryos.... eggs, eggheads and assholes! what a fucking whodunit!.... it doesn't matter. i still smile! ..b bobji baba (no bullshit bob) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 ok ,everythings is happening presently,full stop. toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: --- In Nisargadatta , diana shellam <diana.shellam wrote: > > ok what about my dog when theres a tree he pees against it? .....tree..........seed......seedling......swirling branches......leaves falling.....tree...falling ..........egg....sperm.....embryo....puppy.........dog.......urinating .........you..........observing......... ......me......observing......... ..........very mysterious.... hummmmmmmmmmmm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Stefan: > >thanks for your explanation, but still, sorry if I insist. I do not > >understand to what you are referring when you mention " conceptual > >objects " , especially since you deny the existence of separate objects > >in general. > > Toombaru: > > >I don't know how else to say it. > >Where does the 'mountain' end and the 'valley' begin? > >When does the wave become once again the ocean? > >Actually both the 'mountain', the 'valley' and the wave exist as > >separate entities only within the conceptual mind of man. > >Mind constructs a model of its perceptions by assigning names. > >It then assumes that this post-it world has its own reality and > >creates an imaginary self at the center of the swirling mnemonic >debris. > >This phenomenon is what the sages refer to as 'the dream' from which > >the illusory self struggles to escape. > >Seeing this for what it is is the only 'awakening' available. > >But once glimpsed............. > >Oh baby! > > Hi Toombaru, you write: " I don't know how else to say it " . Maybe, > would you have known if you only had tried? I have no problem with > your scribbling, I think for most here this is pretty common stuff. > But in the light of my question, with all due respect, this looks like > an attempt to avoid the issue. > > I have the impression you enjoy to juggle with phrases and ideas which > you have catched here and there and you hope their grandiosity will > give the emptiness some meaning. Gosh, you even refer to " the sages " > as if they where some authorities that can safe our butt! As I see it, > all this small talk serves to keep our minds busy and entertained. > Plus it gives us this extra bonus of ego inflating pseudo spiritual > grandiosity and cleverness. > > Now let me explain why I was asking my questions. It had evoked my > curiosity when you talked about " conceptual objects " . I was wondering > why you are assuming the existence of objects and not just go away > with conceptualization itself. Your phrasing sounded odd to me and I > felt it could be worthwhile to dig deeper. I guess for an average > intelligent mind it is not very difficult to understand that > everything perceived is conceptual. The interesting part comes thereafter. > > If you are content with those beautiful glimpses you mentioned, be > blessed! But stop to impose them on others. There has been a time when > the question about " objects or not " was almost a question of life and > death for me. It may be so for others as well. > > I hope I did not sound too disrespectful, I often like your way of > phrasing things, even when I disagree. But if you would like an > earnest discussion, my question still stands. > > Greetings > Stefan > Mind invents objects by naming them and then asks questions about its own inventions. Conceptual mind is nothing other the naming of itself. Its only currency is self issued. It searches for itself within its own creations. It can never see itself because its totality is ideation. Should I go on? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: >Mind invents objects by naming them and then asks questions about >its own inventions. >Conceptual mind is nothing other the naming of itself. >Its only currency is self issued. >It searches for itself within its own creations. >It can never see itself because its totality is ideation. >Should I go on? Hi Toombaru, thanks for the clarification, but I strongly disagree with the " objectivity " that you try to maintain. To me it looks as if you have found out about the conceptual nature (or no-nature) of the world and now you endlessly repeat the various verbal implications of your finding without taking the consequences. You stick to the holy idea of cause and result introducing the " mind " as the cause of " conceptual objects " (and calling the mind its own creation does not change a iota). Sorry, I am not a believer of such crap. Here happens conceptualizing and experiencing I do not how it works But it works Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > >Mind invents objects by naming them and then asks questions about > >its own inventions. > >Conceptual mind is nothing other the naming of itself. > >Its only currency is self issued. > >It searches for itself within its own creations. > >It can never see itself because its totality is ideation. > >Should I go on? > > Hi Toombaru, thanks for the clarification, but I strongly disagree > with the " objectivity " that you try to maintain. > > To me it looks as if you have found out about the conceptual nature > (or no-nature) of the world and now you endlessly repeat the various > verbal implications of your finding without taking the consequences. > > You stick to the holy idea of cause and result introducing the > " mind " as the cause of " conceptual objects " (and calling the mind its > own creation does not change a iota). > > Sorry, I am not a believer of such crap. > Here happens conceptualizing and experiencing > I do not how it works > But it works > > Greetings > Stefan > Sure it works.....but can its creations be trusted to be a reflection of reality? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > >Mind invents objects by naming them and then asks questions about > > >its own inventions. > > >Conceptual mind is nothing other the naming of itself. > > >Its only currency is self issued. > > >It searches for itself within its own creations. > > >It can never see itself because its totality is ideation. > > >Should I go on? > > > > Hi Toombaru, thanks for the clarification, but I strongly disagree > > with the " objectivity " that you try to maintain. > > > > To me it looks as if you have found out about the conceptual nature > > (or no-nature) of the world and now you endlessly repeat the various > > verbal implications of your finding without taking the consequences. > > > > You stick to the holy idea of cause and result introducing the > > " mind " as the cause of " conceptual objects " (and calling the mind its > > own creation does not change a iota). > > > > Sorry, I am not a believer of such crap. > > Here happens conceptualizing and experiencing > > I do not how it works > > But it works > > > > Greetings > > Stefan > > > > > Sure it works.....but can its creations be trusted to be a reflection > of reality? > > > toombaru what possible difference can that make? who cares what can be trusted or not. nothing can be trusted...your mother would know. i bet someone taught you that truism a long time ago. looks like your still searching for 'something' 'trusty'. bonne chance mon ami! sounds like a personal god or problem to moi. ..b bobji baba (The One With The Works!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Stefan: >Sorry, I am not a believer of such crap. >Here happens conceptualizing and experiencing >I do not how it works >But it works Toombaru: >Sure it works.....but can its creations be trusted to be a reflection >of reality? Toombaru, there is nothing to be trusted. Conceptualizing and experiencing is happening, it is reality. It does not create anything. Once it comes along it is already gone. What is reality for you? Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Stefan: > >Sorry, I am not a believer of such crap. > >Here happens conceptualizing and experiencing > >I do not how it works > >But it works > > Toombaru: > >Sure it works.....but can its creations be trusted to be a reflection > >of reality? > > Toombaru, > > there is nothing to be trusted. Conceptualizing and experiencing is > happening, it is reality. It does not create anything. Once it comes > along it is already gone. What is reality for you? > > Stefan > ........just another concept.........an attempt to corral the wind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Stefan: >Toombaru, >there is nothing to be trusted. Conceptualizing and experiencing is >happening, it is reality. It does not create anything. Once it comes >along it is already gone. What is reality for you? Toombaru: >just another concept.an attempt to corral the wind. Hi Toombaru. You are right: another concept. But not an attempt. Concepts come and go by themselves. There is no need to corral anything. Here we need no fences. Again: what is " reality " for you? Do you believe that there is something behind the concepts? " Conceptual objects " ... objects of what? Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Stefan: > >Toombaru, > >there is nothing to be trusted. Conceptualizing and experiencing is > >happening, it is reality. It does not create anything. Once it comes > >along it is already gone. What is reality for you? > > Toombaru: > >just another concept.an attempt to corral the wind. > > Hi Toombaru. > > You are right: another concept. > But not an attempt. > Concepts come and go by themselves. > There is no need to corral anything. > Here we need no fences. > > Again: what is " reality " for you? > Do you believe that there is something behind the concepts? > " Conceptual objects " ... objects of what? > > Greetings > Stefan > If there is.....we can never see them. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Stefan: > >Toombaru, > >there is nothing to be trusted. Conceptualizing and experiencing is > >happening, it is reality. It does not create anything. Once it comes > >along it is already gone. What is reality for you? > > Toombaru: > >just another concept.an attempt to corral the wind. > > Hi Toombaru. > > You are right: another concept. > But not an attempt. > Concepts come and go by themselves. > There is no need to corral anything. > Here we need no fences. > > Again: what is " reality " for you? > Do you believe that there is something behind the concepts? > " Conceptual objects " ... objects of what? > > Greetings > Stefan > For the illusory self....there are no 'objects' beyond its comprehending of them. The wall that it seeks to climb to escape its confusion..... is the very obstruction that is its personal totality. It is all quite funny...and quite sad...... when seen through. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 >Stefan: >You are right: another concept. >But not an attempt. >Concepts come and go by themselves. >There is no need to corral anything. >Here we need no fences. >Again: what is " reality " for you? >Do you believe that there is something behind the concepts? > " Conceptual objects " ... objects of what? >Toombaru: >If there is.....we can never see them. Sorry, I am afraid I cannot follow, what do you mean by " them " ? Concepts? It would be helpful if you could be more specific. My standpoint is: if there is something that I *never* can see (nor realize its effect) it is not worth to construct a world view around it (as you do) I do not think that it exists But whenever it comes into existence It will be seen In my view there is nothing mystical or hidden everything is there, right in front of me This I call reality I know of nothing else Why construct a counterpart? What is reality for you? Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: >For the illusory self....there are no 'objects' beyond its >comprehending of them. > >The wall that it seeks to climb to escape its confusion..... is the >very obstruction that is its personal totality. > > >It is all quite funny...and quite sad...... when seen through. Toombaru, I do not know what " the illusory self " is. Considering that everything is conceptual it makes absolutely no sense to make a distinction between " illusory " and " real " . Since it is all - as it is - the same The situation would be different if one knows the " real " as opposed to the conceptual but in this case I suppose there would be only the real because the illusion is unveiled The situation would be the same Hence I go on asking What is reality for you? I know of no self which is confused or tries to escape because every moment comes as it comes a presentation of what is including " me " itself Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > Stefan: > > >Toombaru, > > >there is nothing to be trusted. Conceptualizing and experiencing is > > >happening, it is reality. It does not create anything. Once it comes > > >along it is already gone. What is reality for you? > > > > Toombaru: > > >just another concept.an attempt to corral the wind. > > > > Hi Toombaru. > > > > You are right: another concept. > > But not an attempt. > > Concepts come and go by themselves. > > There is no need to corral anything. > > Here we need no fences. > > > > Again: what is " reality " for you? > > Do you believe that there is something behind the concepts? > > " Conceptual objects " ... objects of what? > > > > Greetings > > Stefan > > > > > > > For the illusory self....there are no 'objects' beyond its > comprehending of them. > > The wall that it seeks to climb to escape its confusion..... is the > very obstruction that is its personal totality. > > > It is all quite funny...and quite sad...... when seen through. > > > > toombaru it's nothing of the kind! not funny, not sad. 'it' does not fall into any category, and most certainly cannot be evaluated nor judged and thereafter referred to as conditioned by some flighty emotion. this is not the comment of an individual who has seen through anything. really the entire dramatic composition above is just a silly little love song. sent to and sent from the author. ..b bobji baba Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > >For the illusory self....there are no 'objects' beyond its > >comprehending of them. > > > >The wall that it seeks to climb to escape its confusion..... is the > >very obstruction that is its personal totality. > > > > > >It is all quite funny...and quite sad...... when seen through. > > Toombaru, > > I do not know what " the illusory self " is. It is the I am.....the sense of being separate... autonomous. > Considering that everything is conceptual > it makes absolutely no sense > to make a distinction between " illusory " and " real " . That which can be measured is real. Jan Cox says if you can put it on a table.....it is real. When the mind mixes the substantial world with its conceptual world.....life gets confusing enough where some seek escape. They call themselves 'seekers'. > Since it is all - as it is - the same. Noting is as it is......every'thing' is in constant flux. > > The situation would be different > if one knows the " real " > as opposed to the conceptual > but in this case I suppose > there would be only the real > because the illusion is unveiled The self that imagines that it can eventually 'see' through the illusion is itself the center of the confusion. > > The situation would be the same > > Hence I go on asking > What is reality for you? " Reality " is a concept that the illusory self imagines exists outside of...and encompasses..... its narrow world model. To ask what reality is to a personal self in a meaningless question. Its only reality could be a self-referential accumulation of memories. toombaru > > I know of no self which is confused > or tries to escape > because every moment > comes as it comes > a presentation of what is > including " me " itself > > Stefan > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > Stefan: > > >Toombaru, > > >there is nothing to be trusted. Conceptualizing and experiencing is > > >happening, it is reality. It does not create anything. Once it comes > > >along it is already gone. What is reality for you? > > > > Toombaru: > > >just another concept.an attempt to corral the wind. > > > > Hi Toombaru. > > > > You are right: another concept. > > But not an attempt. > > Concepts come and go by themselves. > > There is no need to corral anything. > > Here we need no fences. > > > > Again: what is " reality " for you? > > Do you believe that there is something behind the concepts? > > " Conceptual objects " ... objects of what? > > > > Greetings > > Stefan > > > > > > > For the illusory self....there are no 'objects' beyond its > comprehending of them. > > The wall that it seeks to climb to escape its confusion..... is the > very obstruction that is its personal totality. > > > It is all quite funny...and quite sad...... when seen through. > > > > toombaru > sounds not bad.... yes.....it take some time....for the " illusory self " ....to Accept this .... but there is no other choice.... Marc Ps: however....all there Is.....meet within every Now..... that's maybe called " all there is....is consciousness " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > >For the illusory self....there are no 'objects' beyond its > >comprehending of them. > > > >The wall that it seeks to climb to escape its confusion..... is the > >very obstruction that is its personal totality. > > > > > >It is all quite funny...and quite sad...... when seen through. > > Toombaru, > > I do not know what " the illusory self " is. > Considering that everything is conceptual > it makes absolutely no sense > to make a distinction between " illusory " and " real " . > Since it is all - as it is - the same > > The situation would be different > if one knows the " real " > as opposed to the conceptual > but in this case I suppose > there would be only the real > because the illusion is unveiled > > The situation would be the same > > Hence I go on asking > What is reality for you? > > I know of no self which is confused > or tries to escape > because every moment > comes as it comes > a presentation of what is > including " me " itself > > Stefan why not accepting both.....the real ...and the " conceptual " ...? the mind can have different states..... but only One light....shining through all this states.... behind the mind....is light nobody for real.... " who " care about the projections....about forms ....coming and going except the " illusory self " .... Marc Ps: your words:.... " ...every moment comes as it comes a presentation of what is including " me " itself " ....nice this presentation happen also.....because of this " me " itself.... means....this " me " is responsible for the presentation.....there is " nobody " else Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > When the mind mixes the substantial world with its conceptual > world.....life gets confusing enough where some seek escape. > > They call themselves 'seekers'. > What does this forum means to you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
