Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So he's advising attachment not to attach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Heheh... I dunno... don't remember what he said. Did it appear to you to be advice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan: > > > > > > > > > " don't attach to a dream, and it is of no concern. > > > > > > the only breakdown is of the attaching attempt. > > > > > > don't attach and you don't need to wait. > > > > > > now. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > You missed the key word in this statement you're citing, Toom. > > > > Now. > > > > If you understood that as you read it, you wouldn't be going back to retrieve words to try to prove a point. > > > > Sheesh. > > > Are you not trying to prove a point? > > The self is a many pointed object. > > (in backgroung: " The hills are alive.................. " ) > > > > Oh.......there is no such thing as " now " . > > > > > > toombaru I'm doing whatever the image you construct tells you I'm doing as you read words on a computer screen. Sure, sure, there's no such thing as now. And there's no such thing as you saying there's no such thing as " now, " yadda yadda yadda. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > > I enjoyed reading this, right after I read and responded to the same message. > > > > Yes. > > > > Now. > > > > So simple. > > > you're sounding like a teenie bopper hippie with this " now " shit. > > get off it...NOW. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. Teeny bopper hippies ... People go in a lot of weird directions with the words they see here. Hey, as long as it gives you a laugh. d. d. d. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 > Can anything be for real? > > > > toombaru Any thing cannot be real. Nor is it unreal, as there is no real thing to compare it with. Thus, to dismiss a thing as unreal gives it an unreality that is as useless as regarding it as real. -- Dan How can anyone think, talk or point to something unreal? What is he thinking, talking or pointing to? -neti-neti-geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 > I enjoyed reading this, right after I read and responded to the same message. > > > > Yes. > > > > Now. > > > > So simple. > > > you're sounding like a teenie bopper hippie with this " now " shit. > > get off it...NOW. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. Teeny bopper hippies ... People go in a lot of weird directions with the words they see here. Hey, as long as it gives you a laugh. d. d. d. neti...neti....laughs are unreal -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 In a message dated 5/26/2009 3:06:12 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, fewtch writes: Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:>> > > The gap is 'behind' thought, not within it.> > > ***I don't know what that means. "That which is seeing thought" is the gap. It's easier to apperceive this when thought is quiet, but I don't really know what you mean by "a gap in thought". Thought is more like a flow... too rapid to stop it and examine something through a gap. ***Awareness has a focus of attention. It may be attention to thought, in which case it is not attention to that which is aware of thoughts. That which is present in the gap is Awareness, which is also what is seeing thought. We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > consider how you give advise.. > > then try and deny it. > > you can't weasel your way out of it... > > though you may be a type of weasel. > > .b b.b. you concerning yourself with unrealities again? my advice to you is to listen. ..d d.d. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > ah the gospels.. > > so often we find: > > " etc., and so on, and so forth ... " > > good shit man but also full of it too. > > .b b.b. you remind me of a tea I once drank: constant comment. i know you're enjoying the commentary you provide. it's obvious and obviouser. d. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > the farmer who waits is a fool. > > > > > > the harvest is already here. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > this is as it as it will ever be. > > > > .d .d .d > > > repetitions are not necessary. > > .b b.b. every word written or spoken is a repetition. every image or feeling remembered is repetition. and repetitions are so ... repetitive. D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Can anything be for real? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > Any thing cannot be real. > > Nor is it unreal, as there is no real thing to compare it with. > > Thus, to dismiss a thing as unreal gives it an unreality that is as useless > as regarding it as real. > > -- Dan > > How can anyone think, talk or point to something unreal? > What is he thinking, talking or pointing to? > -neti-neti-geo- > Thinking is pointing. So it needs to imagine something pointed to. That is how it works. The thought is an imagining that images a pointed-to object outside of the thought. Thought calling the pointed to " unreal " is as useless as calling it " real. " Unreal and real are both thought-categories. Thought dissolves. NOW ... this. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > the wise ones don't teach. > > waste of time. > > .b b.b. One can express what one knows, and call that a 'teaching'. I guess the real question (when it comes to advaita topics in particular) is -- is there a student? :-p. Words don't communicate anything of value, except to denote the falseness of words. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > That's because you don't know what you mean by Self. > > And that's because there is no such thing. > > Perhaps you could take through the step by step process that led you to believe such a story. > > Bring out a Big Self so we can take a good look at it. " Big Selves " aren't brought out, they're uncovered. Not that anything is there. But 'something' is not there. I see nothing wrong with saying " something is there " as a shortcut to " something was removed, and not-thereness is there that wasn't there before " . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, May 26, 2009 3:35 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Can anything be for real? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > Any thing cannot be real. > > Nor is it unreal, as there is no real thing to compare it with. > > Thus, to dismiss a thing as unreal gives it an unreality that is as > useless > as regarding it as real. > > -- Dan > > How can anyone think, talk or point to something unreal? > What is he thinking, talking or pointing to? > -neti-neti-geo- > Thinking is pointing. So it needs to imagine something pointed to. That is how it works. The thought is an imagining that images a pointed-to object outside of the thought. Thought calling the pointed to " unreal " is as useless as calling it " real. " Unreal and real are both thought-categories. Thought dissolves. NOW ... this. -- D. Yea I guess it is so... I read so often people saying that that is not real. My mind goes through several acrobatic contortions to grasp such a thing...never been able to figure it out. We can talk of things that are ephemeral, that are temporal, that exist only in memory.... or consider that all things where born and will die or dissolve or change...in contrast to the only one that is changeless. That I could understand.... ......what a world....what a world... -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Thinking is pointing. > > So it needs to imagine something pointed to. > > That is how it works. > > The thought is an imagining that images a pointed-to object outside of the thought. > > Thought calling the pointed to " unreal " is as useless as calling it " real. " Unreal and real are both thought-categories. > > Thought dissolves. > > NOW ... this. > > > -- D. Seems here there are deep emotional connections within thought, and it doesn't dissolve quite so easily as noticing " everything is a thought-category " . Some sort of 'background process' seems to be around, maintaining the status-quo. By accident (or apparent process involving an increasing disinterest in things related to 'me'), it may dissolve. Seems unlikely it's due to reading a message on a mailing list. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/26/2009 11:03:08 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > dan330033 writes: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > Can anything be for real? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Any thing cannot be real. > > Nor is it unreal, as there is no real thing to compare it with. > > Thus, to dismiss a thing as unreal gives it an unreality that is as > useless as regarding it as real. > > > -- Dan > > > Hi Dan > That's been my 'issue' with real/unreal too; it only applies within the > illusion where nothing is real and there's no-thing 'outside' of the illusion > on which to base the notion of real/unreal. It's just the mind that wants > to separate real from unreal, which is, itself, 'unreal'. How does a dream > character look around at a dreamscape and separate the real from the > unreal? It's meaningless. Depends how the 'unreal thing' is dismissed. If one then loses interest and never thinks about the 'unreal thing' again, its reality or unreality no longer matters. This may be the proper role for the whole " real/unreal " game, but it depends on continuing disinterest in 'unreal things'. Most folks are instead very interested in unreality, and think constantly about how cool it is that X thingie is unreal (LOL). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > every word written or spoken is a repetition. > > every image or feeling remembered is repetition. > > and repetitions are so ... > > repetitive. > > D. Such is 'life', or 'time', or 'history'... repeated, circular repetition. Only what was never born is never subject to repetition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > *****If you can't see it with your eyes, you're not interested. That seems > pretty narrow minded for somebody on a spiritual forum. Who told you if > you can't see it it doesn't exist, and what made you believe it without > questioning it? Excellent question. Toomie seems to have replaced his beliefs about a " big Self " with a belief that there's no " big Self " . Maybe he'll eventually see the circularity of thought, and it will drop. But he's got to suffer like hell from it first. So, keep talking about the Self, Phil... it's good for Tooms ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > ah the gospels.. > > > > so often we find: > > > > " etc., and so on, and so forth ... " > > > > good shit man but also full of it too. > > > > .b b.b. > > you remind me of a tea I once drank: > > constant comment. > > i know you're enjoying the commentary you provide. Folks enjoy imagining they're being 'heard'. Most don't seem interested in actually being 'heard'. Once someone posts a message, whether anyone replies to it or not doesn't seem to be of much concern. Only continuation of the thought-mechanism 'me'. Most folks don't give a rat's hang in hell about anything else. Imagining that one is 'heard' is good enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Yea I guess it is so... > I read so often people saying that that is not real. My mind goes through > several acrobatic contortions to grasp such a thing...never been able to > figure it out. We can talk of things that are ephemeral, that are temporal, > that exist only in memory.... or consider that all things where born and > will die or dissolve or change...in contrast to the only one that is > changeless. That I could understand.... > .....what a world....what a world... > -geo- Is there understanding that is not based on thought? That is aware, alive, but not dependent on a thought-form as a basis to know, to be? One raises this question using thought - but it cannot be answered by thought. That is because the basis for the question arising through thought, is not of thought, either. At the heart of the question, is the answer to the question. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Thinking is pointing. > > > > So it needs to imagine something pointed to. > > > > That is how it works. > > > > The thought is an imagining that images a pointed-to object outside of the thought. > > > > Thought calling the pointed to " unreal " is as useless as calling it " real. " Unreal and real are both thought-categories. > > > > Thought dissolves. > > > > NOW ... this. > > > > > > -- D. > > Seems here there are deep emotional connections within thought, and it doesn't dissolve quite so easily as noticing " everything is a thought-category " . Some sort of 'background process' seems to be around, maintaining the status-quo. By accident (or apparent process involving an increasing disinterest in things related to 'me'), it may dissolve. Seems unlikely it's due to reading a message on a mailing list. I totally agree. The message on a list will only spark awareness that is not of thought if there is openness to/as this awareness. The openness is through the entirety of one's being, one's soul, to use a dualistic western word. Such openness can't be manufactured. By a message, a thought, or an experience. Either one is open now, or one is not. And reading something is very unlikely to change that. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/26/2009 11:03:08 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > dan330033 writes: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > Can anything be for real? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Any thing cannot be real. > > Nor is it unreal, as there is no real thing to compare it with. > > Thus, to dismiss a thing as unreal gives it an unreality that is as > useless as regarding it as real. > > > -- Dan > > > Hi Dan > That's been my 'issue' with real/unreal too; it only applies within the > illusion where nothing is real and there's no-thing 'outside' of the illusion > on which to base the notion of real/unreal. It's just the mind that wants > to separate real from unreal, which is, itself, 'unreal'. How does a dream > character look around at a dreamscape and separate the real from the > unreal? It's meaningless. Hi Phil - True. It's also meaningless to suppose that oneself is a character in a dream, who is able to make reference to how it's all a dream. So, what is meaningful? Meaning is what you make of it. Like Buddha said, " it's mutually co-arising. " Meanings arise in situations, in contexts. They dissolve the same way. Easy come, easy go. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > every word written or spoken is a repetition. > > > > every image or feeling remembered is repetition. > > > > and repetitions are so ... > > > > repetitive. > > > > D. > > Such is 'life', or 'time', or 'history'... repeated, circular repetition. Only what was never born is never subject to repetition. Yes. The never-born, always new, not even new - unthinkable. Not these words being offered, which repeat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > ***And really, thought itself is not the bugaboo, just the thoughts that > swirl around the 'me'. However, it's a bit of a shock to realize if it > doesn't have anything to do with 'ME', there's really not much left of any > interest to think about. Hehe. Where it gets really interesting is when realizing it's not only possible but easy, relaxing and peaceful to " just sit there " and neither do nor think anything. " Forever " ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > ***And really, thought itself is not the bugaboo, just the thoughts that > swirl around the 'me'. However, it's a bit of a shock to realize if it > doesn't have anything to do with 'ME', there's really not much left of any > interest to think about. Hehe. > Thought is not a bugaboo. It's also not an anchor for a sense of reality. It happens along with everything else happening. It has no more or less significance than anything else. And all is simultaneous. Not depending on time or causation. Thought references to time and causation. So, the self is not a bugaboo. The self is just a byproduct of the attempt to anchor the sense of reality to thought, feeling, time, location and memory. All the religious nonsense about how one should not be greedy or selfish is absurd. As if you could make an imaginary self the culprit, and make it go away by criticizing it endlessly (while repeating the same selfish and greedy actions in the process of doing the criticizing). - D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > ***And really, thought itself is not the bugaboo, just the thoughts that > > swirl around the 'me'. However, it's a bit of a shock to realize if it > > doesn't have anything to do with 'ME', there's really not much left of any > > interest to think about. Hehe. > > Where it gets really interesting is when realizing it's not only possible but easy, relaxing and peaceful to " just sit there " and neither do nor think anything. " Forever " ;-). Timelessly so. And that it already always is this way. Aware. Not attaching to thought or experience. " Just sitting/being here " You can't do anything about it, or not do anything about it. Just " so. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So he's advising attachment not to attach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Heheh... I dunno... don't remember what he said. Did it appear to you to be advice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan: > > > > > > > > > > > > " don't attach to a dream, and it is of no concern. > > > > > > > > the only breakdown is of the attaching attempt. > > > > > > > > don't attach and you don't need to wait. > > > > > > > > now. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > You missed the key word in this statement you're citing, Toom. > > > > > > Now. > > > > > > If you understood that as you read it, you wouldn't be going back to retrieve words to try to prove a point. > > > > > > Sheesh. > > > > > > Are you not trying to prove a point? > > > > The self is a many pointed object. > > > > (in backgroung: " The hills are alive.................. " ) > > > > > > > > Oh.......there is no such thing as " now " . > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > I'm doing whatever the image you construct tells you I'm doing as you read words on a computer screen. > > Sure, sure, there's no such thing as now. > > And there's no such thing as you saying there's no such thing as " now, " yadda yadda yadda. > > -- Dan it's not real: Any thing cannot be real. Nor is it unreal, as there is no real thing to compare it with. Thus, to dismiss a thing as unreal gives it an unreality that is as useless as regarding it as real. thus you yada yada purdy good too jingles. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
