Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > There is no truth " prior to awareness " . > > *Truth* is a concept. Awareness is content > absent of concepts. *Awareness* is a concept, too. Dismissing a particular concept such as " truth " to fit one's preferences is silly. Dismiss them all, or dismiss none. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > 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 > > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm that it cannot touch. > > > Can you see where this is going? > > > > > > toombaru well there can certainly be speculation as to where it's going. no one actually sees that though. there is no one. the speculatin' and simulatin' is imaginary. no one knows whose imaginary stuff this is. but there's a lot of airy speculation about who that is. but that's not That. It's not it. It's a touchy subject.. but never an object. ..b b.b. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm that it cannot touch. Can you see where this is going? toombaru I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that it is limited? I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm that > it cannot touch. > > Can you see where this is going? > > toombaru > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that it > is limited? > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > -geo- there's nothing wrong with anything. how could anything be wrong..or right? it's what it is. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Friday, May 22, 2009 7:32 AM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > that > it cannot touch. > > Can you see where this is going? > > toombaru > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that > it > is limited? > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > -geo- there's nothing wrong with anything. how could anything be wrong..or right? it's what it is. ..b b.b. If conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm that it cannot touch nontheless projects such realm....then it is back to duality. It is not " wrong " or " right " ...just back to the narrowness of conceptualy trying to understand what IS. Result: conflict. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 22/5/2009 07:54:44 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 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 Anna, Consciousness is all there is. Anything " beyond of " or " prior to " consciousness are ideas or concepts. And thanks for writing " truth " within stars. Thruth and love are the most misused terms. That misuse has its origing in arrogance. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Friday, May 22, 2009 7:32 AM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > that > > it cannot touch. > > > > Can you see where this is going? > > > > toombaru > > > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that > > it > > is limited? > > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > > -geo- > > there's nothing wrong with anything. > > how could anything be wrong..or right? > > it's what it is. > > .b b.b. > > If conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > that it cannot touch > nontheless projects such realm....then it is back to duality. It is not > " wrong " or " right " ...just > back to the narrowness of conceptualy trying to understand what IS. Result: > conflict. > -geo- i don't know what i'm talking about. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > 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 Anna, > > Consciousness is all there is. Anything " beyond of " or " prior to " consciousness are ideas or concepts. > > And thanks for writing " truth " within stars. Thruth and love are the most misused terms. That misuse has its origing in arrogance. > > Werner do you mean orgy-ing wernie? what's arrogant about that? commenting morally on it is arrogant however. you would have everyone believe that you are better.. or more informed.. or in a position to comment on the human condition.. as if you were outside of it... and that you were peering through a microscope.. like your comic book scientist heroes.. at something that you doltishly think you can categorize. goddamnit all wenie this is what pisses me off about you. you're trying to spread that stupidity. doesn't really matter though. i thought i'd just point out the obvious to you. how's your day going? i'm having a good one. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, May 22, 2009 7:32 AM > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > that > > > it cannot touch. > > > > > > Can you see where this is going? > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that > > > it > > > is limited? > > > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > > > -geo- > > > > there's nothing wrong with anything. > > > > how could anything be wrong..or right? > > > > it's what it is. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > If conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > that it cannot touch > > nontheless projects such realm....then it is back to duality. It is not > > " wrong " or " right " ...just > > back to the narrowness of conceptualy trying to understand what IS. Result: > > conflict. > > -geo- > > > > i don't know what i'm talking about. > > .b b.b. > .......but you know you're talking? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 7:32 AM > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > that > > > > it cannot touch. > > > > > > > > Can you see where this is going? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that > > > > it > > > > is limited? > > > > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > there's nothing wrong with anything. > > > > > > how could anything be wrong..or right? > > > > > > it's what it is. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > If conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > that it cannot touch > > > nontheless projects such realm....then it is back to duality. It is not > > > " wrong " or " right " ...just > > > back to the narrowness of conceptualy trying to understand what IS. Result: > > > conflict. > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > i don't know what i'm talking about. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > ......but you know you're talking? > > > > > > toombaru i don't know anything. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > 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 Anna, > > > > Consciousness is all there is. Anything " beyond of " or " prior to " consciousness are ideas or concepts. > > > > And thanks for writing " truth " within stars. Thruth and love are the most misused terms. That misuse has its origing in arrogance. > > > > Werner > > > > do you mean orgy-ing wernie? > > what's arrogant about that? > > commenting morally on it is arrogant however. > > you would have everyone believe that you are better.. > > or more informed.. > > or in a position to comment on the human condition.. > > as if you were outside of it... > > and that you were peering through a microscope.. > > like your comic book scientist heroes.. > > at something that you doltishly think you can categorize. > > goddamnit all wenie this is what pisses me off about you. > > you're trying to spread that stupidity. > > doesn't really matter though. > > i thought i'd just point out the obvious to you. > > how's your day going? > > i'm having a good one. > > .b b.b. > Getting mad at the machinery is..............well...........mechanical. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > roberibus111 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 7:32 AM > > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > that > > > > > it cannot touch. > > > > > > > > > > Can you see where this is going? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that > > > > > it > > > > > is limited? > > > > > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > there's nothing wrong with anything. > > > > > > > > how could anything be wrong..or right? > > > > > > > > it's what it is. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > If conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > that it cannot touch > > > > nontheless projects such realm....then it is back to duality. It is not > > > > " wrong " or " right " ...just > > > > back to the narrowness of conceptualy trying to understand what IS. Result: > > > > conflict. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what i'm talking about. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > ......but you know you're talking? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > i don't know anything. > > .b b.b. are you listening? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 Anna, > > > > > > Consciousness is all there is. Anything " beyond of " or " prior to " consciousness are ideas or concepts. > > > > > > And thanks for writing " truth " within stars. Thruth and love are the most misused terms. That misuse has its origing in arrogance. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > do you mean orgy-ing wernie? > > > > what's arrogant about that? > > > > commenting morally on it is arrogant however. > > > > you would have everyone believe that you are better.. > > > > or more informed.. > > > > or in a position to comment on the human condition.. > > > > as if you were outside of it... > > > > and that you were peering through a microscope.. > > > > like your comic book scientist heroes.. > > > > at something that you doltishly think you can categorize. > > > > goddamnit all wenie this is what pisses me off about you. > > > > you're trying to spread that stupidity. > > > > doesn't really matter though. > > > > i thought i'd just point out the obvious to you. > > > > how's your day going? > > > > i'm having a good one. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > Getting mad at the machinery is..............well...........mechanical. toombaru that's as good a mechanical reply as any other. thanks for sharing the mundane and common. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 7:32 AM > > > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > that > > > > > > it cannot touch. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see where this is going? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that > > > > > > it > > > > > > is limited? > > > > > > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > there's nothing wrong with anything. > > > > > > > > > > how could anything be wrong..or right? > > > > > > > > > > it's what it is. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > If conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > that it cannot touch > > > > > nontheless projects such realm....then it is back to duality. It is not > > > > > " wrong " or " right " ...just > > > > > back to the narrowness of conceptualy trying to understand what IS. Result: > > > > > conflict. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what i'm talking about. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......but you know you're talking? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > i don't know anything. > > > > .b b.b. > > > are you listening? > > .b b.b. > You think there is someone listening? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 Anna, > > > > > > > > Consciousness is all there is. Anything " beyond of " or " prior to " consciousness are ideas or concepts. > > > > > > > > And thanks for writing " truth " within stars. Thruth and love are the most misused terms. That misuse has its origing in arrogance. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > do you mean orgy-ing wernie? > > > > > > what's arrogant about that? > > > > > > commenting morally on it is arrogant however. > > > > > > you would have everyone believe that you are better.. > > > > > > or more informed.. > > > > > > or in a position to comment on the human condition.. > > > > > > as if you were outside of it... > > > > > > and that you were peering through a microscope.. > > > > > > like your comic book scientist heroes.. > > > > > > at something that you doltishly think you can categorize. > > > > > > goddamnit all wenie this is what pisses me off about you. > > > > > > you're trying to spread that stupidity. > > > > > > doesn't really matter though. > > > > > > i thought i'd just point out the obvious to you. > > > > > > how's your day going? > > > > > > i'm having a good one. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Getting mad at the machinery is..............well...........mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > that's as good a mechanical reply as any other. > > thanks for sharing the mundane and common. > > .b b.b. > You think I'm sharing? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 Anna, > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is all there is. Anything " beyond of " or " prior to " consciousness are ideas or concepts. > > > > > > > > > > And thanks for writing " truth " within stars. Thruth and love are the most misused terms. That misuse has its origing in arrogance. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do you mean orgy-ing wernie? > > > > > > > > what's arrogant about that? > > > > > > > > commenting morally on it is arrogant however. > > > > > > > > you would have everyone believe that you are better.. > > > > > > > > or more informed.. > > > > > > > > or in a position to comment on the human condition.. > > > > > > > > as if you were outside of it... > > > > > > > > and that you were peering through a microscope.. > > > > > > > > like your comic book scientist heroes.. > > > > > > > > at something that you doltishly think you can categorize. > > > > > > > > goddamnit all wenie this is what pisses me off about you. > > > > > > > > you're trying to spread that stupidity. > > > > > > > > doesn't really matter though. > > > > > > > > i thought i'd just point out the obvious to you. > > > > > > > > how's your day going? > > > > > > > > i'm having a good one. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Getting mad at the machinery is..............well...........mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > that's as good a mechanical reply as any other. > > > > thanks for sharing the mundane and common. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > You think I'm sharing? > > > > toombaru i don't know. i don't know what i'm talking about. remember? or if your not there stop responding. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 7:32 AM > > > > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > it cannot touch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see where this is going? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > is limited? > > > > > > > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > there's nothing wrong with anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > how could anything be wrong..or right? > > > > > > > > > > > > it's what it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > If conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > that it cannot touch > > > > > > nontheless projects such realm....then it is back to duality. It is not > > > > > > " wrong " or " right " ...just > > > > > > back to the narrowness of conceptualy trying to understand what IS. Result: > > > > > > conflict. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what i'm talking about. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......but you know you're talking? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > i don't know anything. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > ...but you know that? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > you seem to know what i do or do not know.. > > i do not. > > no ifs ands or buts. > > are you listening? > > .b b.b. > You think we think? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 7:32 AM > > > > > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > it cannot touch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see where this is going? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > is limited? > > > > > > > > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there's nothing wrong with anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how could anything be wrong..or right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's what it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > > that it cannot touch > > > > > > > nontheless projects such realm....then it is back to duality. It is not > > > > > > > " wrong " or " right " ...just > > > > > > > back to the narrowness of conceptualy trying to understand what IS. Result: > > > > > > > conflict. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what i'm talking about. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......but you know you're talking? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know anything. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...but you know that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > you seem to know what i do or do not know.. > > > > i do not. > > > > no ifs ands or buts. > > > > are you listening? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > You think we think? > > > > > toombaru who the hell are you asking? who's the you that asks? don't think! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 7:32 AM > > > > > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > it cannot touch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see where this is going? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > is limited? > > > > > > > > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there's nothing wrong with anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how could anything be wrong..or right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's what it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > > that it cannot touch > > > > > > > nontheless projects such realm....then it is back to duality. It is not > > > > > > > " wrong " or " right " ...just > > > > > > > back to the narrowness of conceptualy trying to understand what IS. Result: > > > > > > > conflict. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what i'm talking about. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......but you know you're talking? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know anything. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > are you listening? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > You think there is someone listening? > > > > > > toombaru > > > i don't think. > > you seem to think you know what you're asking. > > you don't. > > .b b.b. > You think that you are talking to someone? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 7:32 AM > > > > > > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > it cannot touch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see where this is going? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > is limited? > > > > > > > > > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there's nothing wrong with anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how could anything be wrong..or right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's what it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > > > that it cannot touch > > > > > > > > nontheless projects such realm....then it is back to duality. It is not > > > > > > > > " wrong " or " right " ...just > > > > > > > > back to the narrowness of conceptualy trying to understand what IS. Result: > > > > > > > > conflict. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what i'm talking about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......but you know you're talking? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know anything. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...but you know that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > you seem to know what i do or do not know.. > > > > > > i do not. > > > > > > no ifs ands or buts. > > > > > > are you listening? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > You think we think? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > who the hell are you asking? > > who's the you that asks? > > don't think! > > .b b.b. > You think that I have a choice not to think? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 Anna, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is all there is. Anything " beyond of " or " prior to " consciousness are ideas or concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And thanks for writing " truth " within stars. Thruth and love are the most misused terms. That misuse has its origing in arrogance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do you mean orgy-ing wernie? > > > > > > > > > > > > what's arrogant about that? > > > > > > > > > > > > commenting morally on it is arrogant however. > > > > > > > > > > > > you would have everyone believe that you are better.. > > > > > > > > > > > > or more informed.. > > > > > > > > > > > > or in a position to comment on the human condition.. > > > > > > > > > > > > as if you were outside of it... > > > > > > > > > > > > and that you were peering through a microscope.. > > > > > > > > > > > > like your comic book scientist heroes.. > > > > > > > > > > > > at something that you doltishly think you can categorize. > > > > > > > > > > > > goddamnit all wenie this is what pisses me off about you. > > > > > > > > > > > > you're trying to spread that stupidity. > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't really matter though. > > > > > > > > > > > > i thought i'd just point out the obvious to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > how's your day going? > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm having a good one. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Getting mad at the machinery is..............well...........mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's as good a mechanical reply as any other. > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing the mundane and common. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You think I'm sharing? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > i don't know. > > > > i don't know what i'm talking about. > > > > remember? > > > > or if your not there stop responding. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > " You " " think " " I " " have " " a " " choice " " ? " > > > " toombaru " i'm not familiar with the term " choice " .. nor " I " nor " you " . is that where is found all of that ensnared? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 7:32 AM > > > > > > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > it cannot touch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see where this is going? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > is limited? > > > > > > > > > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there's nothing wrong with anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how could anything be wrong..or right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's what it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > > > that it cannot touch > > > > > > > > nontheless projects such realm....then it is back to duality. It is not > > > > > > > > " wrong " or " right " ...just > > > > > > > > back to the narrowness of conceptualy trying to understand what IS. Result: > > > > > > > > conflict. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what i'm talking about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......but you know you're talking? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know anything. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > are you listening? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You think there is someone listening? > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > i don't think. > > > > you seem to think you know what you're asking. > > > > you don't. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > You think that you are talking to someone? > > > > toombaru you are assuming monsters. drink some warm milk. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 7:32 AM > > > > > > > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > it cannot touch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see where this is going? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > is limited? > > > > > > > > > > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there's nothing wrong with anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how could anything be wrong..or right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's what it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > > > > that it cannot touch > > > > > > > > > nontheless projects such realm....then it is back to duality. It is not > > > > > > > > > " wrong " or " right " ...just > > > > > > > > > back to the narrowness of conceptualy trying to understand what IS. Result: > > > > > > > > > conflict. > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what i'm talking about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......but you know you're talking? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...but you know that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > you seem to know what i do or do not know.. > > > > > > > > i do not. > > > > > > > > no ifs ands or buts. > > > > > > > > are you listening? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You think we think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > who the hell are you asking? > > > > who's the you that asks? > > > > don't think! > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > You think that I have a choice not to think? > > > > > toombaru i am unfamiliar with the terms: " I " .. " choice " .. " think " ... " you " .. " have " .. you are talking gibberish. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 Anna, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is all there is. Anything " beyond of " or " prior to " consciousness are ideas or concepts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And thanks for writing " truth " within stars. Thruth and love are the most misused terms. That misuse has its origing in arrogance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do you mean orgy-ing wernie? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's arrogant about that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commenting morally on it is arrogant however. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you would have everyone believe that you are better.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or more informed.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or in a position to comment on the human condition.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as if you were outside of it... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and that you were peering through a microscope.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like your comic book scientist heroes.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at something that you doltishly think you can categorize. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > goddamnit all wenie this is what pisses me off about you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're trying to spread that stupidity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't really matter though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i thought i'd just point out the obvious to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how's your day going? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm having a good one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Getting mad at the machinery is..............well...........mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's as good a mechanical reply as any other. > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing the mundane and common. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You think I'm sharing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > i don't know. > > > > > > i don't know what i'm talking about. > > > > > > remember? > > > > > > or if your not there stop responding. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > " You " " think " " I " " have " " a " " choice " " ? " > > > > > > " toombaru " > > > i'm not familiar with the term " choice " .. > > nor " I " nor " you " . > > is that where is found all of that ensnared? > > .b b.b. > And yet you are very familiar with the word " I " . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > Friday, May 22, 2009 7:32 AM > > > > > > > > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > it cannot touch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you see where this is going? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure... but is there anything wrong with thought " knowing " that > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > is limited? > > > > > > > > > > > I feel sometimes that that is all it can do. > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there's nothing wrong with anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how could anything be wrong..or right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's what it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If conceptual thought speculates that beyond its purview there is a realm > > > > > > > > > > that it cannot touch > > > > > > > > > > nontheless projects such realm....then it is back to duality. It is not > > > > > > > > > > " wrong " or " right " ...just > > > > > > > > > > back to the narrowness of conceptualy trying to understand what IS. Result: > > > > > > > > > > conflict. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what i'm talking about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......but you know you're talking? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...but you know that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you seem to know what i do or do not know.. > > > > > > > > > > i do not. > > > > > > > > > > no ifs ands or buts. > > > > > > > > > > are you listening? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You think we think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > who the hell are you asking? > > > > > > who's the you that asks? > > > > > > don't think! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > You have the where-with-all to offer advise to another? > > > > > toombaru do you really believe that? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
