it's not there or over there either.

June 16, 2009

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:46 AM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled?

> > >

> > > Is one separately existing, apart from the other?

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> > There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence,

> > rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case,

> > and

> > prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different.

> > Sense

> > of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows

> > that.

> > Is this not obvious/clear?

> > What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if

> > the

> > people involved acted guided by clarity?

> > -geo-

>

> if " Clarity " is all that is claimed of it..

>

> how could it not be the Primal Cause and Guiding Force..

>

> of any and all things..states..behaviors..conditions?

>

> you be the judge.

>

> Clarity never judges.

>

> .b b.b.

some would make of Clarity or Realization..

a " God " not unlike the christian/jewish/islamic one.

" Clarity " would never do this..or that...

(all the " bad stuff)

" Clarity " IS this or that.

(all the good stuff)

it's all good all knowing without knowing..

it's the best Daddy daddyo.

and those same folks sit around..

and pontificate like a pope..

rattling on and on about the Ultimate of Ultimates..

and how they are individually in tune with " It " ..

and how they have come to tell you what's what.

fucking bullshit my friends.

don't put money nor belief nor trust in their basket.

they live to believe that you think they are wise.

dolts.

..b b.b.

Yes, I agree with you. It is a stupid line of enquiry to follow. What I said

is quite simple.

There are glasses of coke, coffee, tea, wisky on the table. You stick your

arm out and pick up the one you choose, or dont. Where is the need for a

self for this? Wher is the need of a " controler " for this. There is none.

That is all I am saying. Dont complicate.

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 16/6/2009 07:53:50

June 16, 2009

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Monday, June 15, 2009 11:26 PM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> If there is clarity, nobody is there to try anything or not.

>

> geo> Indeed. Only clarity, an organsim and the circumstances.

> Intelligence acts.

There's no need for 'the organism' either... it's in awareness (clarity),

along with the entire situation, every thought, sight, smell, etc. In other

words, 'the organism' need not be separated from the circumstances.

geo> Yes, the same. One can break down plurality/diversity as much as one

wants.

I dont know what you have in mind. Maybe something I am not getting. As I

wrote to bbb:

There are glasses of coke, coffee, tea, wisky on the table. You stick your

arm out and pick up the one you choose, or dont. Where is the need for a

self for this? Where is the need of a " controler " for this. There is none.

If the controler, the inner entity, teh imagined center is there, actions

take a different direction then without those.That is all I am saying.

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 16/6/2009 07:53:48

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > what goes around comes around.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > and no actual 'contact' has occurred.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > - d -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Yes... contact between what and what?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am what I see, hear, smell, taste, etc.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Fried chicken smells like myself ;-).

> > > > > > > > -tim-

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And what about.. I am not what I see, hear, smell, taste,

> > > > > > > > etc.?

> > > > > > > > I am not consciousness, I am not the world, I am not the

> > > > > > > > senses

> > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > its

> > > > > > > > objects.

> > > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > One negates everything that has been known or can be known.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > However, there is still negation, which is a process of knowing.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Negation negated ...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > - D -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Negation, negation...till silent afirmation is.

> > > > > > > Not even that.

> > > > > > > I am the is-ness where waves of things arise.

> > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > > > D:

> > > > >

> > > > > This moment of experience arising, I arises with and as the

> > > > > experiencing.

> > > > > Time arises with the experiencing of memory.

> > > > >

> > > > > This timeless moment, undivided.

> > > > >

> > > > > The is-ing, now-ing, is of and from nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Never has been commented upon.

> > > > >

> > > > > geo> The potentiality of all possibilities was never named, or

> > > > > referred

> > > > > to.

> > > > > I did not say a thing.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > and you guys claim this is not a word game?

> > > >

> > > > Clarabelle made more sense with his seltzer bottle and honk horn.

> > > >

> > > > i am not really here and am not saying any words and you aren't there.

> > > >

> > > > and i'm so clever for telling you that..

> > > >

> > > > so that you can think that i know something you don't know.

> > > >

> > > > and whatever it is it's NAMELESS and IMPORTANT and..

> > > >

> > > > way beyond your powers of thought or belief..

> > > >

> > > > or even my enlightened knowing to use words to tell.

> > > >

> > > > to fucking bad about your luck.

> > > >

> > > > i'm THERE though and that's what matters.

> > > >

> > > > kiss the little toe with the golden toenail ring attached.

> > > >

> > > > woo hoo! that tickles!

> > > >

> > > > LOL!

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > > Are you questioning the fact that a " ground " of being independent of

> > > > consciousness IS? Or something else?

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > as i don't believe in answers..

> > >

> > > i have no questions.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > I dont believe in anything.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > i don't believe you.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> > You better dont

> > -geo-

>

> actually i do a better do than don't.

>

> and never do what someone you don't believe tells you to do.

>

> especially if they tell you after...

>

> you have told them you don't believe them.

>

> they are not just deaf they are dolts.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Thanks for your vote of confidence. Now I leave you with your choices and

> decisions....not an easy job it seems.

> -geo-

well...

that you take that as a " vote of confidence " ..speaks for itself.

and uhm..

if i don't have questions because i know there aren't any answers..

what " choices " or " decisions " ?

don't labor so hard to understand.

it's simple...but not for the simpleminded.

what is....IS.

neither simple nor hard nor both nor neither.

it's makes kind of a pickle puss..

you just don't know what to say!

..b b.b.

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:11 AM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled?

> > >

> > > Is one separately existing, apart from the other?

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> > There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence,

> > rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case, and

> > prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different. Sense

> > of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows

> > that.

> > Is this not obvious/clear?

> > What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if the

> > people involved acted guided by clarity?

> > -geo-

>

> if " Clarity " is all that is claimed of it..

>

> how could it not be the Primal Cause and Guiding Force..

>

> of any and all things..states..behaviors..conditions?

>

> you be the judge.

>

> Clarity never judges.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> You are not the first to ask this question pall. Why clarity needs/allows

> darkness?

> -geo-

Clarity is not other than those.

..b b.b.

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:46 AM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled?

> > > >

> > > > Is one separately existing, apart from the other?

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > >

> > > There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence,

> > > rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case,

> > > and

> > > prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different.

> > > Sense

> > > of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows

> > > that.

> > > Is this not obvious/clear?

> > > What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if

> > > the

> > > people involved acted guided by clarity?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > if " Clarity " is all that is claimed of it..

> >

> > how could it not be the Primal Cause and Guiding Force..

> >

> > of any and all things..states..behaviors..conditions?

> >

> > you be the judge.

> >

> > Clarity never judges.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> some would make of Clarity or Realization..

>

> a " God " not unlike the christian/jewish/islamic one.

>

> " Clarity " would never do this..or that...

>

> (all the " bad stuff)

>

> " Clarity " IS this or that.

>

> (all the good stuff)

>

> it's all good all knowing without knowing..

>

> it's the best Daddy daddyo.

>

> and those same folks sit around..

>

> and pontificate like a pope..

>

> rattling on and on about the Ultimate of Ultimates..

>

> and how they are individually in tune with " It " ..

>

> and how they have come to tell you what's what.

>

> fucking bullshit my friends.

>

> don't put money nor belief nor trust in their basket.

>

> they live to believe that you think they are wise.

>

> dolts.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Yes, I agree with you. It is a stupid line of enquiry to follow. What I said

> is quite simple.

> There are glasses of coke, coffee, tea, wisky on the table. You stick your

> arm out and pick up the one you choose, or dont. Where is the need for a

> self for this? Wher is the need of a " controler " for this. There is none.

> That is all I am saying. Dont complicate.

> -geo-

saying that is complication.

saying this is further complication.

if your going to fucking communicate there is complication.

what is the need of a controller?

what is the need in asking that?

what is the need to reply to an answer to that?

what is the need of anything?

drop need.

no more you.

if you've made the grade you're gone.

vanished.

there is no more saying or needing to say anything.

don't complicate this.

..b b.b.

June 16, 2009

> > > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled?

> > >

> > > Is one separately existing, apart from the other?

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> > There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence,

> > rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case,

> > and

> > prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different.

> > Sense

> > of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows

> > that.

> > Is this not obvious/clear?

> > What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if

> > the

> > people involved acted guided by clarity?

> > -geo-

>

> if " Clarity " is all that is claimed of it..

>

> how could it not be the Primal Cause and Guiding Force..

>

> of any and all things..states..behaviors..conditions?

>

> you be the judge.

>

> Clarity never judges.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> You are not the first to ask this question pall. Why clarity needs/allows

> darkness?

> -geo-

Clarity is not other than those.

..b b.b.

Sure...tell that for one in darkness and see what he has to say.

-geo-

June 16, 2009

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 10:24 AM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:46 AM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled?

> > > >

> > > > Is one separately existing, apart from the other?

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > >

> > > There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence,

> > > rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case,

> > > and

> > > prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different.

> > > Sense

> > > of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows

> > > that.

> > > Is this not obvious/clear?

> > > What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if

> > > the

> > > people involved acted guided by clarity?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > if " Clarity " is all that is claimed of it..

> >

> > how could it not be the Primal Cause and Guiding Force..

> >

> > of any and all things..states..behaviors..conditions?

> >

> > you be the judge.

> >

> > Clarity never judges.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> some would make of Clarity or Realization..

>

> a " God " not unlike the christian/jewish/islamic one.

>

> " Clarity " would never do this..or that...

>

> (all the " bad stuff)

>

> " Clarity " IS this or that.

>

> (all the good stuff)

>

> it's all good all knowing without knowing..

>

> it's the best Daddy daddyo.

>

> and those same folks sit around..

>

> and pontificate like a pope..

>

> rattling on and on about the Ultimate of Ultimates..

>

> and how they are individually in tune with " It " ..

>

> and how they have come to tell you what's what.

>

> fucking bullshit my friends.

>

> don't put money nor belief nor trust in their basket.

>

> they live to believe that you think they are wise.

>

> dolts.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Yes, I agree with you. It is a stupid line of enquiry to follow. What I

> said

> is quite simple.

> There are glasses of coke, coffee, tea, wisky on the table. You stick your

> arm out and pick up the one you choose, or dont. Where is the need for a

> self for this? Wher is the need of a " controler " for this. There is none.

> That is all I am saying. Dont complicate.

> -geo-

saying that is complication.

saying this is further complication.

if your going to fucking communicate there is complication.

what is the need of a controller?

what is the need in asking that?

what is the need to reply to an answer to that?

what is the need of anything?

drop need.

no more you.

if you've made the grade you're gone.

vanished.

there is no more saying or needing to say anything.

don't complicate this.

..b b.b.

The controler stuff is something raised by dan or tim. This is part of that

thread.

Done.

-geo-

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Sure...tell that for one in darkness and see what he has to say.

> -geo-

What he has to say is predictable... he'll say something about me, not

him/herself.

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> > > > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled?

> > > >

> > > > Is one separately existing, apart from the other?

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > >

> > > There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence,

> > > rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case,

> > > and

> > > prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different.

> > > Sense

> > > of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows

> > > that.

> > > Is this not obvious/clear?

> > > What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if

> > > the

> > > people involved acted guided by clarity?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > if " Clarity " is all that is claimed of it..

> >

> > how could it not be the Primal Cause and Guiding Force..

> >

> > of any and all things..states..behaviors..conditions?

> >

> > you be the judge.

> >

> > Clarity never judges.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> > You are not the first to ask this question pall. Why clarity needs/allows

> > darkness?

> > -geo-

>

> Clarity is not other than those.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Sure...tell that for one in darkness and see what he has to say.

> -geo-

there is none other.

who to tell?

..b b.b.

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 10:24 AM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > -

> > roberibus111

> > Nisargadatta

> > Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:46 AM

> > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled?

> > > > >

> > > > > Is one separately existing, apart from the other?

> > > > >

> > > > > - D -

> > > >

> > > > There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence,

> > > > rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case,

> > > > and

> > > > prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different.

> > > > Sense

> > > > of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows

> > > > that.

> > > > Is this not obvious/clear?

> > > > What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if

> > > > the

> > > > people involved acted guided by clarity?

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > if " Clarity " is all that is claimed of it..

> > >

> > > how could it not be the Primal Cause and Guiding Force..

> > >

> > > of any and all things..states..behaviors..conditions?

> > >

> > > you be the judge.

> > >

> > > Clarity never judges.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > some would make of Clarity or Realization..

> >

> > a " God " not unlike the christian/jewish/islamic one.

> >

> > " Clarity " would never do this..or that...

> >

> > (all the " bad stuff)

> >

> > " Clarity " IS this or that.

> >

> > (all the good stuff)

> >

> > it's all good all knowing without knowing..

> >

> > it's the best Daddy daddyo.

> >

> > and those same folks sit around..

> >

> > and pontificate like a pope..

> >

> > rattling on and on about the Ultimate of Ultimates..

> >

> > and how they are individually in tune with " It " ..

> >

> > and how they have come to tell you what's what.

> >

> > fucking bullshit my friends.

> >

> > don't put money nor belief nor trust in their basket.

> >

> > they live to believe that you think they are wise.

> >

> > dolts.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> > Yes, I agree with you. It is a stupid line of enquiry to follow. What I

> > said

> > is quite simple.

> > There are glasses of coke, coffee, tea, wisky on the table. You stick your

> > arm out and pick up the one you choose, or dont. Where is the need for a

> > self for this? Wher is the need of a " controler " for this. There is none.

> > That is all I am saying. Dont complicate.

> > -geo-

>

> saying that is complication.

>

> saying this is further complication.

>

> if your going to fucking communicate there is complication.

>

> what is the need of a controller?

>

> what is the need in asking that?

>

> what is the need to reply to an answer to that?

>

> what is the need of anything?

>

> drop need.

>

> no more you.

>

> if you've made the grade you're gone.

>

> vanished.

>

> there is no more saying or needing to say anything.

>

> don't complicate this.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> The controler stuff is something raised by dan or tim. This is part of that

> thread.

> Done.

> -geo-

well there you go and complicate things again.

i never mentioned the " controller thing " ..

except...an ONLY in response to..

a response of yours to a response of mine.

i don't give a twat what are the thread's parts or the thread itself.

stuff it.

..b b.b.

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> > > > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled?

> > > >

> > > > Is one separately existing, apart from the other?

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > >

> > > There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence,

> > > rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case,

> > > and

> > > prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different.

> > > Sense

> > > of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows

> > > that.

> > > Is this not obvious/clear?

> > > What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if

> > > the

> > > people involved acted guided by clarity?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > if " Clarity " is all that is claimed of it..

> >

> > how could it not be the Primal Cause and Guiding Force..

> >

> > of any and all things..states..behaviors..conditions?

> >

> > you be the judge.

> >

> > Clarity never judges.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> > You are not the first to ask this question pall. Why clarity needs/allows

> > darkness?

> > -geo-

>

> Clarity is not other than those.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Sure...tell that for one in darkness and see what he has to say.

> -geo-

there is none other.

who do you tell?

..b b.b.

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> well there you go and complicate things again.

>

> i never mentioned the " controller thing " ..

>

> except...an ONLY in response to..

>

> a response of yours to a response of mine.

You, me, you, me, you, me...

Give it up ;-).

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> there is none other.

>

> who do you tell?

>

> .b b.b.

Who do *you* tell?

For that matter, who am I telling?

F*ck it ;-).

June 16, 2009

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:43 PM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111

wrote:

>

> there is none other.

>

> who do you tell?

>

> .b b.b.

Who do *you* tell?

For that matter, who am I telling?

F*ck it ;-).

geo> Lets all tell it to werner then.

June 16, 2009

-

geo

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:50 PM

Re: Re: it's not there or over there either.

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:43 PM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111

wrote:

>

> there is none other.

>

> who do you tell?

>

> .b b.b.

Who do *you* tell?

For that matter, who am I telling?

F*ck it ;-).

geo> Lets all tell it to werner then.

He is the only " other " I know off...

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:43 PM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

> wrote:

> >

> > there is none other.

> >

> > who do you tell?

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> Who do *you* tell?

>

> For that matter, who am I telling?

>

> F*ck it ;-).

>

> geo> Lets all tell it to werner then.

Naah, Werner prefers telling it all to us. I'm all good with listening to his

blabber, if that's what he wants :-p.

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:43 PM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

> wrote:

> >

> > there is none other.

> >

> > who do you tell?

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> Who do *you* tell?

>

> For that matter, who am I telling?

>

> F*ck it ;-).

>

> geo> Lets all tell it to werner then.

Naah, Werner prefers telling it all to us. I'm all good with listening to his

blabber, if that's what he wants :-p.

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, June 15, 2009 7:31 PM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > what goes around comes around.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > and no actual 'contact' has occurred.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > - d -

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Yes... contact between what and what?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I am what I see, hear, smell, taste, etc.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Fried chicken smells like myself ;-).

> > > > > > > > > -tim-

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > And what about.. I am not what I see, hear, smell, taste,

> > > > > > > > > etc.?

> > > > > > > > > I am not consciousness, I am not the world, I am not the

> > > > > > > > > senses

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > its

> > > > > > > > > objects.

> > > > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > One negates everything that has been known or can be known.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > However, there is still negation, which is a process of

> > > > > > > > knowing.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Negation negated ...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > - D -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Negation, negation...till silent afirmation is.

> > > > > > > > Not even that.

> > > > > > > > I am the is-ness where waves of things arise.

> > > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > D:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This moment of experience arising, I arises with and as the

> > > > > > experiencing.

> > > > > > Time arises with the experiencing of memory.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This timeless moment, undivided.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The is-ing, now-ing, is of and from nothing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Never has been commented upon.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > geo> The potentiality of all possibilities was never named, or

> > > > > > referred

> > > > > > to.

> > > > > > I did not say a thing.

> > > > >

> > > > > D: Good point, thanks for clarifying.

> > > > >

> > > > > geo> What did I clarify?

> > > >

> > > > D: What you didn't say.

> > > >

> > > > geo>The statement " The potentiality of all possibilities was never

> > > > named,

> > > > or

> > > > referred to. I did not say a thing. " is not referring to anything I

> > > > wrote

> > > > before. It is a stand-alone thing.

> > > >

> > > > The thing is: either one decides not to name it or even referr to it,

> > > > or

> > > > yes. Once one decides that yes...then any word will not do the job

> > > > anyway...so, in fact it doesnt matter much which name one uses. It can

> > > > be

> > > > THAT or ISNESS or " The potentiality of all possibilities " or " the

> > > > never

> > > > named " even " I " - like in " I am not consciousness " .

> > >

> > > D: Thanks for the further clarification. Yes, I had this sense of what

> > > you

> > > were saying. Your comments make it more clear.

> > >

> > > One uses a name for the sake of conversing, for the sake of expressing.

> > >

> > > Because of the way that words work, one who hears what is said may

> > > mistakenly think that because naming was employed, a quality of being is

> > > referred to, or a state of consciousness is being referred to.

> > >

> > > Then, this can be personalized, such as, " Joe X has more of this quality

> > > of

> > > being than Sid Y, " or " Sally M is in this state of consciousness, and

> > > Mary

> > > R

> > > isn't. "

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> > > Or... " he thinks he has more silent knowledge then that other, or me " .

> > > The

> > > problem is always the same afer a certain point: all becomes impersonal

> > > and

> > > a personality interfers in that. There is nothing personal in the

> > > universe,

> > > all is universal, impersonal. BTW, the " interpretation as personal " is a

> > > measure that eventualy points to the point where mutual understanding

> > > has

> > > stoped. Unfortunately or not...only the impersonal side can see it.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > D: Yes. Either the personality structure (line of memories and

> > self-feeling

> > of existence forming " I " )is being used as the attempted basis for existing

> > and knowing, or it isn't being used that way.

> >

> > " You can't serve two masters. "

> >

> > Although I don't think it's personality that interferes. Personalities

> > actually form in an impersonal way. Like you said, everything in the

> > universe is impersonal (including personalities).

> >

> > The interference is the attempt to use a personal center as the mode for

> > knowing/being. If that attempt isn't being made, personalities do whatever

> > they do. They aren't anchoring being, and never have actually done that.

> >

> > " Let the dead (beings centered in a memory line) bury their dead. "

> >

> > - D -

> >

> > Yes, but now there is the issue of personality :>)

> > To me, personality is always " unconscious " - so it is a set of

> > conditionings

> > formed around the inner sense of entity. The root of the word is

> > " person " -

> > persona. When the inner sense of entity is absent there is control over

> > the

> > way one reacts/acts in relations. Nomenclature.

> > -geo-

>

> Who is the controller, and what is the controlled?

>

> Is one separately existing, apart from the other?

>

> - D -

> When the center is there, it is the set of beliefs, through a sense of hurt

> to the image, false morality, self-defense or anger or fear or

> righteousness, etc...

> When there is clarity, when nothing is personal, no imagined center is

> involved, the organism uses its natural intelligence in relations. But this

> can not be taken as a statement or some conceptual elaboration. It is totaly

> obvious. A personality is able to do the most....you know...abominable

> things....Clarity not.

> -geo-

Your definition of awareness as a doer of certain things and not other things

places something outside of awareness, i.e., a personality.

There are not separately existing doers of things.

All of the abominable things, whatever these may be for you, are co-arising

in/with awareness, however that arising is perceived.

The perceiver is never having its own existence apart from the perceived.

The natural intelligence of the universe isn't partialized into some beings and

not other beings.

The notion that things will be improved by ridding some organisms of an

I-center, and by promoting other organisms who got rid of an I-center, is just

another version of schemes to improve the universe, and just another version of

placing one category of organisms who are liked against another version of

organisms that are disliked.

Who is this " I " who has an agenda to improve the universe, or improve humanity?

Can this " I " really exist apart from the mess being perceived?

Are there really qualitatively different organisms, some which have something

called an I-center, and others that got rid of an I-center?

Or is this just another case of a self-separative " I " defining one group against

another group, and trying to promote a desired category against a disliked

category (those who supposedly get rid of an I-center and those who supposedly

still have an I-center)?

What are your criteria for judging whether an organism has an I-center or does

not have an I-center??

How can such criteria be set up, except by employing an " I " that is going to use

its preferences as criteria????

- D -

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, June 15, 2009 7:36 PM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > When the inner sense of entity is absent there is control over the

> > > way one reacts/acts in relations.

> >

> > " You wish " ;-).

>

> The sense of an inner entity -- what is that except for an assumed division

> between awareness (in here) and the object of awareness (out there)?

>

> With no assumed division between awareness and an object, how would there be

> a separated controller, trying to make relations occur in a certain way?

>

> And to whom would it matter?

>

> - D -

>

> Exactly. That is why I said that there is no personality in clarity, without

> the image/self. What is is the organism that obviously causes impressions on

> people around you. To you there is no division, but to them aparently yes.

> You know that if you say the wrong words to the wrong person you get killed.

> If there is clarity you will try not say those wrong words.

> -geo-

If one is aware without attaching to personality, there is no such thing as

personality.

If personality is an imagined pattern based on assumed differences, and one is

aware without imagining, then that imagined pattern isn't found anywhere.

Now, where is an " I " going to placed (located) that is different from " them " who

are placed in a location separate?

Is not this placement of I's in different locations, itself the so-called

" personality " or " I-center " ??

What would your concern be about " them " and what " they " are doing wrong

(maintaining I-centers), if there is no " I " being placed (located) anywhere?

And if there is no attachment being attempted to any personality (or organism)

anywhere?

You say " if there is clarity you will not try to say these words. "

I don't see how you would know that.

If the totality that is all situations is co-arising with/as awareness in all

cases, how is that going to be divided into those who have clarity and respond

in certain predictable ways, and others who lack clarity and respond in opposite

and also predictable ways?

Rather, one aware is not apart from any and all arisings, and understands that

the observer of the arising is co-arising with what is perceived.

If what is arising is arising of/from no-thing (as you stated in a previous

post), then this includes simultaneously whatever arises, does it not?

And concerns with predicting what certain organisms will do, and how much

clarity each organism has, would evaporate, no?

- D -

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> >

> > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled?

> >

> > Is one separately existing, apart from the other?

> >

> > - D -

>

> There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence,

> rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case, and

> prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different. Sense

> of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows that.

> Is this not obvious/clear?

> What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if the

> people involved acted guided by clarity?

> -geo-

I view clarity as awareness.

Awareness is clarity.

Everything arising is co-arising with/through awareness.

Clarity isn't something that guides certain people and not other people.

Clarity is not a person possession.

This is why awareness isn't able to attach to a personality, or to a

personalized being, or to any definable being as such.

Awareness isn't having contact with some people and not others.

Awareness isn't a personal god of some sort, being possessed by one and not

another.

You ask about concentration camps. What about viruses and bacteria that cause

extremely painful and lingering ways of dying? What about asteroids or suns

going nova (that knock out whole solar systems)?

What about tsunamis that kill parents of children, and leave children to fend

for themselves in villages that have been 70% destroyed?

It is easy to imagine that awareness is some guide of guiding force for certain

people and not others, and those people will do good things. And then it is

easy to imagine that other people will do bad things because they aren't able to

find awareness, or they are choosing not to.

This way of looking at things only works up to a certain point.

Past that point, it won't work.

Certainly, people have done extremely cruel and hurtful things to other people.

And certainly, one could say that those people weren't able to understand their

non-separation from those they inflicting harm upon.

However, at the point of nondivision with/as totality, the entirety of the

co-arising of events is clear.

This is the point I'm referring to, and past this point the means to pick and

choose which person is guided by awareness and which person isn't dissolves.

There is simply the mutual co-arising and co-determination of all phenomenal

events, past, present, future without division.

- D -

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > If there is clarity, nobody is there to try anything or not.

> >

> > geo> Indeed. Only clarity, an organsim and the circumstances.

> > Intelligence acts.

>

> There's no need for 'the organism' either... it's in awareness (clarity),

along with the entire situation, every thought, sight, smell, etc. In other

words, 'the organism' need not be separated from the circumstances.

Yes. As I'm reading these messages sequentially, I responded before reading

what you wrote above. What I wrote fits with what you wrote. Separating out

" the organism " involves the same conceptual dynamic that separates out an " I " or

anything else. It is necessary for thought to function that such delineations

be made. Yet, without the operation of thought, no such divisions are found.

This is not to say that thought is bad, or one should get rid of thought

(because saying that thought is bad, or one should not be thinking, is itself

the activity of thought).

- D -

June 16, 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:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > dan330033

> > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 12:50 PM

> > > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there

either.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

<dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > geo

> > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 8:18 AM

> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: it's not there or over

there either.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > dan330033

> > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:53 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there

either.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > geo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:55 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: it's not there or over

there either.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim G.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:20 AM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over

there either.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

<dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what goes around comes around.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and no actual 'contact' has occurred.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d -

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes... contact between what and what?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am what I see, hear, smell, taste, etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Fried chicken smells like myself ;-).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -tim-

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > And what about.. I am not what I see, hear, smell,

taste, etc.?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not consciousness, I am not the world, I am not

the senses with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > its

> > > > > > > > > > > > > objects.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > One negates everything that has been known or can be

known.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > However, there is still negation, which is a process of

knowing.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Negation negated ...

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > - D -

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Negation, negation...till silent afirmation is.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Not even that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > I am the is-ness where waves of things arise.

> > > > > > > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > D:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This moment of experience arising, I arises with and as the

experiencing.

> > > > > > > > > > Time arises with the experiencing of memory.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This timeless moment, undivided.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The is-ing, now-ing, is of and from nothing.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Never has been commented upon.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > geo> The potentiality of all possibilities was never named,

or referred to.

> > > > > > > > > > I did not say a thing.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > and you guys claim this is not a word game?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Clarabelle made more sense with his seltzer bottle and honk

horn.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > i am not really here and am not saying any words and you

aren't there.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > and i'm so clever for telling you that..

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > so that you can think that i know something you don't know.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > and whatever it is it's NAMELESS and IMPORTANT and..

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > way beyond your powers of thought or belief..

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > or even my enlightened knowing to use words to tell.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > to fucking bad about your luck.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > i'm THERE though and that's what matters.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > kiss the little toe with the golden toenail ring attached.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > woo hoo! that tickles!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > LOL!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There isn't any other who could bow down and kiss anything.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Expressing words about this does no harm.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Imputing motivations to others who post seems like a waste of

time.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Enjoy being here with no other involved.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What's the problem?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > - D -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > i enjoy being here.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > what's your problem?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > you're wasting your time.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > how can motivations be imputed one of another?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > what is is.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > it ain't two.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > you like to judge.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > you set up the two.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > you put a break in enjoying.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > no matter.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I enjoy wasting time.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And you - have some sympathy and some taste.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Or I'll lay this time to waste.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As there's no you to judge, there's no break in being.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Being is - not placing enjoyment against disgust.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Therefore, I remain quite disgusted with you.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > - D -

> > > > >

> > > > > bullshit.

> > > > >

> > > > > besides...

> > > > >

> > > > > who the fuck do you think gives a monkey's ass?

> > > > >

> > > > > LOL!

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > > a monkey.

> > > >

> > > > - d -

> > >

> > > the monkey gives his ass?

> > >

> > > to who and what the fuck for?

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > I don't know.

> >

> > But here's his picture:

> >

http://tremendousnews.com/2009/05/20/the-solution-how-lessons-from-the-bare-asse\

d-monkey-can-help-us-end-obesity/

> >

> > - D -

>

> you have too much time on your hands.

>

> you need another hobby besides playtime guru.

>

> ask around.

>

> .b b.b.

I just love entertaining you, Bob.

- D -

June 16, 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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > geo

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 2:21 PM

> > > > > > > Re: Re: it's not there or over there

either.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > dan330033

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 1:58 PM

> > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > dan330033

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 1:28 PM

> > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > dan330033

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 12:50 PM

> > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there

either.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > geo

> > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 15, 2009 8:18 AM

> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: it's not there or over

there either.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > dan330033

> > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:53 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there

either.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > geo

> > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:55 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: it's not there or over

there

> > > > > > > > > > > > either.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > Tim G.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:20 AM

> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there

either.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

<dan330033@>

> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > what goes around comes around.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and no actual 'contact' has occurred.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > - d -

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes... contact between what and what?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I am what I see, hear, smell, taste, etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Fried chicken smells like myself ;-).

> > > > > > > > > > > > -tim-

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > And what about.. I am not what I see, hear, smell,

taste, etc.?

> > > > > > > > > > > > I am not consciousness, I am not the world, I am not the

senses

> > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > its

> > > > > > > > > > > > objects.

> > > > > > > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > One negates everything that has been known or can be

known.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > However, there is still negation, which is a process of

knowing.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Negation negated ...

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > - D -

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Negation, negation...till silent afirmation is.

> > > > > > > > > > > Not even that.

> > > > > > > > > > > I am the is-ness where waves of things arise.

> > > > > > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > D:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This moment of experience arising, I arises with and as the

> > > > > > > > > experiencing.

> > > > > > > > > Time arises with the experiencing of memory.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This timeless moment, undivided.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The is-ing, now-ing, is of and from nothing.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Never has been commented upon.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > geo> The potentiality of all possibilities was never named, or

referred

> > > > > > > > > to.

> > > > > > > > > I did not say a thing.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > D: Good point, thanks for clarifying.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > geo> What did I clarify?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > D: What you didn't say.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > geo>The statement " The potentiality of all possibilities was never

named, or

> > > > > > > referred to. I did not say a thing. " is not referring to anything

I wrote

> > > > > > > before. It is a stand-alone thing.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The thing is: either one decides not to name it or even referr to

it, or

> > > > > > > yes. Once one decides that yes...then any word will not do the job

> > > > > > > anyway...so, in fact it doesnt matter much which name one uses. It

can be

> > > > > > > THAT or ISNESS or " The potentiality of all possibilities " or " the

never

> > > > > > > named " even " I " - like in " I am not consciousness " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > D: Thanks for the further clarification. Yes, I had this sense of

what you were saying. Your comments make it more clear.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > One uses a name for the sake of conversing, for the sake of

expressing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Because of the way that words work, one who hears what is said may

mistakenly think that because naming was employed, a quality of being is

referred to, or a state of consciousness is being referred to.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then, this can be personalized, such as, " Joe X has more of this

quality of being than Sid Y, " or " Sally M is in this state of consciousness, and

Mary R isn't. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > - D -

> > > > >

> > > > > words don't " work " n any specified way.

> > > > >

> > > > > " you " work the words.

> > > > >

> > > > > why do you work them that way?

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > > one puts words out there, but how they are heard may have little to do

with how they were put out there.

> > > >

> > > > one does one's best to be clear, and that is all one can do.

> > > >

> > > > words are given meaning by association with past experience and images

from memory.

> > > >

> > > > words evoke images.

> > > >

> > > > or they don't.

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > >

> > > all one can do is laugh.

> > >

> > > or not.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > all one can do is rot, or not.

> >

> > - d -

>

> that's what all fetid and doomed meat believes.

>

> does it comfort you in your condition?

>

> you'll get over it.

>

> just lose identity with what you feel is * " important " .

>

> (*that's " danny " for " you " ).

>

> then all that rot about rot will go away lost urchin.

>

> .b b.b.

thanks for the advice.

and it's free, too.

all I had to do was open a message on the Nis. list.

wow, the wonders of technology!

- d -

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled?

> > >

> > > Is one separately existing, apart from the other?

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> > There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence,

> > rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case, and

> > prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different. Sense

> > of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows that.

> > Is this not obvious/clear?

> > What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if the

> > people involved acted guided by clarity?

> > -geo-

>

> if " Clarity " is all that is claimed of it..

>

> how could it not be the Primal Cause and Guiding Force..

>

> of any and all things..states..behaviors..conditions?

>

> you be the judge.

>

> Clarity never judges.

>

> .b b.b.

that's funny.

that's what I said.

gee, I guess you're not such a bad guru after all.

- d -

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Who is the controller, and what is the controlled?

> > > >

> > > > Is one separately existing, apart from the other?

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > >

> > > There is no separation -obviously. In human interactions, inteligence,

> > > rationality, clarity, perception of the whole field rules in one case, and

> > > prejudice, fear, anger in the other. The results are very different. Sense

> > > of separation engenders fear and violence and the one in clarity knows

that.

> > > Is this not obvious/clear?

> > > What are wars, concentration camps,etc...? Could such events happen if the

> > > people involved acted guided by clarity?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > if " Clarity " is all that is claimed of it..

> >

> > how could it not be the Primal Cause and Guiding Force..

> >

> > of any and all things..states..behaviors..conditions?

> >

> > you be the judge.

> >

> > Clarity never judges.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> some would make of Clarity or Realization..

>

> a " God " not unlike the christian/jewish/islamic one.

>

> " Clarity " would never do this..or that...

>

> (all the " bad stuff)

>

> " Clarity " IS this or that.

>

> (all the good stuff)

>

> it's all good all knowing without knowing..

>

> it's the best Daddy daddyo.

>

> and those same folks sit around..

>

> and pontificate like a pope..

>

> rattling on and on about the Ultimate of Ultimates..

>

> and how they are individually in tune with " It " ..

>

> and how they have come to tell you what's what.

>

> fucking bullshit my friends.

>

> don't put money nor belief nor trust in their basket.

>

> they live to believe that you think they are wise.

>

> dolts.

>

> .b b.b.

you are so wise.

I love when you put everyone else down but you.

You are way cool.

- d -

Sign In

it's not there or over there either.

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest