Guest guest Report post Posted June 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > god doesn't speak through me. > > i speak through god. > > so listen up! > > :-) > > .b b.b. laughing. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > that's not validatable. > > and that's not a word. > > and that's not important. > > game 3 of the Stanley Cup however is. > > Go Detroit! > > .b b.b. Funny. I don't follow hockey, but for the sake of balancing this list, I have to say, Go Pittsburg! I mean it's gutsy that a bunch of guys are willing to call themselves " Penguins. " That takes spine. And what about the logo? Hell, they're willing to wear jerseys like that, they should win. " March on, Penguins. " Okay, I admit it. The penguin is dooomed. Any species where the father has to go without eating for four months to feed the young is doomed. No wonder they're losing. Go Penguins!! - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > the thrill is gone d.d. > > .b b.b. you got that right, .b b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > " non dimensional..non energy...non matter/space/time..it's not in the domain > > > of ponderablity " > > > Well... youjust invented a another new name to it - just a bit longer. The > > > same. > > > -geo- > > > > funny. true. > > > what it? > > .b b.b. you know, " it " the it that went away, so the universe could be. it went away, so you could hang around and you followed me every night Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > preachy. > > dull. > > understanding is for saps that want to believe.. > > that there is something to understand. > > drink some warm Ovaltine captain marvel. > > .b b.b. I've been preaching a long time. Still nothing. When will they ever learn? - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > bullshit! > > god speaks on my behalf. > > god and me... are not two daniel. Me and Bobby McGee are not-two Robert. > this Truth has just not been given to you to " get " as of yet. I'm not holding my breath. > yet.. > > i feel sorrow for you as god has put a word in on your behalf. > > that word is bullshit. LOL. > i merely share it for your salvation. > > that's deadly business. > your salvation is in your annihilation. My salvation is that I'm bluish. I know I don't look bluish. But I've been oh-blue-terated. > .b b.b. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > > > > > exactly. > > > > > > > > thanks for validating my point. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > that's pointless. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > yes, the point is pointless. > > > > correct. > > > > - d - > > > there is no point. > > .b b.b. good point. I agree. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's your story. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and you are avoiding admitting it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not that it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > either you're addressing yourself, or a " you " that you say doesn't exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > if selves don't exist, then perhaps you're the one who is benefitting from your talk. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no benefit. > > > > > > > > > > there is no merit. > > > > > > > > > > you go straight to hell for imagining either. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > your imagined hell is the only one you can go to. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > no. > > > > > > hell is here. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > only if you are here, trying to do something with it. > > > > - d - > > > oh well hell danny where are you? > > .b b.b. preaching to all the devils. doesn't seem to do much good. one of them just went out to get some more canola oil. at least I won't have any extra transfat. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No bbb. When he says " energy " he is not referring to what you learn in high > > > > > school. After all he must use a name to refer to it. > > > > > Also " field " is not related to our three dimensions. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > true. yet it includes the energy learned about in high school > > > > > > > > and includes our four dimensions (time being one of them) > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > nothing is excluded. > > > > no outside of it. > > > > - d - > > > nothing is included. > > there is no inside. > > .b b.b. true. and no word has ever been spoken about it. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > sure..whatever gets you through your night. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > gotta go. > > > > > > be back in a few non existing hours. > > > > > > be patient and try to stay awake kids. > > > > > > i will return with the answers you need. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > cool. > > > > have fun. > > > > - d - > > > i AM fun. > > .b b.b. u. r. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > maybe there are no divisions.. > there are many multiplications. > > reflect on that. > > .b b.b. I reflect and refract. Now, I'm all broken up about it. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 2, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:05 PM Re: Physical Death Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > > > > With the dissolution of human body, consciousness also dissolves. > > > > > What about awareness? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > or, as richard dreyfus would say, " what about bob? " > > > > > > > > if the body consciousness dissolves, there is awareness of the > > > > dissolving > > > > > > > > awareness/arisings awareness/dissolutions > > > > > > > > not-two > > > > > > > > beginningless endless > > > > > > > > and what of no-thing? > > > > > > > > no arising no dissolution no awareness no nothing? > > > > > > > > what of what can't be thunk or said? > > > > > > > > you won't read it on this list if you follow the posts for a hundred > > > > years > > > > > > > > > everyone in that movie BUT richard dreyfus asked: > > > > > > what about bob. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > exactly > > > > good point. > > > > finally, a point worth reading has been made on this list. > > > > who woulda thunk? > > > > - d - > > > > An you say there is no center in whatever you do in any situaton... in > > your > > life. > > Is this coming from the ground, or what? > > -geo- > > there is nothing that is not coming from the ground. > > there are no divisions, just reflections. > > - d - > > Well, there is no way I can be sure...but by the looks of the dialogue, by > the reaction-type messages I tend to beleive that thats just theory. In > the > moment of the heat you are lost in the center....and a few minutes later > you > say there is nothing that is not coming from the ground. No > problems....you > are just like me. :>) > -geo- Thanks. I'm okay with being like you. I'm not trying to be special. I'm not trying to be beyond reactivity, nor am I claiming that I have any special status or better way of being than someone else. geo> What is reactivity if not the imagined inner self? == I am content with being aware. Whatever I'm experiencing is through being aware. Same would be true for " you " as for " me. " How can there be an experience that you experience without any awareness? How would it register as an experience that affected you in some way? We keep having dialogues on this list saying " there is no 'you'. " This is the same as saying " there is no center to being-aware. " This means, directly, in terms of experience, that whatever experience you're aware of is not separable from being aware, and therefore neither awareness or the experience is separable from what could be called " the ground of the awareness " which could also be called " no-thing. " geo> You are explaining things as they are, ok. But the question is whether this is so DURING the interactions. == Say I'm having an experience that is really twisted, and I'm an ego-maniac who thinks I know best what is right for everyone, gets highly emotional, hurts people, takes drugs, and belongs to a terrorist group - or whatever you think of as the most messed up kind of person with an ego-center. That experience is constituting through being-aware. Say someone else is having an experience of total understanding, is one with everything, is utterly relaxed and fully compassionate, never feels angry, or whatever you conceive of as the kind of person who doesn't have an involvement with a center. That experience is constituting through being aware. Being-aware isn't picking and choosing. The entirety of manifestation is undivided, because the ground is undivided. The entirety of manifestation is choiceless (because no separable entity is involved to choose things) and me-less, even though there may be appearances as if choices occur and me's are there. Sometimes I may say to someone, " it's important how you choose to deal with this. " Yet I know that if that choice " manifests " for them, that the manifestation of the choice is choiceless in that moment it is experienced. Being aware doesn't involve getting rid of a me. It involves seeing " below the me " so to speak, or seeing " through the me. " geo>Not getting rid of the me? What me? There is no me to see through. There is seeing through consciousness IF there is not a ME. ==== It doesn't depend on any theory, because it's so. geo> Again. If in the heat of life you are cought in the centerd movement - it is centered at that moment. After you think about and say existence is non-centered and so and so because such and such... === It doesn't depend on any particular observer recognizing it, because *it is constituting all the observer/observed relationships.* It may appear that two persons are interacting, and they have different qualities, and they are affecting each other in different ways. But the entire interaction, from beginning to end, is manifesting from the same no-place, the groundless ground. Not as a theory or due to a theory, but due to the fact of how experience constitutes as experience. It's all equal. If one understands this, then however a person is manifesting, and whatever he is experiencing, this is *it* - this timeless nothing. In fact, if one doesn't understand this, then however you're manifesting is *it.* So, it doesn't depend on you or me to understand it. Doesn't depend on our theories. It is the understanding of having no understanding. - dego - First...thanks for the attention. But the issue is much much simpler then that. Its a matter of YES or NO. You say yes....there is no ME as you are relating to people...or any other life circumstance. But all you said above could be stated " a posteriori " . Its like going blind in the heat of a hot discussion and later on saying that all is one and there was no ME involved and the wiew was wonderfull. Who can tell but you? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 First...thanks for the attention. But the issue is much much simpler then that. Its a matter of YES or NO. You say yes....there is no ME as you are relating to people...or any other life circumstance. But all you said above could be stated " a posteriori " . Its like going blind in the heat of a hot discussion and later on saying that all is one and there was no ME involved and the wiew was wonderfull. Who can tell but you? I could rephrase the issue in the following manner: When one is awake the light of the ground is illumining consciousness. There is full awareness of this smaller field of consciousness within the vastness of the unbounded, limitless, unspeakable, timeless ground. NO need for any explanations or theories here. When this perception changes and there is as if a narrowing, a focusing of attention to details within consciousness, it is as if the lights have been turned off. At the very moment that this focusing is happening, any notion of a ground, awareness, timelessness...is just theory, conceptual, thinking. So the question is whether the light is on in all life situations. Dont explain to me that evrything is always the ground!! The heart, the nerves, the body, the brain...behave differently when the lights are on. Although all is the ground always...the center creates a shadow and becomes dark. I feel stupid explaining this. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 First...thanks for the attention. But the issue is much much simpler then that. Its a matter of YES or NO. You say yes....there is no ME as you are relating to people...or any other life circumstance. But all you said above could be stated " a posteriori " . Its like going blind in the heat of a hot discussion and later on saying that all is one and there was no ME involved and the wiew was wonderfull. Who can tell but you? I could rephrase the issue in the following manner: When one is awake the light of the ground is illumining consciousness. There is full awareness of this smaller field of consciousness within the vastness of the unbounded, limitless, unspeakable, timeless ground. NO need for any explanations or theories here. When this perception changes and there is as if a narrowing, a focusing of attention to details within consciousness, it is as if the lights have been turned off. At the very moment that this focusing is happening, any notion of a ground, awareness, timelessness...is just theory, conceptual, thinking. So the question is whether the light is on in all life situations. Dont explain to me that evrything is always the ground!! The heart, the nerves, the body, the brain...behave differently when the lights are on. Although all is the ground always...the center creates a shadow and becomes dark. I feel stupid explaining this. So..it is NOT enough to understand that there is a ground that ilumines consciousness - it must be actualized...must be realized...must be lived...AS human interactions ocour. It is a question of IS or NO-IS. NO explanations. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > Thanks. I'm okay with being like you. I'm not trying to be special. I'm not > trying to be beyond reactivity, nor am I claiming that I have any special > status or better way of being than someone else. > > geo> What is reactivity if not the imagined inner self? > == Reactivity is simply reacting. There doesn't need to be any imagined inner self involved. An event is perceived. There is a reaction to the event. The reaction also is perceived. Where is any inner self? The inner self is an interpretation. If I don't make this interpretation, where is it? Someone on this list will say, oh you think there is an " I " to make an interpretation, then ... No, it's a figure of speech. There aren't any things that are making things happen. There are no things that things happen to. Words make it seem like there could be things, including I's and inner me's, and chairs. But chairs are interpretations, too. Each word we write is actually an interpretation. But we write anyway. For fun. > I am content with being aware. Whatever I'm experiencing is through being > aware. Same would be true for " you " as for " me. " > > How can there be an experience that you experience without any awareness? > How would it register as an experience that affected you in some way? > > We keep having dialogues on this list saying " there is no 'you'. " This is > the same as saying " there is no center to being-aware. " > > This means, directly, in terms of experience, that whatever experience > you're aware of is not separable from being aware, and therefore neither > awareness or the experience is separable from what could be called " the > ground of the awareness " which could also be called " no-thing. " > > geo> You are explaining things as they are, ok. But the question is whether > this is so DURING the interactions. > == You've asked this question several times, in different ways. It is so, but there is no duration involved. So, it is not DURING some interactions and not during others. There is no time involved, no duration. I am putting it into words, so that makes it seem like there is time involved. Words imply time to be read. You are talking about how events happen over time. And how you interpret them. Your interpretation takes time. But being aware does not take time. Being aware is how one can be aware of thoughts. Thoughts construct time. Organismic consciousness that results from biochemical reactions (that don't involve any inner self) takes time. But the being aware doesn't require time. It is how the thoughts and the consciousness can construct time, through memory. > Say I'm having an experience that is really twisted, and I'm an ego-maniac > who thinks I know best what is right for everyone, gets highly emotional, > hurts people, takes drugs, and belongs to a terrorist group - or whatever > you think of as the most messed up kind of person with an ego-center. That > experience is constituting through being-aware. > > Say someone else is having an experience of total understanding, is one with > everything, is utterly relaxed and fully compassionate, never feels angry, > or whatever you conceive of as the kind of person who doesn't have an > involvement with a center. That experience is constituting through being > aware. > > Being-aware isn't picking and choosing. > > The entirety of manifestation is undivided, because the ground is undivided. > The entirety of manifestation is choiceless (because no separable entity is > involved to choose things) and me-less, even though there may be appearances > as if choices occur and me's are there. > > Sometimes I may say to someone, " it's important how you choose to deal with > this. " Yet I know that if that choice " manifests " for them, that the > manifestation of the choice is choiceless in that moment it is experienced. > > Being aware doesn't involve getting rid of a me. It involves seeing " below > the me " so to speak, or seeing " through the me. " > > geo>Not getting rid of the me? What me? There is no me to see through. There > is seeing through consciousness IF there is not a ME. You are the one bringing up the " inner me. " If, as you are saying " there is no me, " then why bring up the inner me and whether or not someone is involved with it???? > It doesn't depend on any theory, because it's so. > > geo> Again. If in the heat of life you are cought in the centerd movement - > it is centered at that moment. No. There is only a me-center through interpretation, which involves duration, not the moment of perception. After you think about and say existence is > non-centered and so and so because such and such... It has nothing to do with what someone thinks. > > It doesn't depend on any particular observer recognizing it, because *it is > constituting all the observer/observed relationships.* > > It may appear that two persons are interacting, and they have different > qualities, and they are affecting each other in different ways. > > But the entire interaction, from beginning to end, is manifesting from the > same no-place, the groundless ground. > > Not as a theory or due to a theory, but due to the fact of how experience > constitutes as experience. > > It's all equal. > > If one understands this, then however a person is manifesting, and whatever > he is experiencing, this is *it* - this timeless nothing. > > In fact, if one doesn't understand this, then however you're manifesting is > *it.* > > So, it doesn't depend on you or me to understand it. Doesn't depend on our > theories. > > It is the understanding of having no understanding. > > - dego - > > First...thanks for the attention. You're welcome. > But the issue is much much simpler then that. It's too simple for words, as a matter of fact. > Its a matter of YES or NO. You > say yes....there is no ME as you are relating to people...or any other life > circumstance. But all you said above could be stated " a posteriori " . Its > like going blind in the heat of a hot discussion and later on saying that > all is one and there was no ME involved and the wiew was wonderfull. Who can > tell but you? Yes, that's so, who can tell? Please note, it is not something occurring over time. It is not occuring through one interaction that involves time, and not through some other interaction. What is your experience right now? It is what is is. Can I change what is so without involving time? No. This is it as it is. Whatever type of interaction appears over time, that is constructed by thought/memory/perception. The immediate fact: no time is involved, and there is no other to make an evaluation. And there is no inside me to be evaluated on how much it is there or not there. The me is a fabrication. It only appears to be there, conceptually, in terms of thought and time. Time to process events through thought. No-time is not fabricated. There isn't any choice involved, and it's not coming at a future date. It doesn't depend on thought or anything I say or you say. -- D -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > First...thanks for the attention. > But the issue is much much simpler then that. Its a matter of YES or NO. You > say yes....there is no ME as you are relating to people...or any other life > circumstance. But all you said above could be stated " a posteriori " . Its > like going blind in the heat of a hot discussion and later on saying that > all is one and there was no ME involved and the wiew was wonderfull. Who can > tell but you? > > I could rephrase the issue in the following manner: > When one is awake the light of the ground is illumining consciousness. There > is full awareness of this smaller field of consciousness within the vastness > of the unbounded, limitless, unspeakable, timeless ground. NO need for any > explanations or theories here. When this perception changes and there is as > if a narrowing, a focusing of attention to details within consciousness, it > is as if the lights have been turned off. At the very moment that this > focusing is happening, any notion of a ground, awareness, timelessness...is > just theory, conceptual, thinking. So the question is whether the light is > on in all life situations. Dont explain to me that evrything is always the > ground!! The heart, the nerves, the body, the brain...behave differently > when the lights are on. Although all is the ground always...the center > creates a shadow and becomes dark. I feel stupid explaining this. > -geo- Your conceptualization brings something else in beside the ground. You start with the ground, and say it is always what it is, has no explanation or theory and needs none. Then you bring in something you call focusing of attention and say that changes things. Then you bring in heart, brain, body and say that they act differently if the light is on or off. So, now you've brought lots of other things in. Let's go back right to the first thing you brought in, in addition to the ground, that you call focusing of attention. Who is doing this focusing? Someone who came to exist who is other than the ground? What is being focused on? Something that came to exist that is other than the ground? You say the focus can shut out light. How? Who is doing the shutting out? Where is it going to be shut out to? I'm raising these questions because you construct a story about a ground that is all, and then bring in extraneous elements that do things to it, like shutting it out. If you believe in a story like this, then it will seem to you like something is getting shut out if you focus. And you will try not to focus. And you will evaluate people to see if they are focusing or not. You will evaluate how their brains, hearts, and other organs are acting. What I'm saying isn't complicated. I'm saying whoa, stop. Right there where you bring in something extraneous that can do something to the ground, like diminish its light. That is not possible. It's only possible if you invent a theory where it is possible. But it can't be actual. There isn't anything extraneous coming in and doing things to totality. Totality simply is. It can't be any other way. That is why it is totality. (Not the word or idea totality. That can be made some other way.) - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Words make it seem like there could be things, including I's and inner me's, and chairs. But chairs are interpretations, too.=== geo> So there are no chairs in your world? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:24 PM > Re: Physical Death > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > " non dimensional..non energy...non matter/space/time..it's not in the > > > domain > > > of ponderablity " > > > Well... youjust invented a another new name to it - just a bit longer. > > > The > > > same. > > > -geo- > > > > funny. true. > > what it? > > .b b.b. > > What it? Wait i'll look it up in the diccionary: > ...here it is:... " non dimensional..non energy...non matter/space/time..it's > not in the domain of ponderablity " > Got it? ooops.. > -geo- that's some diccionary. you might want to try a " dictionary " next time. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > With the dissolution of human body, consciousness also dissolves. > > > > > > What about awareness? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > or, as richard dreyfus would say, " what about bob? " > > > > > > > > > > if the body consciousness dissolves, there is awareness of the > > > > > dissolving > > > > > > > > > > awareness/arisings awareness/dissolutions > > > > > > > > > > not-two > > > > > > > > > > beginningless endless > > > > > > > > > > and what of no-thing? > > > > > > > > > > no arising no dissolution no awareness no nothing? > > > > > > > > > > what of what can't be thunk or said? > > > > > > > > > > you won't read it on this list if you follow the posts for a hundred > > > > > years > > > > > > > > > > > > everyone in that movie BUT richard dreyfus asked: > > > > > > > > what about bob. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > exactly > > > > > > good point. > > > > > > finally, a point worth reading has been made on this list. > > > > > > who woulda thunk? > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > An you say there is no center in whatever you do in any situaton... in > > > your > > > life. > > > Is this coming from the ground, or what? > > > -geo- > > > > there is nothing that is not coming from the ground. > > > > there are no divisions, just reflections. > > > > - d - > > > > Well, there is no way I can be sure...but by the looks of the dialogue, by > > the reaction-type messages I tend to beleive that thats just theory. In the > > moment of the heat you are lost in the center....and a few minutes later you > > say there is nothing that is not coming from the ground. No problems....you > > are just like me. :>) > > -geo- > > Thanks. I'm okay with being like you. I'm not trying to be special. I'm not trying to be beyond reactivity, nor am I claiming that I have any special status or better way of being than someone else. > > I am content with being aware. Whatever I'm experiencing is through being aware. Same would be true for " you " as for " me. " > > How can there be an experience that you experience without any awareness? How would it register as an experience that affected you in some way? > > We keep having dialogues on this list saying " there is no 'you'. " This is the same as saying " there is no center to being-aware. " > > This means, directly, in terms of experience, that whatever experience you're aware of is not separable from being aware, and therefore neither awareness or the experience is separable from what could be called " the ground of the awareness " which could also be called " no-thing. " > > Say I'm having an experience that is really twisted, and I'm an ego-maniac who thinks I know best what is right for everyone, gets highly emotional, hurts people, takes drugs, and belongs to a terrorist group - or whatever you think of as the most messed up kind of person with an ego-center. That experience is constituting through being-aware. > > Say someone else is having an experience of total understanding, is one with everything, is utterly relaxed and fully compassionate, never feels angry, or whatever you conceive of as the kind of person who doesn't have an involvement with a center. That experience is constituting through being aware. > > Being-aware isn't picking and choosing. > > The entirety of manifestation is undivided, because the ground is undivided. The entirety of manifestation is choiceless (because no separable entity is involved to choose things) and me-less, even though there may be appearances as if choices occur and me's are there. > > Sometimes I may say to someone, " it's important how you choose to deal with this. " Yet I know that if that choice " manifests " for them, that the manifestation of the choice is choiceless in that moment it is experienced. > > Being aware doesn't involve getting rid of a me. It involves seeing " below the me " so to speak, or seeing " through the me. " > > It doesn't depend on any theory, because it's so. > > It doesn't depend on any particular observer recognizing it, because *it is constituting all the observer/observed relationships.* > > It may appear that two persons are interacting, and they have different qualities, and they are affecting each other in different ways. > > But the entire interaction, from beginning to end, is manifesting from the same no-place, the groundless ground. > > Not as a theory or due to a theory, but due to the fact of how experience constitutes as experience. > > It's all equal. > > If one understands this, then however a person is manifesting, and whatever he is experiencing, this is *it* - this timeless nothing. > > In fact, if one doesn't understand this, then however you're manifesting is *it.* > > So, it doesn't depend on you or me to understand it. Doesn't depend on our theories. > > It is the understanding of having no understanding. > > - dego - do you understand that that is a wee bit wordy? the bottom line is that the bottom line would have sufficed. but you do like to hear yourself preach don't you? (hokey church organ music here) heeeeeeeeeeresssssssss.... danny! pass the basket. burn the incense. sprinkle the holier than thou water. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 You say: Let's go back right to the first thing you brought in, in addition to the ground, that you call focusing of attention.Who is doing this focusing? Someone who came to exist who is other than the ground?What is being focused on? Something that came to exist that is other than the ground? You also say: Where is any inner self?The inner self is an interpretation.If I don't make this interpretation, where is it? I ask: how can you make an interpretation and produce a self? Who is doing it? Someone who came to exist who is other than the ground? What is being interpreted? Something that came to exist that is other than the ground? The same with the chair... -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:15 PM Re: Physical Death Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:24 PM > Re: Physical Death > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > " non dimensional..non energy...non matter/space/time..it's not in the > > > domain > > > of ponderablity " > > > Well... youjust invented a another new name to it - just a bit longer. > > > The > > > same. > > > -geo- > > > > funny. true. > > what it? > > .b b.b. > > What it? Wait i'll look it up in the diccionary: > ...here it is:... " non dimensional..non energy...non > matter/space/time..it's > not in the domain of ponderablity " > Got it? ooops.. > -geo- that's some diccionary. you might want to try a " dictionary " next time. ..b b.b. And you should try OVOMALTINE intead of OVALTINE next time... -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > that's not validatable. > > > > and that's not a word. > > > > and that's not important. > > > > game 3 of the Stanley Cup however is. > > > > Go Detroit! > > > > .b b.b. > > Funny. > > I don't follow hockey, but for the sake of balancing this list, I have to say, Go Pittsburg! > > I mean it's gutsy that a bunch of guys are willing to call themselves " Penguins. " That takes spine. And what about the logo? Hell, they're willing to wear jerseys like that, they should win. > > " March on, Penguins. " > > Okay, I admit it. The penguin is dooomed. > Any species where the father has to go without eating for four months to feed the young is doomed. > > No wonder they're losing. > > Go Penguins!! > > - D - kids..and Crosby is a whiner. but he's a Canadian whiner so that redeems him. but..the Penuins are going to lose to the Hockeytowners. i know. throw your octopi on the ice! Behold! It is already over. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > the thrill is gone d.d. > > > > .b b.b. > > > you got that right, .b b. so did b.b. his biggest hit. i know a punk that picked a bit on that tune. don't know why i did. i didn't get any credit or money. but i got some good shit from one of the sound engineers. life's like that. i like that too. woohoo! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > " non dimensional..non energy...non matter/space/time..it's not in the domain > > > > of ponderablity " > > > > Well... youjust invented a another new name to it - just a bit longer. The > > > > same. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > funny. true. > > > > > > what it? > > > > .b b.b. > > you know, " it " > > the it that went away, so the universe could be. > > it went away, so you could hang around > > and you followed me every night it had to go away for the universe to be? be what? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > preachy. > > > > dull. > > > > understanding is for saps that want to believe.. > > > > that there is something to understand. > > > > drink some warm Ovaltine captain marvel. > > > > .b b.b. > > I've been preaching a long time. > > Still nothing. > > When will they ever learn? > > - d - tell 'em to go to hell then. that's fair. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
