Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > 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. I'm not dismissing you as unreal, bob. And I'm not making you a reality, either. If what happens between us is yada yada and purdy good jingles, then that's how it unfolds. However it is, it is. dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 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. > > > > > Thought is not a bugaboo. > > It's also not an anchor for a sense of reality. Well, it can be, but it's a terrible anchor. Awful. " Flimsy " isn't the word. Even a house of cards is a bank vault in comparison. 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: > > > > > > > > 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. you do it's true. ..b b.b. 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: > > > 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. i don't understand weasel talk. ..b b.b. 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. > > it's obvious and obviouser. > > d. gee danny.. better look back over the past few days. you're commenting on yourself. LOL! ..b b.b. 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: > > > > 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. where do you come up with this wisdom? did you read it all in a book? get a refund. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > ***Yes. Direct perception, a realization that occurs in a timeless moment > of insight without benefit of conceptual thought, and in fact occurs only > in the absence of such thinkingness. Actually, it can occur right in the midst of conceptual thought. The " holding on " called 'me', relaxes. That's in fact what happened here in early '08. Lots of thought was going on, but I was no longer the " I " you see here as a word ;-)... rather, that which was seeing that word. 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. you have an " issue " that you believe is real.. with that which you call unreal? there is likely some meaning in that mental process.. and perhaps even a psychiatric term for it.. but you wouldn't want to hear what those would be. so we'll just say (wink wink) it's meaningless. a mere dreamscape thing. ..b b.b. 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. well there's the never dead nor dying crowd too. ..b b.b. 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: > > > > 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. i hear you. ..b b.b. 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: > > > > 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. > > I'm not dismissing you as unreal, bob. > > And I'm not making you a reality, either. > > If what happens between us is yada yada and purdy good jingles, then that's how it unfolds. > > However it is, it is. > > dan i don't care what you dismiss or what you don't dismiss. i'm not dismissing you.. i'm dismissing the bullshit you try to pawn. that's how it's unfolding danny. and you ain't ever gonna change that. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > i don't care what you dismiss or what you don't dismiss. > > i'm not dismissing you.. > > i'm dismissing the bullshit you try to pawn. Why do I try and pawn bullshit so often? I'm capable of talking like this all the time, conversing normally, so why am I always talking trash on a nonduality list? I really need to know that. 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 2:33:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > fewtch writes: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > ***Yes. Direct perception, a realization that occurs in a timeless > moment > > of insight without benefit of conceptual thought, and in fact occurs > only > > in the absence of such thinkingness. > > Actually, it can occur right in the midst of conceptual thought. The > " holding on " called 'me', relaxes. That's in fact what happened here in early > '08. Lots of thought was going on, but I was no longer the " I " you see > here as a word ;-)... rather, that which was seeing that word. > > > **Well, a timeless 'seeing' doesn't require much time (hehe), but I > suggest there was a gap in the thoughts. The gap is 'behind' thought, not within it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 In a message dated 5/26/2009 3:49:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dan330033 writes: Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:>> > > > 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. What is it that sees awareness seeing thought?-- D. ***Nothing sees Awareness seeing thought. The seeing of thought IS Awareness seeing. (The thought is also Awareness thoughting. hehe) 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 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > 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. > > > > ***Yes. Direct perception, a realization that occurs in a timeless moment > of insight without benefit of conceptual thought, and in fact occurs only > in the absence of such thinkingness. Nothing else is of any value in > dissipating ignorance. Yes. That's the heart of the matter. An aware moment that isn't divided conceptually. Not based on what anyone said nor to get anything. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > ***Yes. Direct perception, a realization that occurs in a timeless moment > > of insight without benefit of conceptual thought, and in fact occurs only > > in the absence of such thinkingness. > > Actually, it can occur right in the midst of conceptual thought. The " holding on " called 'me', relaxes. That's in fact what happened here in early '08. Lots of thought was going on, but I was no longer the " I " you see here as a word ;-)... rather, that which was seeing that word. Concept is not an interference. It simply isn't given any power to divide. One understands that it has no power, only what was mistakenly given or attributed to it. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > 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. Right... but what I'm saying when I say awareness is " behind " thought is that it's not mixed in with thought, not something that can be examined like thought is. It's " the examiner " , thus " behind " thought and not within it. It's not " in " the gap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > 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. > > > well there's the never dead nor dying crowd too. > > .b b.b. crowd? I don't see a crowd here. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > i don't care what you dismiss or what you don't dismiss. > > i'm not dismissing you.. > > i'm dismissing the bullshit you try to pawn. > > that's how it's unfolding danny. > > and you ain't ever gonna change that. > > .b b.b. you're one string of words in the endless stream on open email list, bob. as am I. you see yourself as dismissing bullshit, and you're entitled to express that however negatively you want, which you apparently enjoy. it's an open list, so unless the moderator objects you'll go on doing what you do. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/26/2009 2:33:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > fewtch writes: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > ***Yes. Direct perception, a realization that occurs in a timeless > moment > > of insight without benefit of conceptual thought, and in fact occurs > only > > in the absence of such thinkingness. > > Actually, it can occur right in the midst of conceptual thought. The > " holding on " called 'me', relaxes. That's in fact what happened here in early > '08. Lots of thought was going on, but I was no longer the " I " you see > here as a word ;-)... rather, that which was seeing that word. > > > **Well, a timeless 'seeing' doesn't require much time (hehe), but I > suggest there was a gap in the thoughts. There is not only a gap between thoughts. There is a gap within a thought. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/26/2009 2:33:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > fewtch@ writes: > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > ***Yes. Direct perception, a realization that occurs in a timeless > > moment > > > of insight without benefit of conceptual thought, and in fact occurs > > only > > > in the absence of such thinkingness. > > > > Actually, it can occur right in the midst of conceptual thought. The > > " holding on " called 'me', relaxes. That's in fact what happened here in early > > '08. Lots of thought was going on, but I was no longer the " I " you see > > here as a word ;-)... rather, that which was seeing that word. > > > > > > **Well, a timeless 'seeing' doesn't require much time (hehe), but I > > suggest there was a gap in the thoughts. > > The gap is 'behind' thought, not within it. Wherever it is, fall into it, and it falls into you. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > **Well, a timeless 'seeing' doesn't require much time (hehe), but I > > > suggest there was a gap in the thoughts. > > > > The gap is 'behind' thought, not within it. > > > Wherever it is, fall into it, and it falls into you. > > > -- D. This is where advice no longer makes any sense. " Fall into it " . OK, I'm enlightened now. Thank you for letting me know ;-). It would be nice if we were really offering some sort of teaching, but the Self speaks to itself and hears itself. From here, what you said about people really grieving their own death when another dies is merely the barest tip of the iceberg. Everything is for the benefit of oneself, because there is only the Self (in Ramana's terminology). The fact that there are others doesn't change the fact that there are no others. Paradox. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > 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. What is it that sees awareness seeing thought? -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 27, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > What is it that sees awareness seeing thought? > > -- D. Words fail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
