Guest guest Report post Posted May 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Not " really. " > > > > Nothing really exists here, except how we construct it. > > > > So " really " is construct, is a useful illusion. > > > > What isn't illusion is made into illusion once we talk about it. > > > > Anyway, why not construct multiple awarenesses. > > > > This is closer to my experience (okay, I'm laughing now, my experience is a construct too, I admit it) ... > > > > Awareness is there when a thing or quality is there. > > > > But there is nothing making that the same awareness as when > > something else is there. > > Something is not there at the same time something else is there. From here, this is why there's only awareness, not " awarenesses " . > > There's only awareness now, not multiple awarenesses. And there is nothing else but now. Therefore, now is awareness, unsplit, and no construct unifying anything. There is not a past awareness, or a future awareness, thus no multiple awarenesses, and no unifying > constructs have been used. P.S. if you're suggesting that the memory of one " awareness " seems different than the memory of a different " awareness " , all I have to say is that you aren't comparing awarenesses at all, you're comparing memories. And sure, one memory is not the same as another memory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Not " really. " > > > > > > Nothing really exists here, except how we construct it. > > > > > > So " really " is construct, is a useful illusion. > > > > > > What isn't illusion is made into illusion once we talk about it. > > > > > > Anyway, why not construct multiple awarenesses. > > > > > > This is closer to my experience (okay, I'm laughing now, my experience is a construct too, I admit it) ... > > > > > > Awareness is there when a thing or quality is there. > > > > > > But there is nothing making that the same awareness as when > > > something else is there. > > > > Something is not there at the same time something else is there. From here, this is why there's only awareness, not " awarenesses " . > > > > There's only awareness now, not multiple awarenesses. And there is nothing else but now. Therefore, now is awareness, unsplit, and no construct unifying anything. There is not a past awareness, or a future awareness, thus no multiple awarenesses, and no unifying > > constructs have been used. > > P.S. if you're suggesting that the memory of one " awareness " seems different than the memory of a different " awareness " , all I have to say is that you aren't comparing awarenesses at all, you're comparing memories. And sure, one memory is not the same as another memory. words refer to qualities that can be contrasted with their opposites. thus, they have meanings. and thus, words involve other words in their meaning construction. the falseness, illusory nature of this, is obvious. a word is not another word. a word is not added to another word. a word is not something that exists in a contrast with another word. a word is not singular or multiple. it's just a word. so, I'm pointing this out. awareness is as illusory as any other word concept. and yes, that's true of the word " illusory " just as much as " awareness. " you can have illusion, you can have awareness, you can have illusions, you can have awarenesses. all meanings dissolve, including the meaning of " dissolve. " so, here we are. on one's own. each letter is just whatever appears visually at that instant. just on one's own, no word as prop. it's good! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Not " really. " > > > > > > > > Nothing really exists here, except how we construct it. > > > > > > > > So " really " is construct, is a useful illusion. > > > > > > > > What isn't illusion is made into illusion once we talk about it. > > > > > > > > Anyway, why not construct multiple awarenesses. > > > > > > > > This is closer to my experience (okay, I'm laughing now, my experience is a construct too, I admit it) ... > > > > > > > > Awareness is there when a thing or quality is there. > > > > > > > > But there is nothing making that the same awareness as when > > > > something else is there. > > > > > > Something is not there at the same time something else is there. From here, this is why there's only awareness, not " awarenesses " . > > > > > > There's only awareness now, not multiple awarenesses. And there is nothing else but now. Therefore, now is awareness, unsplit, and no construct unifying anything. There is not a past awareness, or a future awareness, thus no multiple awarenesses, and no unifying > > > constructs have been used. > > > > P.S. if you're suggesting that the memory of one " awareness " seems different than the memory of a different " awareness " , all I have to say is that you aren't comparing awarenesses at all, you're comparing memories. And sure, one memory is not the same as another memory. > > words refer to qualities that can be contrasted with their opposites. > > thus, they have meanings. > > and thus, words involve other words in their meaning construction. > > the falseness, illusory nature of this, is obvious. > > a word is not another word. > > a word is not added to another word. > > a word is not something that exists in a contrast with another word. > > a word is not singular or multiple. > > it's just a word. > > so, I'm pointing this out. To whom? > awareness is as illusory as any other word concept. So what's the point of talking at all, if we don't decide to use " illusory " concepts? > and yes, that's true of the word " illusory " just as much > as " awareness. " And everything is illusory, and so is this message. Bye. Yawn... > you can have illusion, you can have awareness, you can have > illusions, you can have awarenesses. Of course you can. Have whatever ya like. > all meanings dissolve, including the meaning of " dissolve. " > > so, here we are. > > on one's own. > > each letter is just whatever appears visually at that instant. > > just on one's own, no word as prop. > > it's good! If there's no agreement whatsover about what we're going to " construct " when chatting, discussion itself becomes not only pointless but worthless. Granted, you hear only your self, and speak only to your self. So do I. But to be quite honest, I don't particularly enjoy conversing with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > So what's the point of talking at all, if we don't decide to use " illusory " concepts? We are. > Yawn... Ho hum. Been there, done that. > > you can have illusion, you can have awareness, you can have > > illusions, you can have awarenesses. > > Of course you can. Have whatever ya like. Awarenesses as plural works for me. What is one is many, and many are one, as none is all is none. The oneness isn't privileged over multiplicity, and the oneness isn't a final resolution. As division doesn't divide, the undivided is divisions. Hence, we can use words. Viewing awarenesses allows one to understand how people experience moments of time as gestalts. How objects are perceived as gestalts. Each object has its awareness that " goes with it. " Each atom the same. Each experiential moment has its awareness. Hence, we can talk about a person who is more aware and someone who is less aware. We can speak of birth and death. All of this implies multiplicity to awareness, just as much as the diversity implies unicity. The unicity isn't underlying, and there isn't an underlying unifying concept needed. The unicity is the multiplicity, and vice versa. As is. The death and birth of awareness moments as people is undivided. > Granted, you hear only your self, and speak only to your self. So do I. But to be quite honest, I don't particularly enjoy conversing with you. Maybe this helps to answer your question about multiple awarenesses. I've enjoyed the conversation, although you didn't. So it goes. Be well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 17, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:55 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > So what's the point of talking at all, if we don't decide to use > " illusory " concepts? We are. > Yawn... Ho hum. Been there, done that. > > you can have illusion, you can have awareness, you can have > > illusions, you can have awarenesses. > > Of course you can. Have whatever ya like. Awarenesses as plural works for me. What is one is many, and many are one, as none is all is none. The oneness isn't privileged over multiplicity, and the oneness isn't a final resolution. As division doesn't divide, the undivided is divisions. Hence, we can use words. Viewing awarenesses allows one to understand how people experience moments of time as gestalts. How objects are perceived as gestalts. Each object has its awareness that " goes with it. " Each atom the same. Each experiential moment has its awareness. Hence, we can talk about a person who is more aware and someone who is less aware. We can speak of birth and death. All of this implies multiplicity to awareness, just as much as the diversity implies unicity. The unicity isn't underlying, and there isn't an underlying unifying concept needed. The unicity is the multiplicity, and vice versa. As is. The death and birth of awareness moments as people is undivided. > Granted, you hear only your self, and speak only to your self. So do I. > But to be quite honest, I don't particularly enjoy conversing with you. Maybe this helps to answer your question about multiple awarenesses. I've enjoyed the conversation, although you didn't. So it goes. Be well. == Why do you differentiate and object from its awareness? Are they not the same? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 17, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:45 PM Re: Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:55 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > So what's the point of talking at all, if we don't decide to use > " illusory " concepts? We are. > Yawn... Ho hum. Been there, done that. > > you can have illusion, you can have awareness, you can have > > illusions, you can have awarenesses. > > Of course you can. Have whatever ya like. Awarenesses as plural works for me. What is one is many, and many are one, as none is all is none. The oneness isn't privileged over multiplicity, and the oneness isn't a final resolution. As division doesn't divide, the undivided is divisions. Hence, we can use words. Viewing awarenesses allows one to understand how people experience moments of time as gestalts. How objects are perceived as gestalts. Each object has its awareness that " goes with it. " Each atom the same. Each experiential moment has its awareness. Hence, we can talk about a person who is more aware and someone who is less aware. We can speak of birth and death. All of this implies multiplicity to awareness, just as much as the diversity implies unicity. The unicity isn't underlying, and there isn't an underlying unifying concept needed. The unicity is the multiplicity, and vice versa. As is. The death and birth of awareness moments as people is undivided. > Granted, you hear only your self, and speak only to your self. So do I. > But to be quite honest, I don't particularly enjoy conversing with you. Maybe this helps to answer your question about multiple awarenesses. I've enjoyed the conversation, although you didn't. So it goes. Be well. == Why do you differentiate an object from its awareness? Are they not the same? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > == > Why do you differentiate an object from its awareness? Are they not the > same? > -geo- > Yes and no. As diversity is unicity is diversity. Because they are the same they differentiate. Because they differentiate they are the same. Thus, I experience an apple. An apple is red, is on the table. I can walk to the table and pick up the apple. I can touch it and taste it. I am aware of the apple, but I am not the apple. Thus, I can see the apple and its color, and can decide to eat it, or not. And, at the same moment, the awareness of the apple and the apple are not to. Apple is awareness is apple. I am apple is I is nothing/nowhere is all, includes the entirety. All this is immediate, is now. The now-ing of the apple. The now-ing of being aware. The now-ing of diversity and mulitiplicty. The now-ing of unicity and nonseparation. The now-ing of time, the timing of now. being time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 > == > Why do you differentiate an object from its awareness? Are they not the > same? > -geo- > Yes and no. As diversity is unicity is diversity. Because they are the same they differentiate. Because they differentiate they are the same. Thus, I experience an apple. An apple is red, is on the table. I can walk to the table and pick up the apple. I can touch it and taste it. I am aware of the apple, but I am not the apple. Thus, I can see the apple and its color, and can decide to eat it, or not. And, at the same moment, the awareness of the apple and the apple are not to. Apple is awareness is apple. I am apple is I is nothing/nowhere is all, includes the entirety. All this is immediate, is now. The now-ing of the apple. The now-ing of being aware. The now-ing of diversity and mulitiplicty. The now-ing of unicity and nonseparation. The now-ing of time, the timing of now. being time. geo> I understand what you are saying. Plurality, diversity...no problem with that. My question is different, more fundamental Is the table diferent from the awareness of the table? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > == > > Why do you differentiate an object from its awareness? Are they not the > > same? > > -geo- > > > > Yes and no. > > As diversity is unicity is diversity. > > Because they are the same they differentiate. > > Because they differentiate they are the same. > > Thus, I experience an apple. > > An apple is red, is on the table. > > I can walk to the table and pick up the apple. > > I can touch it and taste it. > > I am aware of the apple, but I am not the apple. > > Thus, I can see the apple and its color, and can decide to eat it, or not. > > And, at the same moment, the awareness of the apple and the apple are not to. > > Apple is awareness is apple. > > I am apple is I is nothing/nowhere is all, includes the entirety. > > All this is immediate, is now. > > The now-ing of the apple. > > The now-ing of being aware. > > The now-ing of diversity and mulitiplicty. > > The now-ing of unicity and nonseparation. > > The now-ing of time, the timing of now. > > being time. this sort of thing makes you feel proud of yourself. it shouldn't. it's putrid and petrifies the phony self.. into believing in itself and it's vapid rhapsodies. it's all so much simpler and natural than that crap. that stuff isn't entertaining or amusing. it's distracting and props up dreamscapes of no value. do something. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 2:20 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > == > Why do you differentiate an object from its awareness? Are they not the > same? > -geo- > dan: Yes and no. geo> Let us consider the yes. So there are two apples: one in awareness and the other.... where? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> I understand what you are saying. Plurality, diversity...no > problem with that. My question is different, more fundamental > Is the table diferent from the awareness of the table? Verbally, you've made them different in your question. To answer, I would say that it all depends on the context of the conversation. In one conversation, it would make sense to differentiate table and awareness. In another conversation, it might make sense to equate them. The words refer to different qualities, though. So verbally and conceptually, you've distinguished awareness from table even in the question you raised. Can there be a special type of conversation in which awareness and table would be equated? Yes, if the conversation was intended to indicate a nonverbal transcendent truth, a truth beyond the categories of the words themselves. And that conversation would depend on who is having the conversation and their way of using their words. So, there is no absolute, final truth involved in making the equation, " the table is awareness, and there is no difference between table and awareness. " Therefore, I'd suggest that any verbal indication of such a truth is very limited, and the words won't be able to give the truth of that knowing - which must be first-hand to be true and otherwise just becomes a reiteration of a verbal formula. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 geo> I understand what you are saying. Plurality, diversity...no problem with that. My question is different, more fundamental Is the table diferent from the awareness of the table?------------While in ordinary language one might say, "Are you aware of the table?"strictly speaking that is a misconception.Awareness is only now, the absolute present, and as such consists onlyof sensations. There are no "objects" in awareness.The ordinary language confusion comes from careless interchange ofthe terms awareness and consciousness. Hence the question properlybecomes, "Is the table different from consciousness of the table?"The table only exists in consciousness. But the table's existence inconsciousness is effectively "onsciousness of the table". The table's existence in consciousness isc entirely due to its being deemed as such in consciousness. This means that the table does not exist asan entity in consciousness, but that it implicitly exists in its beingconsidered as existent in consciousness. Hence the "table" is notdifferent from consciousness of the table. [the short answer!]When attention is not on things (such as tables) but strictly in theimmediacy of now such issues do not arise. In immediacy of nowthere are no objects, and things such as tables and car keys take ofthemselves. Collapsing into the infinite vertical moment, the world disappears.Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, May 18, 2009 2:20 PM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > == > > Why do you differentiate an object from its awareness? Are they not the > > same? > > -geo- > > > > dan: Yes and no. > > geo> Let us consider the yes. So there are two apples: > one in awareness and the other.... where? I think you mean, let us consider the no, as in no, they are not the same. In the case where they are not the same, there is a human being who is aware of the apple. When the human being touches the apple, he or she touches and object that the human may or may not decide to eat. In this case, the awareness is assumed to be in or with the human, as subject, to whom the apple appears as something outside, which may or may not be lunch, depending on the decision the human makes, based on his or her awareness and perception of the apple. In this case, the other, the apple is on the table. The image of the apple is in the human brain, which is being associated with awareness. If the person leaves the room, he or she retains the image of the apple in the human awareness. When the person comes back to the room, the apple that is perceived may not match the image being held in the brain, in awareness. So, the image then is revised. Say, for example, the apple dried up. Now, the human awareness retains the image of a dried-up apple as existing on the table. And so it goes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. A couple questions: (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? (2) If so, where are they located? (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? Thanks... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > A couple questions: > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > Thanks... > There is no " here " . There is no " now " . There is no " location " . There is no " past " . There is no " future " . Any other questions about real things......I would be happy to answer. (If you can find a real thing....:-0 toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > A couple questions: > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > There is no " here " . > There is no " now " . > There is no " location " . > There is no " past " . > There is no " future " . There is no " neo-advaita " , which blathers endlessly about " there is no xxx " (asserting " truth " , but never daring to look the false in the face and see it as false). Any questions? ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 4:19 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> I understand what you are saying. Plurality, diversity...no > problem with that. My question is different, more fundamental > Is the table diferent from the awareness of the table? Verbally, you've made them different in your question. geo> Yes I made them be two. So there is only one possible answer for that. No. To answer, I would say that it all depends on the context of the conversation. In one conversation, it would make sense to differentiate table and awareness. geo> Give me an example please... In another conversation, it might make sense to equate them. The words refer to different qualities, though. geo> Diferent qualities? There is no apple outside of its awareness. Which qualities? ....sorry.... So verbally and conceptually, you've distinguished awareness from table even in the question you raised. geo> The answer to the question must not be conceptual. Whe cares for a conscptual answer? Can there be a special type of conversation in which awareness and table would be equated? Yes, if the conversation was intended to indicate a nonverbal transcendent truth, a truth beyond the categories of the words themselves. And that conversation would depend on who is having the conversation and their way of using their words. So, there is no absolute, final truth involved in making the equation, " the table is awareness, and there is no difference between table and awareness. " Therefore, I'd suggest that any verbal indication of such a truth is very limited, and the words won't be able to give the truth of that knowing - which must be first-hand to be true and otherwise just becomes a reiteration of a verbal formula. geo> Funny...I dont see how an object can be different from its awareness. -- Dan avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 16:27:39 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > geo> I understand what you are saying. Plurality, diversity...no > > problem with that. My question is different, more fundamental > > Is the table diferent from the awareness of the table? > > ------------ > > > > While in ordinary language one might say, " Are you aware of the table? " > > strictly speaking that is a misconception. > > > > Awareness is only now, the absolute present, and as such consists only > > of sensations. There are no " objects " in awareness. > > Even a sensation is a kind of object. > > Unless you involve memory, can you be aware of a sensation? Of course. If it wasn't so, no sensation would ever have come about -- as there would have to have been a " first memory " prior to the first sensation of a newborn infant. Awareness does not require objects. I say this from 'direct experience'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > A couple questions: > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > Thanks... " they " ? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > A couple questions: > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > Thanks... > > > " they " ? > > .b b.b. Yes... It's Dan's " they " I'm questioning, as he talked of " awarenesses " (plural). > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 4:26 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, May 18, 2009 2:20 PM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > == > > Why do you differentiate an object from its awareness? Are they not the > > same? > > -geo- > > > > dan: Yes and no. > > geo> Let us consider the yes. So there are two apples: > one in awareness and the other.... where? I think you mean, let us consider the no, as in no, they are not the same. geof> Ahhh...yes, sure. In the case where they are not the same, there is a human being who is aware of the apple. When the human being touches the apple, he or she touches and object that the human may or may not decide to eat. In this case, the awareness is assumed to be in or with the human, as subject, to whom the apple appears as something outside, which may or may not be lunch, depending on the decision the human makes, based on his or her awareness and perception of the apple. In this case, the other, the apple is on the table. The image of the apple is in the human brain, which is being associated with awareness. geo> Is there an image of an apple apart of another apple? If the person leaves the room, he or she retains the image of the apple in the human awareness. geo> Ahh...but that is an image of an apple. Then the awareness of that image in the brain is not different from the image in the brain. It is only one - always. When the person comes back to the room, the apple that is perceived may not match the image being held in the brain, in awareness. So, the image then is revised. Say, for example, the apple dried up. Now, the human awareness retains the image of a dried-up apple as existing on the table. And so it goes. geo> No way! Either the apple or the image of an apple in the brain. They are different in their nature. We slip into duality very easily. We confuse the apple for the image of the apple - we actually do that with everything. We forget the senses and dive into the darkness of memories as images without noticing! Dont take it personally. We all falll asleep easily. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 16:30:41 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > > > A couple questions: > > > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > > > > > > There is no " here " . > > There is no " now " . > > There is no " location " . > > There is no " past " . > > There is no " future " . > > There is no " neo-advaita " , which blathers endlessly about " there is no xxx " (asserting " truth " , but never daring to look the false in the face and see it as false). Any questions? ;-). there is no question. there is no answer. there there. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > A couple questions: > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > Thanks... > > > They exist as a conversational convention, like anything else we are discussing. It depends on agreement, like all language. > > (If you don't want to hear me discuss this further because you're > getting bored, please stop reading now.) What I see you doing, Dan, is being very inconsistent, redefining words to fit your preferences at the moment, dismissing arguments when you see fit by saying " words are meaningless " , etc. It's not so much what you say that I find boring, it's the way you redefine the " rules " of the conversation to try and keep yourself " in the know " ... or at least that's what I'm assuming you're doing, as I don't see any other reason why you'd avoid answering certain questions by suddenly saying " words mean whatever we want them to " , and answer certain other questions very concisely. In other words, I see ego at play here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 4:42 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > A couple questions: > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > There is no " here " . > There is no " now " . > There is no " location " . > There is no " past " . > There is no " future " . There is no " neo-advaita " , which blathers endlessly about " there is no xxx " (asserting " truth " , but never daring to look the false in the face and see it as false). Any questions? ;-). geo> I have no idea what advaita is. Can I participate in the converstion? avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 16:44:37 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > > > A couple questions: > > > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > > > > > > There is no " here " . > > There is no " now " . > > There is no " location " . > > There is no " past " . > > There is no " future " . > > There is no " neo-advaita " , which blathers endlessly about " there is no xxx " (asserting " truth " , but never daring to look the false in the face and see it as false). Any questions? ;-). > In nature......there is no such thing as false. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
