Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Dan: You've got way too much thought/thinking in this message. You don't want me to take a " long, hard look " , you want me to have a long, hard think about what you're saying. No, thanks. Can we keep it simpler? > > I don't want you to do anything. > > It is simple. True. What you typed is the product of your current thought process, and applies to 'you'. But you are me, when I read the message. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2009 > > > > Maybe you are right... > > > > I don't know... > > > > Just seems always filled with light... > > > > so much so that if mountain/nothing/mountain > > > > not noticed > > > > as if everything bleached out by light. > > > > > > I just don't know. > > > > > > Bill > > Bill - > > Is the kind of understanding we're discussing the matter of having a certain kind of experience? > > Like having more light enter your experience? no, because not an experience of light per se... any more than water is the experience of a fish... when there are no words or concepts... if the mind is silent... then not even an experience... " experience " is a word, a concept... no words, no concepts, and *nothing persists*.... for even one second... how can there be a mountain if nothing persists for even one second? there is never a *particular sensation*... no qualities nothing repeats there is never something *again*... as if attention has become so completely reshaped... recast somehow... that only brand new possibilities can ever be opened to... thus it is not the nature of a kind of *experience*... it is the nature of *attention*... > > Or having an experience that goes on and off? > > I rather view the understanding we're discussing as simultaneously > transcending any experiential component or qualities, and inclusive > of any experience that happens. This is both interesting and hard to be sure what you mean. As I see it there are " two attentions " , the first attention and the second attention. The first attention is essentially unconscious. For example to type this the senses must be attending to various cues, but that all happens without conscious intervention. The second attention is conscious attention (and as such is actually consciousness itself, for what is within consciousness is within attention, and what is within conscious attention is within consciousness). Conscious attention is not needed to direct the activities of the first attention. So when conscious attention " collapses " into the absolute present (which means that conscious attention is not focused but rather " fully expanded " [collapsing to zero dimension in the " horizontal " while expanding infinitely in the " vertical " ]), consciousness is realized as a luminous expansiveness. Such realization is not an experience per se. There is no memory. Nothing distinct is attended to. Meanwhile all " ordinary activities " continue unabated as if on auto-pilot. Hence there is a simultaneity... as if two parallel planes... superimposed yet not " touching " . Perhaps this corresponds to your: " I rather view the understanding we're discussing as simultaneously transcending any experiential component or qualities, and inclusive of any experience that happens. " > For the now-moment of experiential awareness, one is that experience. > > Not that this is special for a particular person. > > All persons are experiential/aware beings (sentient critters), and thus > each person is an experience for/of/as awareness, and thus all persons > are included. > > At the same time, one is not any experience at all. > > Yes/no on/off All of this is very difficult to talk about. The treachery seems to lie in the difference between the first attention and the second attention. Once the second attention has collapsed into absolute presence: In the first attention, the realm of space-time, things happen, though not as conscious experience. In the first attention it can be said that I went to the bank yesterday. Not as an experience, but as an event. In the second attention nothing happens nothing sticks nothing remains a minute ago never happened. Bill > > -- Dan > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > > > > Maybe you are right... > > > > > > I don't know... > > > > > > Just seems always filled with light... > > > > > > so much so that if mountain/nothing/mountain > > > > > > not noticed > > > > > > as if everything bleached out by light. > > > > > > > > > I just don't know. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > Bill - > > > > Is the kind of understanding we're discussing the matter of having a > certain kind of experience? > > > > Like having more light enter your experience? > > no, because not an experience of light per se... > any more than water is the experience of a fish... > > when there are no words or concepts... > if the mind is silent... > then not even an experience... " experience " is a word, a concept... > > no words, no concepts, and *nothing persists*.... > for even one second... > > how can there be a mountain if nothing persists > for even one second? > > there is never a *particular sensation*... > > no qualities > > nothing repeats > > there is never something *again*... > > > as if attention has become so completely reshaped... > recast somehow... > that only brand new possibilities can ever be opened to... > > thus it is not the nature of a kind of *experience*... it is the nature > of *attention*... > > > > > Or having an experience that goes on and off? > > > > I rather view the understanding we're discussing as simultaneously > > transcending any experiential component or qualities, and inclusive > > of any experience that happens. > > This is both interesting and hard to be sure what you mean. > > As I see it there are " two attentions " , the first attention and the > second attention. The first attention is essentially unconscious. > For example to type this the senses must be attending to various > cues, but that all happens without conscious intervention. > > The second attention is conscious attention (and as such is > actually consciousness itself, for what is within consciousness > is within attention, and what is within conscious attention is > within consciousness). > > Conscious attention is not needed to direct the activities of the > first attention. So when conscious attention " collapses " into > the absolute present (which means that conscious attention > is not focused but rather " fully expanded " [collapsing to zero > dimension in the " horizontal " while expanding infinitely in the > " vertical " ]), consciousness is realized as a luminous expansiveness. > Such realization is not an experience per se. There is no memory. > Nothing distinct is attended to. Meanwhile all " ordinary activities " > continue unabated as if on auto-pilot. > > Hence there is a simultaneity... as if two parallel planes... > superimposed yet not " touching " . > > Perhaps this corresponds to your: > " I rather view the understanding we're discussing as simultaneously > transcending any experiential component or qualities, and inclusive > of any experience that happens. " > > > > For the now-moment of experiential awareness, one is that experience. > > > > Not that this is special for a particular person. > > > > All persons are experiential/aware beings (sentient critters), and > thus > > each person is an experience for/of/as awareness, and thus all persons > > are included. > > > > At the same time, one is not any experience at all. > > > > Yes/no on/off > > All of this is very difficult to talk about. > The treachery seems to lie in the difference > between the first attention and the second > attention. > > Once the second attention has collapsed into absolute presence: > > In the first attention, the realm of space-time, > things happen, though not as conscious experience. > In the first attention it can be said that I went > to the bank yesterday. Not as an experience, > but as an event. > > In the second attention > nothing happens > nothing sticks > nothing remains > > a minute ago never happened. > > Bill > > > > > > -- Dan and yet... thirty trillion angels.. can do the bunny hop.. on top of the tip of a needle. and a very thin needle i might add. astonishing! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > > > > Maybe you are right... > > > > > > I don't know... > > > > > > Just seems always filled with light... > > > > > > so much so that if mountain/nothing/mountain > > > > > > not noticed > > > > > > as if everything bleached out by light. > > > > > > > > > I just don't know. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > Bill - > > > > Is the kind of understanding we're discussing the matter of having a > certain kind of experience? > > > > Like having more light enter your experience? > > no, because not an experience of light per se... > any more than water is the experience of a fish... > > when there are no words or concepts... > if the mind is silent... > then not even an experience... " experience " is a word, a concept... > > no words, no concepts, and *nothing persists*.... > for even one second... > > how can there be a mountain if nothing persists > for even one second? > > there is never a *particular sensation*... > > no qualities > > nothing repeats > > there is never something *again*... > > > as if attention has become so completely reshaped... > recast somehow... > that only brand new possibilities can ever be opened to... > > thus it is not the nature of a kind of *experience*... it is the nature > of *attention*... > > > > > Or having an experience that goes on and off? > > > > I rather view the understanding we're discussing as simultaneously > > transcending any experiential component or qualities, and inclusive > > of any experience that happens. > > This is both interesting and hard to be sure what you mean. > > As I see it there are " two attentions " , the first attention and the > second attention. The first attention is essentially unconscious. > For example to type this the senses must be attending to various > cues, but that all happens without conscious intervention. > > The second attention is conscious attention (and as such is > actually consciousness itself, for what is within consciousness > is within attention, and what is within conscious attention is > within consciousness). > > Conscious attention is not needed to direct the activities of the > first attention. So when conscious attention " collapses " into > the absolute present (which means that conscious attention > is not focused but rather " fully expanded " [collapsing to zero > dimension in the " horizontal " while expanding infinitely in the > " vertical " ]), consciousness is realized as a luminous expansiveness. > Such realization is not an experience per se. There is no memory. > Nothing distinct is attended to. Meanwhile all " ordinary activities " > continue unabated as if on auto-pilot. > > Hence there is a simultaneity... as if two parallel planes... > superimposed yet not " touching " . > > Perhaps this corresponds to your: > " I rather view the understanding we're discussing as simultaneously > transcending any experiential component or qualities, and inclusive > of any experience that happens. " > > > > For the now-moment of experiential awareness, one is that experience. > > > > Not that this is special for a particular person. > > > > All persons are experiential/aware beings (sentient critters), and > thus > > each person is an experience for/of/as awareness, and thus all persons > > are included. > > > > At the same time, one is not any experience at all. > > > > Yes/no on/off > > All of this is very difficult to talk about. > The treachery seems to lie in the difference > between the first attention and the second > attention. > > Once the second attention has collapsed into absolute presence: > > In the first attention, the realm of space-time, > things happen, though not as conscious experience. > In the first attention it can be said that I went > to the bank yesterday. Not as an experience, > but as an event. > > In the second attention > nothing happens > nothing sticks > nothing remains > > a minute ago never happened. > > Bill > > > > > > -- Dan > > > Ramesh refers to the " thinking mind " and the " working mind " . toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you are right... > > > > > > > > I don't know... > > > > > > > > Just seems always filled with light... > > > > > > > > so much so that if mountain/nothing/mountain > > > > > > > > not noticed > > > > > > > > as if everything bleached out by light. > > > > > > > > > > > > I just don't know. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Bill - > > > > > > Is the kind of understanding we're discussing the matter of having a > > certain kind of experience? > > > > > > Like having more light enter your experience? > > > > no, because not an experience of light per se... > > any more than water is the experience of a fish... > > > > when there are no words or concepts... > > if the mind is silent... > > then not even an experience... " experience " is a word, a concept... > > > > no words, no concepts, and *nothing persists*.... > > for even one second... > > > > how can there be a mountain if nothing persists > > for even one second? > > > > there is never a *particular sensation*... > > > > no qualities > > > > nothing repeats > > > > there is never something *again*... > > > > > > as if attention has become so completely reshaped... > > recast somehow... > > that only brand new possibilities can ever be opened to... > > > > thus it is not the nature of a kind of *experience*... it is the nature > > of *attention*... > > > > > > > > Or having an experience that goes on and off? > > > > > > I rather view the understanding we're discussing as simultaneously > > > transcending any experiential component or qualities, and inclusive > > > of any experience that happens. > > > > This is both interesting and hard to be sure what you mean. > > > > As I see it there are " two attentions " , the first attention and the > > second attention. The first attention is essentially unconscious. > > For example to type this the senses must be attending to various > > cues, but that all happens without conscious intervention. > > > > The second attention is conscious attention (and as such is > > actually consciousness itself, for what is within consciousness > > is within attention, and what is within conscious attention is > > within consciousness). > > > > Conscious attention is not needed to direct the activities of the > > first attention. So when conscious attention " collapses " into > > the absolute present (which means that conscious attention > > is not focused but rather " fully expanded " [collapsing to zero > > dimension in the " horizontal " while expanding infinitely in the > > " vertical " ]), consciousness is realized as a luminous expansiveness. > > Such realization is not an experience per se. There is no memory. > > Nothing distinct is attended to. Meanwhile all " ordinary activities " > > continue unabated as if on auto-pilot. > > > > Hence there is a simultaneity... as if two parallel planes... > > superimposed yet not " touching " . > > > > Perhaps this corresponds to your: > > " I rather view the understanding we're discussing as simultaneously > > transcending any experiential component or qualities, and inclusive > > of any experience that happens. " > > > > > > > For the now-moment of experiential awareness, one is that experience. > > > > > > Not that this is special for a particular person. > > > > > > All persons are experiential/aware beings (sentient critters), and > > thus > > > each person is an experience for/of/as awareness, and thus all persons > > > are included. > > > > > > At the same time, one is not any experience at all. > > > > > > Yes/no on/off > > > > All of this is very difficult to talk about. > > The treachery seems to lie in the difference > > between the first attention and the second > > attention. > > > > Once the second attention has collapsed into absolute presence: > > > > In the first attention, the realm of space-time, > > things happen, though not as conscious experience. > > In the first attention it can be said that I went > > to the bank yesterday. Not as an experience, > > but as an event. > > > > In the second attention > > nothing happens > > nothing sticks > > nothing remains > > > > a minute ago never happened. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > and yet... > > thirty trillion angels.. > > can do the bunny hop.. > > on top of the tip of a needle. > > and a very thin needle i might add. > > astonishing! > > .b b.b. > WRONG! Its well over a hundred million. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you are right... > > > > > > > > > > I don't know... > > > > > > > > > > Just seems always filled with light... > > > > > > > > > > so much so that if mountain/nothing/mountain > > > > > > > > > > not noticed > > > > > > > > > > as if everything bleached out by light. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just don't know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Bill - > > > > > > > > Is the kind of understanding we're discussing the matter of having a > > > certain kind of experience? > > > > > > > > Like having more light enter your experience? > > > > > > no, because not an experience of light per se... > > > any more than water is the experience of a fish... > > > > > > when there are no words or concepts... > > > if the mind is silent... > > > then not even an experience... " experience " is a word, a concept... > > > > > > no words, no concepts, and *nothing persists*.... > > > for even one second... > > > > > > how can there be a mountain if nothing persists > > > for even one second? > > > > > > there is never a *particular sensation*... > > > > > > no qualities > > > > > > nothing repeats > > > > > > there is never something *again*... > > > > > > > > > as if attention has become so completely reshaped... > > > recast somehow... > > > that only brand new possibilities can ever be opened to... > > > > > > thus it is not the nature of a kind of *experience*... it is the nature > > > of *attention*... > > > > > > > > > > > Or having an experience that goes on and off? > > > > > > > > I rather view the understanding we're discussing as simultaneously > > > > transcending any experiential component or qualities, and inclusive > > > > of any experience that happens. > > > > > > This is both interesting and hard to be sure what you mean. > > > > > > As I see it there are " two attentions " , the first attention and the > > > second attention. The first attention is essentially unconscious. > > > For example to type this the senses must be attending to various > > > cues, but that all happens without conscious intervention. > > > > > > The second attention is conscious attention (and as such is > > > actually consciousness itself, for what is within consciousness > > > is within attention, and what is within conscious attention is > > > within consciousness). > > > > > > Conscious attention is not needed to direct the activities of the > > > first attention. So when conscious attention " collapses " into > > > the absolute present (which means that conscious attention > > > is not focused but rather " fully expanded " [collapsing to zero > > > dimension in the " horizontal " while expanding infinitely in the > > > " vertical " ]), consciousness is realized as a luminous expansiveness. > > > Such realization is not an experience per se. There is no memory. > > > Nothing distinct is attended to. Meanwhile all " ordinary activities " > > > continue unabated as if on auto-pilot. > > > > > > Hence there is a simultaneity... as if two parallel planes... > > > superimposed yet not " touching " . > > > > > > Perhaps this corresponds to your: > > > " I rather view the understanding we're discussing as simultaneously > > > transcending any experiential component or qualities, and inclusive > > > of any experience that happens. " > > > > > > > > > > For the now-moment of experiential awareness, one is that experience. > > > > > > > > Not that this is special for a particular person. > > > > > > > > All persons are experiential/aware beings (sentient critters), and > > > thus > > > > each person is an experience for/of/as awareness, and thus all persons > > > > are included. > > > > > > > > At the same time, one is not any experience at all. > > > > > > > > Yes/no on/off > > > > > > All of this is very difficult to talk about. > > > The treachery seems to lie in the difference > > > between the first attention and the second > > > attention. > > > > > > Once the second attention has collapsed into absolute presence: > > > > > > In the first attention, the realm of space-time, > > > things happen, though not as conscious experience. > > > In the first attention it can be said that I went > > > to the bank yesterday. Not as an experience, > > > but as an event. > > > > > > In the second attention > > > nothing happens > > > nothing sticks > > > nothing remains > > > > > > a minute ago never happened. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > and yet... > > > > thirty trillion angels.. > > > > can do the bunny hop.. > > > > on top of the tip of a needle. > > > > and a very thin needle i might add. > > > > astonishing! > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > WRONG! > > > > Its well over a hundred million. toombaru oops! fucking decimal points early in the calculation.. screwed me up. your right.. it's only 153 million 457 thousand and 6.5 angels.. that can actually dance the bunny hop on the pin's tip.. at least gracefully so. so.. it's not so fucking astonishing what can i say? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > > > > Maybe you are right... > > > > > > I don't know... > > > > > > Just seems always filled with light... > > > > > > so much so that if mountain/nothing/mountain > > > > > > not noticed > > > > > > as if everything bleached out by light. > > > > > > > > > I just don't know. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > Bill - > > > > Is the kind of understanding we're discussing the matter of having a > certain kind of experience? > > > > Like having more light enter your experience? > > no, because not an experience of light per se... > any more than water is the experience of a fish... > > when there are no words or concepts... > if the mind is silent... > then not even an experience... " experience " is a word, a concept... > > no words, no concepts, and *nothing persists*.... > for even one second... > > how can there be a mountain if nothing persists > for even one second? > > there is never a *particular sensation*... > > no qualities > > nothing repeats > > there is never something *again*... > > > as if attention has become so completely reshaped... > recast somehow... > that only brand new possibilities can ever be opened to... > > thus it is not the nature of a kind of *experience*... it is the nature > of *attention*... > > > > > Or having an experience that goes on and off? > > > > I rather view the understanding we're discussing as simultaneously > > transcending any experiential component or qualities, and inclusive > > of any experience that happens. > > This is both interesting and hard to be sure what you mean. > > As I see it there are " two attentions " , the first attention and the > second attention. The first attention is essentially unconscious. > For example to type this the senses must be attending to various > cues, but that all happens without conscious intervention. > > The second attention is conscious attention (and as such is > actually consciousness itself, for what is within consciousness > is within attention, and what is within conscious attention is > within consciousness). > > Conscious attention is not needed to direct the activities of the > first attention. So when conscious attention " collapses " into > the absolute present (which means that conscious attention > is not focused but rather " fully expanded " [collapsing to zero > dimension in the " horizontal " while expanding infinitely in the > " vertical " ]), consciousness is realized as a luminous expansiveness. > Such realization is not an experience per se. There is no memory. > Nothing distinct is attended to. Meanwhile all " ordinary activities " > continue unabated as if on auto-pilot. > > Hence there is a simultaneity... as if two parallel planes... > superimposed yet not " touching " . > > Perhaps this corresponds to your: > " I rather view the understanding we're discussing as simultaneously > transcending any experiential component or qualities, and inclusive > of any experience that happens. " Hi Bill - Any comments we make are an aspect of the experience arising/dissolving now. So, nothing we say can get outside the experience to say what it is. When I say that nothing includes everything, and everything is nothing, this is suggestive, but that is all it can be. Like using the metaphor of implosion at the event horizon. It's suggestive at best. The fact is that experience is undivided. Even though words seem to operate by using divisions, even as words are being used, no division occurs actually, experientially. Even though thought uses categories as if divisions were made by and for thought, nothing has been actually divided. Thought is not divided from anything else, either. Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. Again, these statements are simply an aspect of arising experience, as is anything else noticed and attended to. Peace to you and All -- -- Dan > > For the now-moment of experiential awareness, one is that experience. > > > > Not that this is special for a particular person. > > > > All persons are experiential/aware beings (sentient critters), and > thus > > each person is an experience for/of/as awareness, and thus all persons > > are included. > > > > At the same time, one is not any experience at all. > > > > Yes/no on/off > > All of this is very difficult to talk about. > The treachery seems to lie in the difference > between the first attention and the second > attention. > > Once the second attention has collapsed into absolute presence: > > In the first attention, the realm of space-time, > things happen, though not as conscious experience. > In the first attention it can be said that I went > to the bank yesterday. Not as an experience, > but as an event. > > In the second attention > nothing happens > nothing sticks > nothing remains > > a minute ago never happened. > > Bill > > > > > > -- Dan > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2009 "Thought is not divided from the unthinkable." -dan- Do we understand this? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > -dan- > > Do we understand this? > -geo- Thought doesn't understand anything. And there is no we apart from thought. The understanding does not involve understanding anything. We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already befuddled. As if that were possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Hi Dan, Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > -dan- > > > > Do we understand this? > > -geo- > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already befuddled. > > As if that were possible. Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > -dan- > > Do we understand this? > -geo- Thought doesn't understand anything. And there is no we apart from thought. The understanding does not involve understanding anything. We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already befuddled. As if that were possible. geo> If we look at things form one point of wiew they eare. If we look at them from another, nothing is, they are not. If we are looking from the same side we agree. If we look from oposite sides we disagree. And we can play pendulum game till our bottoms are flat as old long-plays. ....what a boring game... So its my turn: Thought is not, understaning is not, talking is not. There is no involving anything for everything is already involved with everything from the start. ....what a bore... Ah... there is no uinthinkable apart from thinking... .....uuaaarghhh.... avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 20/5/2009 19:46:47 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > > -dan- > > > > > > Do we understand this? > > > -geo- > > > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already befuddled. > > > > As if that were possible. > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. You have a thought here? You are befuddled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > ....uuaaarghhh.... Finally, someone says something intelligent on this list. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 > ....uuaaarghhh.... d: Finally, someone says something intelligent on this list. geo>Is it not? There is no finally...all is timeless No someone... that is fragmentation No something either....we hanging in ether No list.... But.....now...listen to my preaching filled with words full of meaning. Here it goes... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:09 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > > -dan- > > > > > > Do we understand this? > > > -geo- > > > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already befuddled. > > > > As if that were possible. > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. You have a thought here? You are befuddled. -dan- === Sure. You are thinking so you are nothing I am not thinking so I am everything, .....where are we now?...left or right?..ahh yea...left No you...no befuddlement.... Now to the right...everybody... Ah.. words are so beautifull, they cary so much emotion about my enlightment! They are so rich with flavor and flagrance! Now to the right and up.... al together!!! No words, no meaning, no enlightment, no emotion.... And so on....ad infinitum....amem --g-e-o-- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 20/5/2009 21:15:56 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > Do we understand this? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > > > > > > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > > > > > > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > > > > > > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already befuddled. > > > > > > > > As if that were possible. > > > > > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. > > > > You have a thought here? > > > > You are befuddled. > > Nobody said " I have a thought here " or " you have a thought here " . > What was said is: " Thought isn't befuddled here " . BTW, that was an awfully crude attempt at befuddling thought ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > Do we understand this? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > > > > > > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > > > > > > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > > > > > > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already befuddled. > > > > > > > > As if that were possible. > > > > > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. > > > > You have a thought here? > > > > You are befuddled. > > Nobody said " I have a thought here " or " you have a thought here " . What was said is: " Thought isn't befuddled here " . Thought has never occurred here. Befuddled or unbefuddled. There is only here, here. I celebrate the befuddled thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we understand this? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > > > > > > > > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > > > > > > > > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > > > > > > > > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already befuddled. > > > > > > > > > > As if that were possible. > > > > > > > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. > > > > > > You have a thought here? > > > > > > You are befuddled. > > > > Nobody said " I have a thought here " or " you have a thought here " . What was said is: " Thought isn't befuddled here " . > > Thought has never occurred here. Befuddled or unbefuddled. It has and it hasn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > Indeed. > > Amen and aaaaaah-choooo! > > Oops, a house of cards fell down. > > Sorry for my allergy. That's 'k, someone will build it back up again :-p. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > Do we understand this? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > > > > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > > > > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > > > > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already befuddled. > > > > > > As if that were possible. > > > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. > > You have a thought here? > > You are befuddled. who is this befuddled guy? i don't think tim or geo is befuddled. i think you know befuddled from somewhere else. seeing how you see befuddled everywhere.. you must be in love sorta. best of friends... like two peas in a pod...without a thought. seeing one as the other. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:53 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > Do we understand this? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > > > > > > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > > > > > > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > > > > > > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already > > > > befuddled. > > > > > > > > As if that were possible. > > > > > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. > > > > You have a thought here? > > > > You are befuddled. > > Nobody said " I have a thought here " or " you have a thought here " . What was > said is: " Thought isn't befuddled here " . Thought has never occurred here. Befuddled or unbefuddled. There is only here, here. I celebrate the befuddled thought. geo> You dont think? avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 21/5/2009 06:58:04 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:55 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we understand this? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > > > > > > > > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > > > > > > > > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > > > > > > > > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already > > > > > befuddled. > > > > > > > > > > As if that were possible. > > > > > > > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. > > > > > > You have a thought here? > > > > > > You are befuddled. > > > > Nobody said " I have a thought here " or " you have a thought here " . What > > was said is: " Thought isn't befuddled here " . > > Thought has never occurred here. Befuddled or unbefuddled. It has and it hasn't. geo> You dont think? avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 21/5/2009 06:58:05 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:53 PM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Thought is not divided from the unthinkable. " > > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we understand this? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Thought doesn't understand anything. > > > > > > > > > > And there is no we apart from thought. > > > > > > > > > > The understanding does not involve understanding anything. > > > > > > > > > > We talk about it to befuddle thought more than it's already > > > > > befuddled. > > > > > > > > > > As if that were possible. > > > > > > > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. > > > > > > You have a thought here? > > > > > > You are befuddled. > > > > Nobody said " I have a thought here " or " you have a thought here " . What was > > said is: " Thought isn't befuddled here " . > > Thought has never occurred here. Befuddled or unbefuddled. > > There is only here, here. > > I celebrate the befuddled thought. > > geo> You dont think? what do you think? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > ....uuaaarghhh.... > > d: Finally, someone says something intelligent on this list. > > > geo>Is it not? > > There is no finally...all is timeless > No someone... that is fragmentation > No something either....we hanging in ether > No list.... > > But.....now...listen to my preaching filled with words full of meaning. > Here it goes... Smiles ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > > > > > > > Thought isn't befuddled here. Everything seems quite clear. > > > > > > You have a thought here? > > > > > > You are befuddled. > > > > Nobody said " I have a thought here " or " you have a thought here " . > What was said is: " Thought isn't befuddled here " . > > BTW, that was an awfully crude attempt at befuddling thought ;-). Thought simply can't touch this, and doesn't. Thought arises and dissolves, never touches, has no impact. Because word meaning require thought, more than this can't be stated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
