The Gift of No Words

[Guest guest]

I'd like to give everyone the gift

of 'no words.' By that I mean, take them

to that place where no word can offend,

or flatter, or move you in any way. Few

are willing to accept that gift because

it hurts. If you put ice on a burn, it

hurts more, until the nerves get numb

and you don't feel a thing and the burn

begins to heal. It's like that with words

you have to let them burn without reacting,

until you get numb, and see they cannot hurt.

 

Phil doesn't understand that yet. So he

leaves every list chased away by words.

 

Pete

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

>

> I'd like to give everyone the gift

> of 'no words.' By that I mean, take them

> to that place where no word can offend,

> or flatter, or move you in any way. Few

> are willing to accept that gift because

> it hurts. If you put ice on a burn, it

> hurts more, until the nerves get numb

> and you don't feel a thing and the burn

> begins to heal. It's like that with words

> you have to let them burn without reacting,

> until you get numb, and see they cannot hurt.

>

> Phil doesn't understand that yet. So he

> leaves every list chased away by words.

>

> Pete

>

 

Allow Me

 

 

 

Allow me

to love you

as you are

it's easy enough

once you get out of my way...

the puzzle always fits

when the last piece is found,

 

There's just no sense in looking back

at who we were when all those

ways to get to heaven were

useless as the wet sticks

we tried to rub together to

build a fire, and we were just as lost,

anyway, and what we spoke of

was nothing more

than little stones in our shoes

that left us with feet bleeding

in all that green we had yet to grow,

and all that soul food we had yet to feed

our hungry minds.

 

It's all good darling, you see,

we're older now,

we've been simplified

with a few well-deserved pieces of quiet dignity,

and there's

a certain honesty in time that

no longer laments as it

passes by unadorned and

understated.

 

~A

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

>

> I'd like to give everyone the gift

> of 'no words.' By that I mean, take them

> to that place where no word can offend,

> or flatter, or move you in any way. Few

> are willing to accept that gift because

> it hurts. If you put ice on a burn, it

> hurts more, until the nerves get numb

> and you don't feel a thing and the burn

> begins to heal. It's like that with words

> you have to let them burn without reacting,

> until you get numb, and see they cannot hurt.

>

> Phil doesn't understand that yet. So he

> leaves every list chased away by words.

>

> Pete

>

Well then Pete I guess you are not offended by a little criticism?

What you write is a load of crap.You evolved the ego into superego

Ya think ego is a bitch, superego is a walk into

hell, believing it is heaven

 

Be only what you are not. Be better.Love more. Acceept all

We are all one and when the fear is screaming too loud you get numb

huh? Easier to just drink a six pack,I reckon.

 

But nonetheless that's some top notch advice giving. Join a religion

and go numb,how true it is

You gotta burn baby burn,not by good mind to bad mind,but mind

itself. Ya gotta

let the fire cconsume all of you.the good the bad and the ugly

 

until that truth is realized, you will die with mind and the fear

that has gone numb and it will haunt you on your death bed until the

ego will finally be comsumed. It's worse fear realized. No matter how

much you try to bullshit your way out of the dream with some

codependant love nonsense.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

<marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > P: I'd like to give everyone the gift

> > of 'no words.' By that I mean, take them

> > to that place where no word can offend,

> > or flatter, or move you in any way. Few

> > are willing to accept that gift because

> > it hurts. If you put ice on a burn, it

> > hurts more, until the nerves get numb

> > and you don't feel a thing and the burn

> > begins to heal. It's like that with words

> > you have to let them burn without reacting,

> > until you get numb, and see they cannot hurt.

> >

> > Phil doesn't understand that yet. So he

> > leaves every list chased away by words.

> >

> > Pete

> >

> M: Well then Pete I guess you are not offended by a little criticism?

 

P: That's correct.

 

 

>M: What you write is a load of crap.

 

Crap for you, maybe food for others.

Crap is what feeds the world as fertilizer.

All the top soil of the planet comes from

crap, and decaying vegetable and animal

tissues. So we could say, you're able to

write about my crap because crap, in general,

has keep you alive. Long live crap!

 

 

M:You evolved the ego into superego

> Ya think ego is a bitch, superego is a walk into

> hell,

 

P: Could you explain what a superego is to you.

I can't take offense, or agree without knowing

what that term means to you. Common knowledge

says that the bigger the ego, the more prone

to offense the person becomes. So I don't

understand how you connect superego with

not reacting to words. Could you explain?

 

 

>

>M: But nonetheless that's some top notch advice giving. Join a religion

> and go numb,

 

P: I didn't advise to join any religion

and the use of ice as burning, and then numbing

the skin was a metaphor. Attacking a metaphor

doesn't disproves the idea it illustrates,

which was: until we understand how words

acquire meaning, and how this set meaning makes

us react, we will be a slave to words, and

vulnerable to manipulation.

 

Thanks for your input.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

 

> Allow me

> to love you

> as you are

> it's easy enough

> once you get out of my way...

> the puzzle always fits

> when the last piece is found,

>

> There's just no sense in looking back

> at who we were when all those

> ways to get to heaven were

> useless as the wet sticks

> we tried to rub together to

> build a fire, and we were just as lost,

> anyway, and what we spoke of

> was nothing more

> than little stones in our shoes

> that left us with feet bleeding

> in all that green we had yet to grow,

> and all that soul food we had yet to feed

> our hungry minds.

>

> It's all good darling, you see,

> we're older now,

> we've been simplified

> with a few well-deserved pieces of quiet dignity,

> and there's

> a certain honesty in time that

> no longer laments as it

> passes by unadorned and

> understated.

>

> ~A

 

P: Good poem. I enjoy it. Thanks

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > P: I'd like to give everyone the gift

> > > of 'no words.' By that I mean, take them

> > > to that place where no word can offend,

> > > or flatter, or move you in any way. Few

> > > are willing to accept that gift because

> > > it hurts. If you put ice on a burn, it

> > > hurts more, until the nerves get numb

> > > and you don't feel a thing and the burn

> > > begins to heal. It's like that with words

> > > you have to let them burn without reacting,

> > > until you get numb, and see they cannot hurt.

> > >

> > > Phil doesn't understand that yet. So he

> > > leaves every list chased away by words.

> > >

> > > Pete

> > >

> > M: Well then Pete I guess you are not offended by a little

criticism?

>

> P: That's correct.

>

>

> >M: What you write is a load of crap.

>

> Crap for you, maybe food for others.

> Crap is what feeds the world as fertilizer.

> All the top soil of the planet comes from

> crap, and decaying vegetable and animal

> tissues. So we could say, you're able to

> write about my crap because crap, in general,

> has keep you alive. Long live crap!

>

>

> M:You evolved the ego into superego

> > Ya think ego is a bitch, superego is a walk into

> > hell,

>

> P: Could you explain what a superego is to you.

> I can't take offense, or agree without knowing

> what that term means to you. Common knowledge

> says that the bigger the ego, the more prone

> to offense the person becomes. So I don't

> understand how you connect superego with

> not reacting to words. Could you explain?

>

>

> >

> >M: But nonetheless that's some top notch advice giving. Join a

religion

> > and go numb,

>

> P: I didn't advise to join any religion

> and the use of ice as burning, and then numbing

> the skin was a metaphor. Attacking a metaphor

> doesn't disproves the idea it illustrates,

> which was: until we understand how words

> acquire meaning, and how this set meaning makes

> us react, we will be a slave to words, and

> vulnerable to manipulation.

>

> Thanks for your input.

>

Pete

good any offense or judgment felt gets in the way of the discussion

and more worse gets off the track of what is being discussed.

 

I thank you for your input as well, nothing wrong

with an opposing discussion,yeah? it's gotta me better than

posting nothing.

 

A superego is an awakening ego. Watch out danger!danger!warning!

warning!

 

So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass here. What

others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is not real

All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word you prefer)

Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write.

 

Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and naive. it

turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of beliefs.

which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality.

 

Metaphor or metawhore? Words only point to what is real. I know I

took the metaphor as it was not intended, but the fire and numbness

thing was too good to pass up. But understanding words is a fool's

game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as

nonduality or nonduality itself

 

love is self

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

> >

 

>M: A superego is an awakening ego.

 

P: Would not that be an oximoron?

 

But I think I know what you mean.

You mean the brain gets certain

insights, and then attributes them

to the effort it has made, and takes

pride in possessing such insights. Much

like a TV taking pride in what good

programs it shows.

 

But to me, ego and superego are just

concepts, not entities in the brain.

 

 

>M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass here.

 

P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. )

 

M: What

> others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is not real

> All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word you prefer)

> Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write.

 

P: What meaning do you give to the word real?

Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you

equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like

taking a bush moving in the night wind for

an animal jumping at you?

 

>M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and naive.

 

P: See! I could have taken offense to that,

but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put

down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled

to think that your opinions are superior to mine.

 

M: it

> turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of beliefs.

> which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality.

 

P: True

 

> M: But understanding words is a fool's

> game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as

> nonduality or nonduality itself.

 

P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that?

>

> M: love is self.

 

P: And self is what?

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

>

> > >

>

> >M: A superego is an awakening ego.

>

> P: Would not that be an oximoron?

>

> But I think I know what you mean.

> You mean the brain gets certain

> insights, and then attributes them

> to the effort it has made, and takes

> pride in possessing such insights. Much

> like a TV taking pride in what good

> programs it shows.

>

> But to me, ego and superego are just

> concepts, not entities in the brain.

>

>

> >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass here.

>

> P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. )

>

> M: What

> > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is not

real

> > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word you

prefer)

> > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write.

>

> P: What meaning do you give to the word real?

> Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you

> equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like

> taking a bush moving in the night wind for

> an animal jumping at you?

>

> >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and naive.

>

> P: See! I could have taken offense to that,

> but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put

> down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled

> to think that your opinions are superior to mine.

>

> M: it

> > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of beliefs.

> > which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality.

>

> P: True

>

> > M: But understanding words is a fool's

> > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as

> > nonduality or nonduality itself.

>

> P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that?

> >

> > M: love is self.

>

> P: And self is what?

> >

>

Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing you choose

to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too anal for me

to sustain.

 

I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant nonduality.

Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and peace for

all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may appear.

But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were perverted by

ego.

 

Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have the " love "

thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many posts that

teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by superego.FYI, a

concept is an entity in the mind.

 

Exactly! real is non-exsistent

 

I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean

 

Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

<marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >M: A superego is an awakening ego.

> >

> > P: Would not that be an oximoron?

> >

> > But I think I know what you mean.

> > You mean the brain gets certain

> > insights, and then attributes them

> > to the effort it has made, and takes

> > pride in possessing such insights. Much

> > like a TV taking pride in what good

> > programs it shows.

> >

> > But to me, ego and superego are just

> > concepts, not entities in the brain.

> >

> >

> > >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass here.

> >

> > P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. )

> >

> > M: What

> > > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is not

> real

> > > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word you

> prefer)

> > > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write.

> >

> > P: What meaning do you give to the word real?

> > Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you

> > equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like

> > taking a bush moving in the night wind for

> > an animal jumping at you?

> >

> > >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and naive.

> >

> > P: See! I could have taken offense to that,

> > but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put

> > down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled

> > to think that your opinions are superior to mine.

> >

> > M: it

> > > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of beliefs.

> > > which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality.

> >

> > P: True

> >

> > > M: But understanding words is a fool's

> > > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as

> > > nonduality or nonduality itself.

> >

> > P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that?

> > >

> > > M: love is self.

> >

> > P: And self is what?

> > >

> >

> Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing you choose

> to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too anal for me

> to sustain.

>

> I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant nonduality.

> Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and peace for

> all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may appear.

> But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were perverted by

> ego.

>

> Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have the " love "

> thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many posts that

> teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by superego.FYI, a

> concept is an entity in the mind.

>

> Exactly! real is non-exsistent

>

> I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean

>

> Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when

>

> Mark

 

P: Did you intend to kill the dialog?

Answering with such rambling generalities

leaves no room for reply. So good bey, till

next time.

 

>

[Guest guest]

cerosoul wrote:

>

>

>> M: A superego is an awakening ego.

>>

>

> P: Would not that be an oximoron?

>

> But I think I know what you mean.

> You mean the brain gets certain

> insights, and then attributes them

> to the effort it has made, and takes

> pride in possessing such insights. Much

> like a TV taking pride in what good

> programs it shows.

>

> But to me, ego and superego are just

> concepts, not entities in the brain.

>

>

>

 

Hi,

 

That is correct, ego, superego and Id, are all just concepts, not actual

entities in the brain/mind.

 

These were concepts developed by Sigmund Freud in order that he might

understand the mind better, so that he might have a more effective

psychoanalytic theory.

 

These concepts tend to get used these days in 'pseudo science new age

circles' as though they are actual aspects of the mind/brain. In

general, people that use these terms often have no idea what they

actually mean.

 

tyga

[Guest guest]

lNisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >M: A superego is an awakening ego.

> > >

> > > P: Would not that be an oximoron?

> > >

> > > But I think I know what you mean.

> > > You mean the brain gets certain

> > > insights, and then attributes them

> > > to the effort it has made, and takes

> > > pride in possessing such insights. Much

> > > like a TV taking pride in what good

> > > programs it shows.

> > >

> > > But to me, ego and superego are just

> > > concepts, not entities in the brain.

> > >

> > >

> > > >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass

here.

> > >

> > > P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. )

> > >

> > > M: What

> > > > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is

not

> > real

> > > > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word

you

> > prefer)

> > > > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write.

> > >

> > > P: What meaning do you give to the word real?

> > > Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you

> > > equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like

> > > taking a bush moving in the night wind for

> > > an animal jumping at you?

> > >

> > > >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and

naive.

> > >

> > > P: See! I could have taken offense to that,

> > > but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put

> > > down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled

> > > to think that your opinions are superior to mine.

> > >

> > > M: it

> > > > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of

beliefs.

> > > > which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality.

> > >

> > > P: True

> > >

> > > > M: But understanding words is a fool's

> > > > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as

> > > > nonduality or nonduality itself.

> > >

> > > P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that?

> > > >

> > > > M: love is self.

> > >

> > > P: And self is what?

> > > >

> > >

> > Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing you

choose

> > to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too anal

for me

> > to sustain.

> >

> > I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant nonduality.

> > Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and peace

for

> > all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may

appear.

> > But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were perverted

by

> > ego.

> >

> > Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have

the " love "

> > thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many posts

that

> > teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by

superego.FYI, a

> > concept is an entity in the mind.

> >

> > Exactly! real is non-exsistent

> >

> > I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean

> >

> > Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when

> >

> > Mark

>

> P: Did you intend to kill the dialog?

> Answering with such rambling generalities

> leaves no room for reply. So good bey, till

> next time.

>

> >

>

speaking of generalities

lol,couldn't stand the heat heat huh?

go run into the corner with Anna.

Mark

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

<marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> lNisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> > <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > > >M: A superego is an awakening ego.

> > > >

> > > > P: Would not that be an oximoron?

> > > >

> > > > But I think I know what you mean.

> > > > You mean the brain gets certain

> > > > insights, and then attributes them

> > > > to the effort it has made, and takes

> > > > pride in possessing such insights. Much

> > > > like a TV taking pride in what good

> > > > programs it shows.

> > > >

> > > > But to me, ego and superego are just

> > > > concepts, not entities in the brain.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass

> here.

> > > >

> > > > P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. )

> > > >

> > > > M: What

> > > > > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is

> not

> > > real

> > > > > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word

> you

> > > prefer)

> > > > > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write.

> > > >

> > > > P: What meaning do you give to the word real?

> > > > Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you

> > > > equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like

> > > > taking a bush moving in the night wind for

> > > > an animal jumping at you?

> > > >

> > > > >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and

> naive.

> > > >

> > > > P: See! I could have taken offense to that,

> > > > but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put

> > > > down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled

> > > > to think that your opinions are superior to mine.

> > > >

> > > > M: it

> > > > > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of

> beliefs.

> > > > > which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality.

> > > >

> > > > P: True

> > > >

> > > > > M: But understanding words is a fool's

> > > > > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as

> > > > > nonduality or nonduality itself.

> > > >

> > > > P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that?

> > > > >

> > > > > M: love is self.

> > > >

> > > > P: And self is what?

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing you

> choose

> > > to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too anal

> for me

> > > to sustain.

> > >

> > > I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant nonduality.

> > > Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and peace

> for

> > > all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may

> appear.

> > > But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were perverted

> by

> > > ego.

> > >

> > > Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have

> the " love "

> > > thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many posts

> that

> > > teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by

> superego.FYI, a

> > > concept is an entity in the mind.

> > >

> > > Exactly! real is non-exsistent

> > >

> > > I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean

> > >

> > > Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when

> > >

> > > Mark

> >

> > P: Did you intend to kill the dialog?

> > Answering with such rambling generalities

> > leaves no room for reply. So good bey, till

> > next time.

> >

> > >

> >

> speaking of generalities

> lol,couldn't stand the heat heat huh?

> go run into the corner with Anna.

> Mark

>

 

 

 

Shit.... now what did I do that I didn't do?

 

~A

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> >

> > lNisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> > > <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >M: A superego is an awakening ego.

> > > > > so

> > > > > P: Would not that be an oximoron?

> > > > >

> > > > > But I think I know what you mean.

> > > > > You mean the brain gets certain

> > > > > insights, and then attributes them

> > > > > to the effort it has made, and takes

> > > > > pride in possessing such insights. Much

> > > > > like a TV taking pride in what good

> > > > > programs it shows.

> > > > >

> > > > > But to me, ego and superego are just

> > > > > concepts, not entities in the brain.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass

> > here.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. )

> > > > >

> > > > > M: What

> > > > > > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It

is

> > not

> > > > real

> > > > > > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other

word

> > you

> > > > prefer)

> > > > > > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: What meaning do you give to the word real?

> > > > > Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you

> > > > > equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like

> > > > > taking a bush moving in the night wind for

> > > > > an animal jumping at you?

> > > > >

> > > > > >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and

> > naive.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: See! I could have taken offense to that,

> > > > > but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put

> > > > > down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled

> > > > > to think that your opinions are superior to mine.

> > > > >

> > > > > M: it

> > > > > > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of

> > beliefs.

> > > > > > which means nonduality is yet another duality in

nonduality.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: True

> > > > >

> > > > > > M: But understanding words is a fool's

> > > > > > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing

as

> > > > > > nonduality or nonduality itself.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > M: love is self.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: And self is what?

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing

you

> > choose

> > > > to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too

anal

> > for me

> > > > to sustain.

> > > >

> > > > I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant

nonduality.

> > > > Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and

peace

> > for

> > > > all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may

> > appear.

> > > > But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were

perverted

> > by

> > > > ego.

> > > >

> > > > Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have

> > the " love "

> > > > thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many

posts

> > that

> > > > teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by

> > superego.FYI, a

> > > > concept is an entity in the mind.

> > > >

> > > > Exactly! real is non-exsistent

> > > >

> > > > I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean

> > > >

> > > > Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when

> > > >

> > > > Mark

> > >

> > > P: Did you intend to kill the dialog?

> > > Answering with such rambling generalities

> > > leaves no room for reply. So good bey, till

> > > next time.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > speaking of generalities

> > lol,couldn't stand the heat heat huh?

> > go run into the corner with Anna.

> > Mark

> >

>

>

>

> Shit.... now what did I do that I didn't do?

>

> ~A

>

sorry anna my bad, I just seem to tie you into all that

peace and love for all thing

Mark

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

<marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> lNisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> > <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > > >M: A superego is an awakening ego.

> > > >

> > > > P: Would not that be an oximoron?

> > > >

> > > > But I think I know what you mean.

> > > > You mean the brain gets certain

> > > > insights, and then attributes them

> > > > to the effort it has made, and takes

> > > > pride in possessing such insights. Much

> > > > like a TV taking pride in what good

> > > > programs it shows.

> > > >

> > > > But to me, ego and superego are just

> > > > concepts, not entities in the brain.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass

> here.

> > > >

> > > > P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. )

> > > >

> > > > M: What

> > > > > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It is

> not

> > > real

> > > > > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other word

> you

> > > prefer)

> > > > > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write.

> > > >

> > > > P: What meaning do you give to the word real?

> > > > Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you

> > > > equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like

> > > > taking a bush moving in the night wind for

> > > > an animal jumping at you?

> > > >

> > > > >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and

> naive.

> > > >

> > > > P: See! I could have taken offense to that,

> > > > but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put

> > > > down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled

> > > > to think that your opinions are superior to mine.

> > > >

> > > > M: it

> > > > > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of

> beliefs.

> > > > > which means nonduality is yet another duality in nonduality.

> > > >

> > > > P: True

> > > >

> > > > > M: But understanding words is a fool's

> > > > > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing as

> > > > > nonduality or nonduality itself.

> > > >

> > > > P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that?

> > > > >

> > > > > M: love is self.

> > > >

> > > > P: And self is what?

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing you

> choose

> > > to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too anal

> for me

> > > to sustain.

> > >

> > > I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant nonduality.

> > > Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and peace

> for

> > > all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may

> appear.

> > > But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were perverted

> by

> > > ego.

> > >

> > > Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have

> the " love "

> > > thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many posts

> that

> > > teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by

> superego.FYI, a

> > > concept is an entity in the mind.

> > >

> > > Exactly! real is non-exsistent

> > >

> > > I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean

> > >

> > > Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when

> > >

> > > Mark

> >

> > P: Did you intend to kill the dialog?

> > Answering with such rambling generalities

> > leaves no room for reply. So good bey, till

> > next time.

> >

> > >

> >

> speaking of generalities

> lol,couldn't stand the heat heat huh?

> go run into the corner with Anna.

> Mark

 

P: LOL What heat? I asked you very specific

questions about the superego and what you

meant by " Words only point towards duality

or duality posing as nonduality or nonduality itself. "

 

And you answer with more gibberish about love

and peace and perverting Nis. So you have no

idea what you're talking about. Tiga was right

on, no gibberish there.

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> >

> > lNisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> > > <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >M: A superego is an awakening ego.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: Would not that be an oximoron?

> > > > >

> > > > > But I think I know what you mean.

> > > > > You mean the brain gets certain

> > > > > insights, and then attributes them

> > > > > to the effort it has made, and takes

> > > > > pride in possessing such insights. Much

> > > > > like a TV taking pride in what good

> > > > > programs it shows.

> > > > >

> > > > > But to me, ego and superego are just

> > > > > concepts, not entities in the brain.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >M: So sorry about this but I gotta go absolute on your ass

> > here.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: Metaphorically speaking, I hope. )

> > > > >

> > > > > M: What

> > > > > > others? Any " other " humanwise or thoughtwise is mind. It

is

> > not

> > > > real

> > > > > > All that is real is awareness(or substitute any other

word

> > you

> > > > prefer)

> > > > > > Any belief is also not real. Including this one I write.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: What meaning do you give to the word real?

> > > > > Do you think real= nonexistent? or do you

> > > > > equate unreal with a misinterpretation? Like

> > > > > taking a bush moving in the night wind for

> > > > > an animal jumping at you?

> > > > >

> > > > > >M: Years ago I would of believed you. But I was young and

> > naive.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: See! I could have taken offense to that,

> > > > > but I don't. Even if you intended that as a put

> > > > > down, I don't care. You're, certainly, entitled

> > > > > to think that your opinions are superior to mine.

> > > > >

> > > > > M: it

> > > > > > turns out nonduality is a relision,with a whole bunch of

> > beliefs.

> > > > > > which means nonduality is yet another duality in

nonduality.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: True

> > > > >

> > > > > > M: But understanding words is a fool's

> > > > > > game. Words only point towards duality or duality posing

as

> > > > > > nonduality or nonduality itself.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: So, do you know, exactly, what you meant by that?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > M: love is self.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: And self is what?

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > Pardon me, but I am not going to do the paraphrasing thing

you

> > choose

> > > > to do. I will respond to any thought but that is just too

anal

> > for me

> > > > to sustain.

> > > >

> > > > I am offended too.I really thought nonduality meant

nonduality.

> > > > Nonduality defined includes all,but when one says love and

peace

> > for

> > > > all, you are speaking of duality,no matter how loving it may

> > appear.

> > > > But still I was offended that Nisargadatta's words were

perverted

> > by

> > > > ego.

> > > >

> > > > Well it is pretty moronic if you ask me. But you do have

> > the " love "

> > > > thing going on don't you Phil? Seems to me I remember many

posts

> > that

> > > > teach love and peace for all. That is what I mean by

> > superego.FYI, a

> > > > concept is an entity in the mind.

> > > >

> > > > Exactly! real is non-exsistent

> > > >

> > > > I know what I mean,the question is do you know what I mean

> > > >

> > > > Self is not a what or a who or a where or a when

> > > >

> > > > Mark

> > >

> > > P: Did you intend to kill the dialog?

> > > Answering with such rambling generalities

> > > leaves no room for reply. So good bey, till

> > > next time.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > speaking of generalities

> > lol,couldn't stand the heat heat huh?

> > go run into the corner with Anna.

> > Mark

>

> P: LOL What heat? I asked you very specific

> questions about the superego and what you

> meant by " Words only point towards duality

> or duality posing as nonduality or nonduality itself. "

>

> And you answer with more gibberish about love

> and peace and perverting Nis. So you have no

> idea what you're talking about. Tiga was right

> on, no gibberish there.

> >

You might go read " I am that " before you say something stupid

again,otherwise please tell me Nisargadatta's unperverted teachings

according to Pete. I would love to hear em. You are clueless as to

what Nisargadatta spoke. YOu jumped on board with your own agenda.

 

So let me get this straight first you ask the pertinent questions

and then you judge the proper response. Have I got that right?

Good god man,You must be a teacher of some nonduality religion.

I should of known better.

 

By the way

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

didn't answear your qour questions the ay you would of liked.

[Guest guest]

marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> sorry anna my bad, I just seem to tie you into all that

> peace and love for all thing

> Mark

>

>

> ---

>

>

I might suggest that some peace and love probably wouldn't go astray if

included in your dialogue.

 

I make the simple suggestion that when attempting to communicate, a

civil reference position is always a much more constructive position for

persuasion, than an uncivil one.

 

Just as an example, if we focus negatively on a persons personality

while attempting to convey a message to them, that person will most

likely become either defensive or not listen to the point we might be

attempting to make but instead focus on our attack of their personality.

The discussion then usually descends quickly into attack and defend,

achieving essentially nothing except maybe frustration.

 

The way we communicate is always the key to a constructive or

non-constructive conversation.

 

tyga

[Guest guest]

> >

> > P: LOL What heat? I asked you very specific

> > questions about the superego and what you

> > meant by " Words only point towards duality

> > or duality posing as nonduality or nonduality itself. "

> >

> > And you answer with more gibberish about love

> > and peace and perverting Nis. So you have no

> > idea what you're talking about. Tiga was right

> > on, no gibberish there.

> > >

>M: You might go read " I am that " before you say something stupid

> again,otherwise please tell me Nisargadatta's unperverted teachings

> according to Pete.

 

P: I don't mind saying something stupid.

I read all Nis' books years ago. I don't

need his words anymore, do you? I had a

broken leg once, and used crutches for a

while. As soon as the bone healed, I put

the crutches aside, and have no need of

them. I never think of the crutches, or

of Nis' words. They both did their job

well. The purpose of Nis' words are to

take you beyond words.

 

 

 

 

M: I would love to hear em. You are clueless as to

> what Nisargadatta spoke. YOu jumped on board with your own agenda.

 

P: Why don't you tell what Nis' words have done

for you?

>

> So let me get this straight first you ask the pertinent questions

> and then you judge the proper response. Have I got that right?

 

P: Of course! How else can you understand

what people mean? Do you ask impertinent questions

and ignore the response? Maybe that's why this

conversation is going nowhere fast.

 

> M: Good god man,You must be a teacher of some nonduality religion.

> I should of known better.

 

P; Was Nis a teacher of nonduality, in your opinion?

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

>

> > >

> > > P: LOL What heat? I asked you very specific

> > > questions about the superego and what you

> > > meant by " Words only point towards duality

> > > or duality posing as nonduality or nonduality itself. "

> > >

> > > And you answer with more gibberish about love

> > > and peace and perverting Nis. So you have no

> > > idea what you're talking about. Tiga was right

> > > on, no gibberish there.

> > > >

> >M: You might go read " I am that " before you say something stupid

> > again,otherwise please tell me Nisargadatta's unperverted

teachings

> > according to Pete.

>

> P: I don't mind saying something stupid.

> I read all Nis' books years ago. I don't

> need his words anymore, do you? I had a

> broken leg once, and used crutches for a

> while. As soon as the bone healed, I put

> the crutches aside, and have no need of

> them. I never think of the crutches, or

> of Nis' words. They both did their job

> well. The purpose of Nis' words are to

> take you beyond words.

>

>

>

>

> M: I would love to hear em. You are clueless as to

> > what Nisargadatta spoke. YOu jumped on board with your own agenda.

>

> P: Why don't you tell what Nis' words have done

> for you?

> >

> > So let me get this straight first you ask the pertinent

questions

> > and then you judge the proper response. Have I got that right?

>

> P: Of course! How else can you understand

> what people mean? Do you ask impertinent questions

> and ignore the response? Maybe that's why this

> conversation is going nowhere fast.

>

> > M: Good god man,You must be a teacher of some nonduality religion.

> > I should of known better.

>

> P; Was Nis a teacher of nonduality, in your opinion?

> >

>Pete

Stupid is as stupid thinks.

You know I don't blame you, I blame Bill Clinton for this song and

dance debate style that he made so popular. Ever notice how people

just can't tell the truth??

 

But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here because

you might have missed the question in your enlightened state. Would

you tell me the unperverted teachings of Nisargadatta according to

you.

 

As a matter of fact I do read Nisargadatta daily. His eloquence

keeps me vigilant from becoming an awakened ego. You might wanna

give it a try.

 

But anyway, the way it works for me, is if I am asked a question I

respond with a direct answear, if I ask a question, I would expect

the samething. But not you, you answear with a question(more Bill

here)or you deflect by attacking off topic.

Nope the reason this conversation is going nowhere fast is because I

am talking to an enlightened ego. I just thought I would give it the

old college try, ya know?

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > I'd like to give everyone the gift

> > of 'no words.' By that I mean, take them

> > to that place where no word can offend,

> > or flatter, or move you in any way. Few

> > are willing to accept that gift because

> > it hurts. If you put ice on a burn, it

> > hurts more, until the nerves get numb

> > and you don't feel a thing and the burn

> > begins to heal. It's like that with words

> > you have to let them burn without reacting,

> > until you get numb, and see they cannot hurt.

> >

> > Phil doesn't understand that yet. So he

> > leaves every list chased away by words.

> >

> > Pete

> >

>

> Allow Me

>

>

>

> Allow me

> to love you

> as you are

> it's easy enough

> once you get out of my way...

> the puzzle always fits

> when the last piece is found,

>

> There's just no sense in looking back

> at who we were when all those

> ways to get to heaven were

> useless as the wet sticks

> we tried to rub together to

> build a fire, and we were just as lost,

> anyway, and what we spoke of

> was nothing more

> than little stones in our shoes

> that left us with feet bleeding

> in all that green we had yet to grow,

> and all that soul food we had yet to feed

> our hungry minds.

>

> It's all good darling, you see,

> we're older now,

> we've been simplified

> with a few well-deserved pieces of quiet dignity,

> and there's

> a certain honesty in time that

> no longer laments as it

> passes by unadorned and

> understated.

>

> ~A

>

So it really is love for all then!!?? Oh wait a minute

" I " got to get out of

the way first. Another enlightened ego.

I better go read Pete's edition of the unperverted

Nisargadatta's teaching as soon as he writes it

 

The last piece to the

puzzle Anna, is who you are. Grow up before

you it is too late. Sorry, that was as much of your

poem thatI could stomach to read.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

>

> marktimmins60 wrote:

> >

> > sorry anna my bad, I just seem to tie you into all that

> > peace and love for all thing

> > Mark

> >

> >

> > ---

> >

> >

> I might suggest that some peace and love probably wouldn't go

astray if

> included in your dialogue.

>

> I make the simple suggestion that when attempting to communicate, a

> civil reference position is always a much more constructive

position for

> persuasion, than an uncivil one.

>

> Just as an example, if we focus negatively on a persons personality

> while attempting to convey a message to them, that person will most

> likely become either defensive or not listen to the point we might

be

> attempting to make but instead focus on our attack of their

personality.

> The discussion then usually descends quickly into attack and

defend,

> achieving essentially nothing except maybe frustration.

>

> The way we communicate is always the key to a constructive or

> non-constructive conversation.

>

> tyga

>

 

Go deeper, it is all love.

You might be confusing etiquette and good taste with love maybe?

I choose rather just to speak to the brutality of real love than to

walk the danger thin line of codependancy. Instead of looking at

the words read the intent.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

M: Ever notice how people

> just can't tell the truth??

 

P: No, most people try to tell

the truth as they see it, most of the time.

>

>M: But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here because

> you might have missed the question in your enlightened state. Would

> you tell me the unperverted teachings of Nisargadatta according to

> you.

 

P: I have no such thing. When the teachings came

to Nis' mind they were not perverted. When he

spoke them, he perverted them with words. When

those words were translated into English they

were perverted again. When someone reads them

they are perverted once again. When that reader

retells them perversion is added. So there

is no such thing as unperverted Nis's teachings.

>

>M: As a matter of fact I do read Nisargadatta daily. His eloquence

> keeps me vigilant from becoming an awakened ego. You might wanna

> give it a try.

 

P: What are you now? A sleeping ego? What is an Awakened

ego?

>

M: I just thought I would give it the

> old college try, ya know?

 

P: What was your major?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> M: Ever notice how people

> > just can't tell the truth??

>

> P: No, most people try to tell

> the truth as they see it, most of the time.

> >

> >M: But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here

because

> > you might have missed the question in your enlightened state.

Would

> > you tell me the unperverted teachings of Nisargadatta according

to

> > you.

>

> P: I have no such thing. When the teachings came

> to Nis' mind they were not perverted. When he

> spoke them, he perverted them with words. When

> those words were translated into English they

> were perverted again. When someone reads them

> they are perverted once again. When that reader

> retells them perversion is added. So there

> is no such thing as unperverted Nis's teachings.

> >

> >M: As a matter of fact I do read Nisargadatta daily. His

eloquence

> > keeps me vigilant from becoming an awakened ego. You might wanna

> > give it a try.

>

> P: What are you now? A sleeping ego? What is an Awakened

> ego?

> >

> M: I just thought I would give it the

> > old college try, ya know?

>

> P: What was your major?

> >

> >

> >

>

You really are Bill Clinton aren't you? I do blame you then.

Who am I?

I am.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

marktimmins60 wrote:

> Go deeper, it is all love.

> You might be confusing etiquette and good taste with love maybe?

> I choose rather just to speak to the brutality of real love than to

> walk the danger thin line of codependancy. Instead of looking at

> the words read the intent.

>

> Mark

>

>

> ---

>

> **

>

>

Etiquette and good taste would definitely be a great start. But no, I'm

not confusing etiquette and good taste with love, thanks for asking. I

also mentioned peace though, I wonder, did you not realise I mentioned

peace?

 

If I understand you correctly, what you might be saying here, is that

you prefer to take the tough approach to love, to take the

disciplinarian approach maybe, in order that you not yourself become

undisciplined or tainted by the tenderer aspects of love and be drawn

into some sort of co-dependant love deception?

 

I'm not really sure what you mean?

 

You are perfectly entitled to take whatever approach you like, that is

entirely up to you of course, but I remind you, that the way we

communicate makes all the difference in whether or not we are effective,

in my opinion.

 

tyga

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

>

> marktimmins60 wrote:

> > Go deeper, it is all love.

> > You might be confusing etiquette and good taste with love maybe?

> > I choose rather just to speak to the brutality of real love than

to

> > walk the danger thin line of codependancy. Instead of looking at

> > the words read the intent.

> >

> > Mark

> >

> >

> > ---

> >

> > **

> >

> >

> Etiquette and good taste would definitely be a great start. But no,

I'm

> not confusing etiquette and good taste with love, thanks for

asking. I

> also mentioned peace though, I wonder, did you not realise I

mentioned

> peace?

>

> If I understand you correctly, what you might be saying here, is

that

> you prefer to take the tough approach to love, to take the

> disciplinarian approach maybe, in order that you not yourself

become

> undisciplined or tainted by the tenderer aspects of love and be

drawn

> into some sort of co-dependant love deception?

>

> I'm not really sure what you mean?

>

> You are perfectly entitled to take whatever approach you like, that

is

> entirely up to you of course, but I remind you, that the way we

> communicate makes all the difference in whether or not we are

effective,

> in my opinion.

>

> tyga

>

it is all love don't you understand? peace is love war is love and

sarcasm is love and I love using it when I hear nonsense.

and yes even awakened egos are love. but that you think there is love

and not love tells me that you are in the right universe, but the

wrong forum

and besides who made you the love judge anway? You must be very

close to God. If however you want my respect, don't talk the

walk,walk the walk.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> it is all love don't you understand? peace is love war is love and

> sarcasm is love and I love using it when I hear nonsense.

> and yes even awakened egos are love. but that you think there is love

> and not love tells me that you are in the right universe, but the

> wrong forum

> and besides who made you the love judge anway? You must be very

> close to God. If however you want my respect, don't talk the

> walk,walk the walk.

>

> Mark

>

>

>

> ---

>

> **

>

> I

Don't I understand? How odd that you ought ask me that question.

 

I was just recently making the point that unconditional love is the

source of all things, which would entail that all things are love.

 

I'm sorry Mark, but you don't appear to making any sense as far as I can

tell.

 

tyga