Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > Yes......and then sorts through its little bag-o-words for the right ones to bring the understanding back into a conceptual format. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > Yes. > > And so to be of service to humanity, like Jesus and Buddha. > > Buddhas of the internet. > > LOL. Finally, someone laughs about it ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, May 22, 2009 5:25 PM > > Re: Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, May 22, 2009 4:45 PM > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > geo> Oh no. thought solving a math problem does not need an inner > > > > > separate > > > > > entiy. > > > > > > > > It needs time. > > > > > > > > And time is thought-formulated. > > > > > > > > > geo> I understand wht you are saying, but your usage of " thought " is > > > > > unique. > > > > > Again: what is consciousness according to your nomeclature? > > > > > > > > Consciousness is generated by an organism, allowing it to use energy to > > > > differentiate objects. > > > > > > > > Thought formulates the structure of the organism. > > > > > > > > Thought is the organism. > > > > > > > > The larger construct that maybe you and I would agree on might be > > > > " awareness. " > > > > > > > > I think you are using " consciousness " the way I would use " awareness. " > > > > > > > > However, looking deeply into the nature of " awareness, " the concept of > > > > awareness (thought-formulated) dissolves. > > > > > > > > This is why Niz said, " nothing not even the concept of 'nothing.' " > > > > > > > > He spoke of a truth prior to " awareness. " > > > > > > > > Thought does not touch this. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no truth " prior to awareness " . > > > > > > *Truth* is a concept. Awareness is content > > > absent of concepts. > > > > > > ~A > > > > Yes, there is truth prior to awareness. > > > > Niz called this " nothing -- not even the concept of 'nothing.' " > > > > Awareness is not a content. Concept is content. Awareness is the context for > > content. > > > > Obviously, everything we say in words is conceptual. > > > > If that isn't clear at this point, I don't know what would be clear. > > > > geo> At this point? Are progressing from ...to... > > What do you mean? > > I think you will have a hard time making some understand what you are saying > > when you > > use the terms " consciousness, awareness and thought " . You have invented your > > own > > meanings for them. > > I've done my best to be clear how I'm using the terms. > > I don't think the way I'm using them is unusual. > > As I explained, it fits with Niz, it fits with others as well. > > But so what? > > Are you and I communicating? > > Have my explanations helped you understand what I've said? > > That's what counts. > > Maybe I wasted my time. > > It's okay, though. > > I'm happy knowing I did my best. > > > Prior to consciousness....prior to awareness...(??????) > > Yes. > > This is the point of no-time and no-location. > > It is the " eye of the needle, " that you can't pass through. > > You drop off - mind, body, past, thought, everything you thought was you. > > Perhaps you want to cling to " awareness " to something that everything is. > > This also dissolves. > > > Lets clear one point at least regarding this issue: Nis said " prior to > > consciousness is the ultimate " . > > This says something defintive about the expression " consciusness " . > > Now you are saying " prior to awareness.....something...and that Nis. said > > this or that about it " . > > You must agree.....it is confusing. > >D: What is confusing about nothing -- not even the concept of 'nothing.' > > Yes, Niz did say this. > > He spoke to what people were ready to hear and who his audience was. > > If he spoke to someone who was ready to release " the Ultimate " or " Awareness " he let them know that these go. > > The bottom line here is being nothing, having nothing, not even the concept or feeling of 'nothing.' > > Do you understand this, because if you do, the way I'm using words should be clear ... > > > -- Dan P: Nothing is a hard piece of " real " estate to sell in this market. Only Werner, and Toomb might consider buying a little plot with a good view to dig their graves. As for Geo, he wants a plot of something to build a self. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > I've done my best to be clear how I'm using the terms. > > I don't think the way I'm using them is unusual. > > As I explained, it fits with Niz, it fits with others as well. > > But so what? > > Are you and I communicating? Are two ever communicating? Have I, the reader, failed to understand that only I am here? Have I, the writer, failed to understand this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Friday, May 22, 2009 6:27 PM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 5:25 PM > > > Re: Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 4:45 PM > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Oh no. thought solving a math problem does not need an inner > > > > > > separate > > > > > > entiy. > > > > > > > > > > It needs time. > > > > > > > > > > And time is thought-formulated. > > > > > > > > > > > geo> I understand wht you are saying, but your usage of " thought " > > > > > > is > > > > > > unique. > > > > > > Again: what is consciousness according to your nomeclature? > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is generated by an organism, allowing it to use energy > > > > > to > > > > > differentiate objects. > > > > > > > > > > Thought formulates the structure of the organism. > > > > > > > > > > Thought is the organism. > > > > > > > > > > The larger construct that maybe you and I would agree on might be > > > > > " awareness. " > > > > > > > > > > I think you are using " consciousness " the way I would use > > > > > " awareness. " > > > > > > > > > > However, looking deeply into the nature of " awareness, " the concept > > > > > of > > > > > awareness (thought-formulated) dissolves. > > > > > > > > > > This is why Niz said, " nothing not even the concept of 'nothing.' " > > > > > > > > > > He spoke of a truth prior to " awareness. " > > > > > > > > > > Thought does not touch this. > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no truth " prior to awareness " . > > > > > > > > *Truth* is a concept. Awareness is content > > > > absent of concepts. > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > Yes, there is truth prior to awareness. > > > > > > Niz called this " nothing -- not even the concept of 'nothing.' " > > > > > > Awareness is not a content. Concept is content. Awareness is the context > > > for > > > content. > > > > > > Obviously, everything we say in words is conceptual. > > > > > > If that isn't clear at this point, I don't know what would be clear. > > > > > > geo> At this point? Are progressing from ...to... > > > What do you mean? > > > I think you will have a hard time making some understand what you are > > > saying > > > when you > > > use the terms " consciousness, awareness and thought " . You have invented > > > your > > > own > > > meanings for them. > > > > I've done my best to be clear how I'm using the terms. > > > > I don't think the way I'm using them is unusual. > > > > As I explained, it fits with Niz, it fits with others as well. > > > > But so what? > > > > Are you and I communicating? > > > > Have my explanations helped you understand what I've said? > > > > That's what counts. > > > > Maybe I wasted my time. > > > > It's okay, though. > > > > I'm happy knowing I did my best. > > > > > Prior to consciousness....prior to awareness...(??????) > > > > Yes. > > > > This is the point of no-time and no-location. > > > > It is the " eye of the needle, " that you can't pass through. > > > > You drop off - mind, body, past, thought, everything you thought was you. > > > > Perhaps you want to cling to " awareness " to something that everything is. > > > > This also dissolves. > > > > > Lets clear one point at least regarding this issue: Nis said " prior to > > > consciousness is the ultimate " . > > > This says something defintive about the expression " consciusness " . > > > Now you are saying " prior to awareness.....something...and that Nis. > > > said > > > this or that about it " . > > > You must agree.....it is confusing. > > > > What is confusing about nothing -- not even the concept of 'nothing.' > > > > Yes, Niz did say this. > > > > He spoke to what people were ready to hear and who his audience was. > > > > If he spoke to someone who was ready to release " the Ultimate " or > > " Awareness " he let them know that these go. > > > > The bottom line here is being nothing, having nothing, not even the > > concept or feeling of 'nothing.' > > > > Do you understand this, because if you do, the way I'm using words should > > be clear ... > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > There is a book named " Intelligent Thought " in which authors from various > scientific disciplines take on " intelligent design " . > > One of them starts out his chapter with: > " I can't believe that we are even discussing intelligent design! " > > When the Understanding dawns concerning the emptiness of self and its pseudo > reality.....it is so apparent that it defies all attempts to put the new > world into words.....(mostly because it is conceptual thought that is the > root of the " problem " ). > > There are a few that are heads and shoulders above the others in the attempt > to capture this elusive beast in a net of words. > > The rest may have the same understanding but lack the fine tuned ability to > convert the understanding into an understandable format. > > It isn't that they don't understand completely.......they just don't > understand how to speak of the Understanding. > > But I sure as hell love all those who try. > > toombaru > > Yes, I understand what you are saying, and even " Dan's - as he called > it - bottom line " . > I was just pointing out some wide nomeclature discrepancies, considering > that this forum is somehow > vaguely, in some misty manner, related to the fellow nis. Not important > though... > > -geo- > . > Nizargadatta was uniquely able to combine words in a way that could dissolve words and their pseudo world. Although much of what he said preceded him. But he is dead....and the fire occurs on the Living-Edge. toombaru toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > Nizargadatta was uniquely able to combine words in a way that could > dissolve words and their pseudo world. > > Although much of what he said preceded him. > > But he is dead....and the fire occurs on the Living-Edge. > > > > toombaru Even if he was alive, he couldn't help you. There is no help for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Amen! Absolute futility married to unrelenting compulsion! Bottomless joy and ultimate frustration united like Siamese Twins! Perhaps now and then something said, something seen, or a gesture made "appears" to *click* for someone for whatever reason or no reason at all. Maybe it's just the "right" chemical combination. Perhaps a timely spark caste into tinder that is ripe and ignition occurs. Maybe a "conceptual sperm" successfully penetrates a "conceptual egg" and "conception" takes place eventually giving birth to radical insight! Who knows! Humor sure does come in handy though! What can one say about "generality" without being specific? Or the unqualifed without generating a quality? Or the meaningless without bringing forth meaning? Or silence without making a sound? Or no-*thing* without producing some-*thing*? Or about "one" without making "two"? Michael > There is a book named "Intelligent Thought" in which authors from various scientific disciplines take on "intelligent design".> One of them starts out his chapter with:> "I can't believe that we are even discussing intelligent design!"> When the Understanding dawns concerning the emptiness of self and its pseudo reality.....it is so apparent that it defies all attempts to put the new world into words.....(mostly because it is conceptual thought that is the > root of the "problem").> There are a few that are heads and shoulders above the others in the attempt to capture this elusive beast in a net of words.> The rest may have the same understanding but lack the fine tuned ability to convert the understanding into an understandable format.> It isn't that they don't understand completely.......they just don't understand how to speak of the Understanding.> But I sure as hell love all those who try.> toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > You just offered words. > > > > Which you say are just words and mean whatever I want them to mean. > > > > I don't want them to mean anything. > > > > You haven't blown over anything, just put out words that you say > > don't mean anything. > > Would you know whether I've blown over anything? > > Are you here? > > Is any " you " ever here? > > No. > > Only " I " am here. > > Aren't I, the reader of this message, here? > > Are you, the writer, here? Yes, I am here. Yes, this is I. Yes, I do get it. Yes, you are hitting me over the head with it. But I don't care. I'm still crazy after all these years. And still here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You just offered words. > > > > > > Which you say are just words and mean whatever I want them to mean. > > > > > > I don't want them to mean anything. > > > > > > You haven't blown over anything, just put out words that you say > > > don't mean anything. > > > > Would you know whether I've blown over anything? > > > > Are you here? > > > > Is any " you " ever here? > > > > No. > > > > Only " I " am here. > > > > Aren't I, the reader of this message, here? > > > > Are you, the writer, here? > > > Yes, I am here. > > Yes, this is I. > > Yes, I do get it. > > Yes, you are hitting me over the head with it. Sorry... I've tried whispering, but it usually gets lost in the din. > But I don't care. > > I'm still crazy after all these years. > > And still here. I'm still here, and moving here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > Dismissing a particular concept such as " truth " to fit one's preferences is silly. Dismiss them all, or dismiss none. > > > > They dissolve. > > > > Be aware of them dissolving. > > Whom is being addressed? > > I'm not aware of anything present, or dissolving. > > > Dissolution also goes, and going goes. > > > > Nothing, not even the concept of 'nothing.' > > Who is lecturing, and who's being lectured? Who cares? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > Dismissing a particular concept such as " truth " to fit one's preferences is silly. Dismiss them all, or dismiss none. > > > > > > They dissolve. > > > > > > Be aware of them dissolving. > > > > Whom is being addressed? > > > > I'm not aware of anything present, or dissolving. > > > > > Dissolution also goes, and going goes. > > > > > > Nothing, not even the concept of 'nothing.' > > > > Who is lecturing, and who's being lectured? > > > Who cares? Bad question! ;-). (just kidding). > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > I've done my best to be clear how I'm using the terms. > > > > I don't think the way I'm using them is unusual. > > > > As I explained, it fits with Niz, it fits with others as well. > > > > But so what? > > > > Are you and I communicating? > > Are two ever communicating? > > Have I, the reader, failed to understand that only I am here? > > Have I, the writer, failed to understand this? The only trouble is, it's not a verbal understanding. It's not anchored to feelings, either. There's not much to go on. And that's the difficulty. You can tell from how they use words. And it doesn't depend on the words at all. Not even a single one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You just offered words. > > > > > > > > Which you say are just words and mean whatever I want them to mean. > > > > > > > > I don't want them to mean anything. > > > > > > > > You haven't blown over anything, just put out words that you say > > > > don't mean anything. > > > > > > Would you know whether I've blown over anything? > > > > > > Are you here? > > > > > > Is any " you " ever here? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > Only " I " am here. > > > > > > Aren't I, the reader of this message, here? > > > > > > Are you, the writer, here? > > > > > > Yes, I am here. > > > > Yes, this is I. > > > > Yes, I do get it. > > > > Yes, you are hitting me over the head with it. > > Sorry... I've tried whispering, but it usually gets lost in the din. > > > But I don't care. > > > > I'm still crazy after all these years. > > > > And still here. > > I'm still here, and moving here. Funny dream you're having. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I've done my best to be clear how I'm using the terms. > > > > > > I don't think the way I'm using them is unusual. > > > > > > As I explained, it fits with Niz, it fits with others as well. > > > > > > But so what? > > > > > > Are you and I communicating? > > > > Are two ever communicating? > > > > Have I, the reader, failed to understand that only I am here? > > > > Have I, the writer, failed to understand this? > > > The only trouble is, it's not a verbal understanding. That doesn't seem here to be a trouble. Verbality " comes out of " the understanding, to put it verbally. The dissolution you mentioned is like changing from a black hole to a star. The truth radiates. > It's not anchored to feelings, either. > > There's not much to go on. > > And that's the difficulty. Yes, for those who are seeking truth, it's a difficulty. So is the search for truth. > You can tell from how they use words. > > > And it doesn't depend on the words at all. > > Not even a single one. I agree. In fact, when I first noticed things dissolve, I was rather immersed in words. This dissolution doesn't even seem to depend on abandoning words. Words are just the very surface of consciousness, if you will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nizargadatta was uniquely able to combine words in a way that could dissolve words and their pseudo world. Although much of what he said preceded him. But he is dead....and the fire occurs on the Living-Edge. toombaru What do you mean with " although much of what he said preceded him " ? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Nizargadatta was uniquely able to combine words in a way that could dissolve > words and their pseudo world. > > Although much of what he said preceded him. > > But he is dead....and the fire occurs on the Living-Edge. > > toombaru > > What do you mean with " although much of what he said preceded him " ? > -geo- He probably means that it had all been said before. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 - cerosoul Nisargadatta Friday, May 22, 2009 7:48 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, May 22, 2009 5:25 PM > > Re: Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, May 22, 2009 4:45 PM > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > geo> Oh no. thought solving a math problem does not need an inner > > > > > separate > > > > > entiy. > > > > > > > > It needs time. > > > > > > > > And time is thought-formulated. > > > > > > > > > geo> I understand wht you are saying, but your usage of " thought " > > > > > is > > > > > unique. > > > > > Again: what is consciousness according to your nomeclature? > > > > > > > > Consciousness is generated by an organism, allowing it to use energy > > > > to > > > > differentiate objects. > > > > > > > > Thought formulates the structure of the organism. > > > > > > > > Thought is the organism. > > > > > > > > The larger construct that maybe you and I would agree on might be > > > > " awareness. " > > > > > > > > I think you are using " consciousness " the way I would use > > > > " awareness. " > > > > > > > > However, looking deeply into the nature of " awareness, " the concept > > > > of > > > > awareness (thought-formulated) dissolves. > > > > > > > > This is why Niz said, " nothing not even the concept of 'nothing.' " > > > > > > > > He spoke of a truth prior to " awareness. " > > > > > > > > Thought does not touch this. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no truth " prior to awareness " . > > > > > > *Truth* is a concept. Awareness is content > > > absent of concepts. > > > > > > ~A > > > > Yes, there is truth prior to awareness. > > > > Niz called this " nothing -- not even the concept of 'nothing.' " > > > > Awareness is not a content. Concept is content. Awareness is the context > > for > > content. > > > > Obviously, everything we say in words is conceptual. > > > > If that isn't clear at this point, I don't know what would be clear. > > > > geo> At this point? Are progressing from ...to... > > What do you mean? > > I think you will have a hard time making some understand what you are > > saying > > when you > > use the terms " consciousness, awareness and thought " . You have invented > > your > > own > > meanings for them. > > I've done my best to be clear how I'm using the terms. > > I don't think the way I'm using them is unusual. > > As I explained, it fits with Niz, it fits with others as well. > > But so what? > > Are you and I communicating? > > Have my explanations helped you understand what I've said? > > That's what counts. > > Maybe I wasted my time. > > It's okay, though. > > I'm happy knowing I did my best. > > > Prior to consciousness....prior to awareness...(??????) > > Yes. > > This is the point of no-time and no-location. > > It is the " eye of the needle, " that you can't pass through. > > You drop off - mind, body, past, thought, everything you thought was you. > > Perhaps you want to cling to " awareness " to something that everything is. > > This also dissolves. > > > Lets clear one point at least regarding this issue: Nis said " prior to > > consciousness is the ultimate " . > > This says something defintive about the expression " consciusness " . > > Now you are saying " prior to awareness.....something...and that Nis. > > said > > this or that about it " . > > You must agree.....it is confusing. > >D: What is confusing about nothing -- not even the concept of 'nothing.' > > Yes, Niz did say this. > > He spoke to what people were ready to hear and who his audience was. > > If he spoke to someone who was ready to release " the Ultimate " or > " Awareness " he let them know that these go. > > The bottom line here is being nothing, having nothing, not even the > concept or feeling of 'nothing.' > > Do you understand this, because if you do, the way I'm using words should > be clear ... > > > -- Dan P: Nothing is a hard piece of " real " estate to sell in this market. Only Werner, and Toomb might consider buying a little plot with a good view to dig their graves. As for Geo, he wants a plot of something to build a self. geo> Right. But haven't been able to find a good project yet. When I am about to finish reading the last page, the first has changed. I think it is something to do with the ink, maybe the wrong brand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Friday, May 22, 2009 9:29 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Nizargadatta was uniquely able to combine words in a way that could > dissolve > words and their pseudo world. > > Although much of what he said preceded him. > > But he is dead....and the fire occurs on the Living-Edge. > > toombaru > > What do you mean with " although much of what he said preceded him " ? > -geo- He probably means that it had all been said before. geo> Yea, perhaps he should have said it all in some new unknown dialect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Friday, May 22, 2009 8:03 PM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > toombaru2006 > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, May 22, 2009 6:27 PM > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > geo > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 5:25 PM > > > > Re: Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 4:45 PM > > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Oh no. thought solving a math problem does not need an > > > > > > > inner > > > > > > > separate > > > > > > > entiy. > > > > > > > > > > > > It needs time. > > > > > > > > > > > > And time is thought-formulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> I understand wht you are saying, but your usage of > > > > > > > " thought " > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > unique. > > > > > > > Again: what is consciousness according to your nomeclature? > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is generated by an organism, allowing it to use > > > > > > energy > > > > > > to > > > > > > differentiate objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought formulates the structure of the organism. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought is the organism. > > > > > > > > > > > > The larger construct that maybe you and I would agree on might be > > > > > > " awareness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are using " consciousness " the way I would use > > > > > > " awareness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > However, looking deeply into the nature of " awareness, " the > > > > > > concept > > > > > > of > > > > > > awareness (thought-formulated) dissolves. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why Niz said, " nothing not even the concept of 'nothing.' " > > > > > > > > > > > > He spoke of a truth prior to " awareness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought does not touch this. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no truth " prior to awareness " . > > > > > > > > > > *Truth* is a concept. Awareness is content > > > > > absent of concepts. > > > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > > > Yes, there is truth prior to awareness. > > > > > > > > Niz called this " nothing -- not even the concept of 'nothing.' " > > > > > > > > Awareness is not a content. Concept is content. Awareness is the > > > > context > > > > for > > > > content. > > > > > > > > Obviously, everything we say in words is conceptual. > > > > > > > > If that isn't clear at this point, I don't know what would be clear. > > > > > > > > geo> At this point? Are progressing from ...to... > > > > What do you mean? > > > > I think you will have a hard time making some understand what you are > > > > saying > > > > when you > > > > use the terms " consciousness, awareness and thought " . You have > > > > invented > > > > your > > > > own > > > > meanings for them. > > > > > > I've done my best to be clear how I'm using the terms. > > > > > > I don't think the way I'm using them is unusual. > > > > > > As I explained, it fits with Niz, it fits with others as well. > > > > > > But so what? > > > > > > Are you and I communicating? > > > > > > Have my explanations helped you understand what I've said? > > > > > > That's what counts. > > > > > > Maybe I wasted my time. > > > > > > It's okay, though. > > > > > > I'm happy knowing I did my best. > > > > > > > Prior to consciousness....prior to awareness...(??????) > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > This is the point of no-time and no-location. > > > > > > It is the " eye of the needle, " that you can't pass through. > > > > > > You drop off - mind, body, past, thought, everything you thought was > > > you. > > > > > > Perhaps you want to cling to " awareness " to something that everything > > > is. > > > > > > This also dissolves. > > > > > > > Lets clear one point at least regarding this issue: Nis said " prior to > > > > consciousness is the ultimate " . > > > > This says something defintive about the expression " consciusness " . > > > > Now you are saying " prior to awareness.....something...and that Nis. > > > > said > > > > this or that about it " . > > > > You must agree.....it is confusing. > > > > > > What is confusing about nothing -- not even the concept of 'nothing.' > > > > > > Yes, Niz did say this. > > > > > > He spoke to what people were ready to hear and who his audience was. > > > > > > If he spoke to someone who was ready to release " the Ultimate " or > > > " Awareness " he let them know that these go. > > > > > > The bottom line here is being nothing, having nothing, not even the > > > concept or feeling of 'nothing.' > > > > > > Do you understand this, because if you do, the way I'm using words > > > should > > > be clear ... > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > There is a book named " Intelligent Thought " in which authors from various > > scientific disciplines take on " intelligent design " . > > > > One of them starts out his chapter with: > > " I can't believe that we are even discussing intelligent design! " > > > > When the Understanding dawns concerning the emptiness of self and its > > pseudo > > reality.....it is so apparent that it defies all attempts to put the new > > world into words.....(mostly because it is conceptual thought that is the > > root of the " problem " ). > > > > There are a few that are heads and shoulders above the others in the > > attempt > > to capture this elusive beast in a net of words. > > > > The rest may have the same understanding but lack the fine tuned ability > > to > > convert the understanding into an understandable format. > > > > It isn't that they don't understand completely.......they just don't > > understand how to speak of the Understanding. > > > > But I sure as hell love all those who try. > > > > toombaru > > > > Yes, I understand what you are saying, and even " Dan's - as he called > > it - bottom line " . > > I was just pointing out some wide nomeclature discrepancies, considering > > that this forum is somehow > > vaguely, in some misty manner, related to the fellow nis. Not important > > though... > > > > -geo- > > . > > > > Nizargadatta was uniquely able to combine words in a way that could dissolve > words and their pseudo world. > > Although much of what he said preceded him. > > But he is dead....and the fire occurs on the Living-Edge. > > toombaru > > What are you talking about toomba? t: Don't know. You say something.......something here responds. Dan or b.b.b says something and something here is stimulated to articulate itself. Bill and Anna speak and their words elicit a response. Tim and Michael comment and the neurons in this head do their thing. I read what bubbles up through my mnemonic debris.......some of it resonates with who I am at that moment.......some of it feels bland.......and every one in a while....... .......something pulls the rug and I find my self falling through space....something here remembers that that falling is who I am... ........and the silent laughter fills the room. Do you really feel that I am > some kind of a follower? t: I don't know what your are.....nor can I. I don't know what I am. I do, however, know what the I am is. I know that I like you. I like your honesty. Or maybe a pseudo-disciple, or a worshiper? > In fact I first read a book of nis. perhaps 2-3 month ago, and liked it. t: That puts you in a very small and very elite group. Not many want to hear that they don't exist and everything that they believe about all matters spiritual is wrong. LOL > As I said - when I fucking look up at the top of my fucking PC, it > is writen Nisargadatta fucking fucking dot com . so I > thought..... > > but as I said...fuck it. It doesnt fucking matter its not that fucking > important. > -geo- > One taste of the Big Empty is enough to destroy your entire life. The seeds have been planted in a place you can't reach. For you...........it's all over but the crying. Hey...............seen any good movies lately? " Up " is coming our May 29th. :-) I can hardly wait. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Don't know. > You say something.......something here responds. > Dan or b.b.b says something and something here is stimulated to articulate itself. > Bill and Anna speak and their words elicit a response. > Tim and Michael comment and the neurons in this head do their thing. Bill and Anna and Tim and Dan are just words sitting on a computer screen that we may project as " people out there " . Yet, they remain just words on a computer screen. The word " Michael " is no different than the word " tree " . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Nizargadatta was uniquely able to combine words in a way that could dissolve > words and their pseudo world. > > Although much of what he said preceded him. > > But he is dead....and the fire occurs on the Living-Edge. > > toombaru > > What do you mean with " although much of what he said preceded him " ? > -geo- > " Washing blood with blood " . " You are the child of a barren woman " . Asking " Who am I?. etc. can be found in the Gitas and Vasistha's Yoga. The book " I Am That " is actually a group of disjointed paragraphs compiled over the years by Maurice Friedman into general categories and chapters. Nisargadatta spoke to the unique moment and person in front of him. It is amazing that his words carry as much potency as they do after being translated from Marathi to English and applied to a totally different set of circumstances. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta spoke to the unique moment and person in front of him. > > It is amazing that his words carry as much potency as they do after > being translated from Marathi to English and applied to a totally > different set of circumstances. > > toombaru I've repeated many of the words he's spoken to folks on the lists, in appropriate circumstances, and they're always rejected immediately (most often as delusional). If I type the same words and end it with " -- Nisargadatta Maharaj " , they are lauded and doted upon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta spoke to the unique moment and person in front of him. > > > > It is amazing that his words carry as much potency as they do after > > being translated from Marathi to English and applied to a totally > > different set of circumstances. > > > > toombaru > > I've repeated many of the words he's spoken to folks on the lists, in appropriate circumstances, and they're always rejected immediately (most often as delusional). If I type the same words and end it with " -> - Nisargadatta Maharaj " , they are lauded and doted upon. Oh yeah... and the few occasions I've backed up what I've said with N. quotes, the response is always " well, he meant something different " . The fact is -- nobody cares what Nisargadatta said. Nobody is paying the slightest bit of attention. People just want others to know they know some famous spiritual personage, and/or are " in the know " themselves. It's all shallow, surface crap. People are idiots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta spoke to the unique moment and person in front of him. > > > > > > It is amazing that his words carry as much potency as they do after > > > being translated from Marathi to English and applied to a totally > > > different set of circumstances. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > I've repeated many of the words he's spoken to folks on the lists, in appropriate circumstances, and they're always rejected immediately (most often as delusional). If I type the same words and end it with " -> - Nisargadatta Maharaj " , they are lauded and doted upon. > > Oh yeah... and the few occasions I've backed up what I've said with N. quotes, the response is always " well, he meant something different " . > > The fact is -- nobody cares what Nisargadatta said. Nobody is paying the slightest bit of attention. People just want others to know they know some famous spiritual personage, and/or are " in the know " themselves. It's all shallow, surface crap. People are idiots. > No more than dogs or squirrels. :-) toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta spoke to the unique moment and person in front of him. > > > > > > > > It is amazing that his words carry as much potency as they do after > > > > being translated from Marathi to English and applied to a totally > > > > different set of circumstances. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > I've repeated many of the words he's spoken to folks on the lists, in appropriate circumstances, and they're always rejected immediately (most often as delusional). If I type the same words and end it with " -> - Nisargadatta Maharaj " , they are lauded and doted upon. > > > > Oh yeah... and the few occasions I've backed up what I've said with N. quotes, the response is always " well, he meant something different " . > > > > The fact is -- nobody cares what Nisargadatta said. Nobody is paying the slightest bit of attention. People just want others to know they know some famous spiritual personage, and/or are " in the know " themselves. It's all shallow, surface crap. People are idiots. > > > > > > No more than dogs or squirrels. > > > > :-) > > > > > toombaru Dogs and squirrels are far more intelligent. The discursive intellect is stupidity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You just offered words. > > > > > > > > > > Which you say are just words and mean whatever I want them to mean. > > > > > > > > > > I don't want them to mean anything. > > > > > > > > > > You haven't blown over anything, just put out words that you say > > > > > don't mean anything. > > > > > > > > Would you know whether I've blown over anything? > > > > > > > > Are you here? > > > > > > > > Is any " you " ever here? > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > Only " I " am here. > > > > > > > > Aren't I, the reader of this message, here? > > > > > > > > Are you, the writer, here? > > > > > > > > > Yes, I am here. > > > > > > Yes, this is I. > > > > > > Yes, I do get it. > > > > > > Yes, you are hitting me over the head with it. > > > > Sorry... I've tried whispering, but it usually gets lost in the din. > > > > > But I don't care. > > > > > > I'm still crazy after all these years. > > > > > > And still here. > > > > I'm still here, and moving here. > > Funny dream you're having. funny how you evidently find yourself in this funny dream. and you aren't dreaming yourself? i think you should talk to a good shrink about this. fuck talking to a guru... he'll just laugh. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
