it's not there or over there either.

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-

>

in the very question, is the answer.

make up your own answer.

but light/darkness is not divided.

- d -

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> 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-

because you imagine there are two sets of people.

and who can form this imagining, other than an " I " that is separated from the

people being categorized?

- d -

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> 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.

made the grade?

please ...

- d -

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> 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.

LOL.

- D -

June 16, 2009

> >

> > 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-

because you imagine there are two sets of people.

and who can form this imagining, other than an " I " that is separated from

the people being categorized?

- d -

Do you accept the fact that there are man and women living in the planet?

Black skined and red skined and white skined smartasses? Or not?

-geo-

June 16, 2009

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-

>

> because you imagine there are two sets of people.

>

> and who can form this imagining, other than an " I " that is separated from

> the people being categorized?

>

> - d -

>

> Do you accept the fact that there are man and women living in the planet?

> Black skined and red skined and white skined smartasses? Or not?

> -geo-

on this list, I am addressing understanding totality

this is what Nisargadatta spoke to

in some situations, conceptualizing black skinned and red skinned and white

skinned smartasses would make sense

in such a situation, an " I " is positioned.

what is positioned, dissolves as positioned.

along with the " world " it perceived, and the time (duration) in which the seeing

took place.

so, on this list I am addressing the dissolution of " I " and " world " at the point

(of no-point) of understanding.

you could also ask:

do you accept the fact of sitting at a table typing to watch words appear on a

computer screen?

it is basically the same question

a perceiver is situated to observe the screen and notice the words

the perceiver/perceived separation is understood as an imagining, an appearance.

there is no actual distance apart.

yet, imagining (imaging) that distance allows the experience of typing messages.

it arises, it dissolves.

i hope this answers your question.

- d -

June 16, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:52 PM

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

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.

geo> That is what i say. Then personality is a set of conditionings.

==

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

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

geo> Wrong. If one is aware without imagining then personality is a set of

conditionings. Some people are conditioned to inject heroin. Otheres to

coffee.

===

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

who are placed in a location separate?

geo> No I needed. I see organisms as such and as such....some blond others

brunette.

===

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

" personality " or " I-center " ??

geo>There is no real separate I. There is the feeling AS IF there was one -

and a behaviour proper to such belief.

===

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?

geo> No right, no wrong. Just different.

===

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

I don't see how you would know that.

geo> AS there is no noise as some imagined center there is clarity upon

relations.

===

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?

geo> No. The other day my friends doughter wanted to jump from a cliff. I

held her organism.

===

- D -

June 16, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:47 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-

>

> because you imagine there are two sets of people.

>

> and who can form this imagining, other than an " I " that is separated from

> the people being categorized?

>

> - d -

>

> Do you accept the fact that there are man and women living in the planet?

> Black skined and red skined and white skined smartasses? Or not?

> -geo-

on this list, I am addressing understanding totality

this is what Nisargadatta spoke to

in some situations, conceptualizing black skinned and red skinned and white

skinned smartasses would make sense

in such a situation, an " I " is positioned.

geo> Ridiculous. I can see a black haired women over there...look..there she

goes.

====

what is positioned, dissolves as positioned.

geo> Organisms are positioned.

===

along with the " world " it perceived, and the time (duration) in which the

seeing took place.

so, on this list I am addressing the dissolution of " I " and " world " at the

point (of no-point) of understanding.

you could also ask:

do you accept the fact of sitting at a table typing to watch words appear on

a computer screen?

it is basically the same question

a perceiver is situated to observe the screen and notice the words

the perceiver/perceived separation is understood as an imagining, an

appearance.

there is no actual distance apart.

yet, imagining (imaging) that distance allows the experience of typing

messages.

it arises, it dissolves.

i hope this answers your question.

- d -

June 16, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:02 PM

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-

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.

geo> Awareness is not a " attached " to some personality. You are getting it

wrong. Personality is a set of behaviours. To the person living these

pesonalities feels as if he was defending something inside, or improving it,

or fearing for it. Personality is the self seen from outsde the organism.

===

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.

geo> No it is not indeed. I did not say it was. There is a focusing in the

sense if inner entity.

===

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?

geo> Some things can be changed and otheres not. Forget this issue....it

leads nowhere. I regret having raise it. I dont want to change the world.

===

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.

geo> So...?

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

co-arising of events is clear.

geo> At this point there is no personality.

=====

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.

geo> You can choose what interests you from an infinitude of options. If you

are interested in understanding what personality is - you are. If not - then

no. It is your agenda.

====

- D -

June 16, 2009

> >

> > 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 -

geo> You can be simple and say. All is consciousness and its doing. It is

perfectly OK. And you can dissecate consciousness in infinite ways, in

organisms, in brains, minds, heart, chacras, qui energies, yin,

yang......etc......etc.....take your candy. Your choice and skill.

June 16, 2009

> >

> > 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-

because you imagine there are two sets of people.

and who can form this imagining, other than an " I " that is separated from

the people being categorized?

- d -

geo>Do I need an " I " to see the color of her hair or skin? Do I need an I to

recognise when a person is so angry that is about to shoot?

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> 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 -

>

> There are apples and oranges, there are people identified with their bodies

and those who are not. The world is not better with apples or with oranges.

Those identified with their body feel there is an inner entity inside looking at

an outside world - AS IF. They behave accordingly, they react accordingly, they

live accordingly...nothing is better or worth. Geo is not interested in changing

the world or humanity.

> -geo-

The person is not someone who identifies with their body or doesn't, or

identifies with something else, or doesn't. That is because the person doesn't

exist apart to identify with something. The person is the attempt at

identification, however that takes place.

You can differentiate fat people from skinny people, or use any criteria you

like, including more aware people and less aware people.

Whatever works for you, conceptually, as you employ thought.

However, none of that will reveal what is so that thought doesn't touch, what

isn't in the realm of thought's delineations.

Thus, the person comes to the point of understanding, that the person is the

attempt at identification.

At this point, there is a shift from the person being considered as the one who

understands, to the person being the attempt at attaching, that is being

understood.

-- D --

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:52 PM

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

>

> 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.

>

> geo> That is what i say. Then personality is a set of conditionings.

> ==

>

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

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

>

> geo> Wrong. If one is aware without imagining then personality is a set of

> conditionings. Some people are conditioned to inject heroin. Otheres to

> coffee.

> ===

You say I am wrong. That is your judgment. All I can say is that here is

awareness that does not depend on attaching to a personality, and no personality

is real here. The " Dan " personality is not real here, anymore than " Geo, "

" Tim, " or any other. There isn't a patterning going on here that was determined

in the past. Nothing is being continued from a past and brought forward in

time.

That is all I can say.

You can certainly reject what I am saying, as you have.

You tell me below that you are seeing without an " I, " and others apparently you

judge to be seeing with an " I. " You sound convinced that there is no

identification going on with this characterization of yourself.

So, I take in what you have said, and don't find myself believing you. You told

Bob not to believe you, and I assume this would also apply now. I don't believe

you.

- D -

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

> who are placed in a location separate?

>

> geo> No I needed. I see organisms as such and as such....some blond others

> brunette.

> ===

>

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

> " personality " or " I-center " ??

>

> geo>There is no real separate I. There is the feeling AS IF there was one -

> and a behaviour proper to such belief.

> ===

>

> 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?

>

> geo> No right, no wrong. Just different.

> ===

>

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

>

> I don't see how you would know that.

>

> geo> AS there is no noise as some imagined center there is clarity upon

> relations.

> ===

>

> 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?

>

> geo> No. The other day my friends doughter wanted to jump from a cliff. I

> held her organism.

> ===

>

> - D -

>

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:02 PM

> 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-

>

> 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.

>

> geo> Awareness is not a " attached " to some personality. You are getting it

> wrong. Personality is a set of behaviours. To the person living these

> pesonalities feels as if he was defending something inside, or improving it,

> or fearing for it. Personality is the self seen from outsde the organism.

> ===

>

> 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.

>

> geo> No it is not indeed. I did not say it was. There is a focusing in the

> sense if inner entity.

> ===

>

> 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?

>

> geo> Some things can be changed and otheres not. Forget this issue....it

> leads nowhere. I regret having raise it. I dont want to change the world.

> ===

>

> 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.

>

> geo> So...?

>

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

> co-arising of events is clear.

>

> geo> At this point there is no personality.

> =====

>

> 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.

>

> geo> You can choose what interests you from an infinitude of options. If you

> are interested in understanding what personality is - you are. If not - then

> no. It is your agenda.

> ====

I don't have a problem with wanting to understand personality, or anything else.

But as long as there is an object you are directing your awareness to, to try to

understand, you have a subject/object division involved.

Anything that comes out of such an understanding, carries the subject/object,

self/other division.

To understand without such division, involves no personality here, and no

personality there.

In other words, there is no personality involved as subject, and no self as

subject - and no personality involved as object, nor other having a personality

as object.

And this is true for any object, not just personality.

- D -

June 16, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 4:29 PM

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

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> 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 -

>

> There are apples and oranges, there are people identified with their

> bodies and those who are not. The world is not better with apples or with

> oranges. Those identified with their body feel there is an inner entity

> inside looking at an outside world - AS IF. They behave accordingly, they

> react accordingly, they live accordingly...nothing is better or worth. Geo

> is not interested in changing the world or humanity.

> -geo-

The person is not someone who identifies with their body or doesn't, or

identifies with something else, or doesn't. That is because the person

doesn't exist apart to identify with something. The person is the attempt at

identification, however that takes place.

geo> Exactly.

===

You can differentiate fat people from skinny people, or use any criteria you

like, including more aware people and less aware people.

Whatever works for you, conceptually, as you employ thought.

geo>Yes.

====

However, none of that will reveal what is so that thought doesn't touch,

what isn't in the realm of thought's delineations.

geo> That is revealed here. Why would I look for it in other organisms?

===

Thus, the person comes to the point of understanding, that the person is the

attempt at identification.

At this point, there is a shift from the person being considered as the one

who understands, to the person being the attempt at attaching, that is being

understood.

geo>Dont understand.

-- D --

June 16, 2009

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 -

>

> geo> You can be simple and say. All is consciousness and its doing. It is

> perfectly OK. And you can dissecate consciousness in infinite ways, in

> organisms, in brains, minds, heart, chacras, qui energies, yin,

> yang......etc......etc.....take your candy. Your choice and skill.

None of that has anything to do with understanding that isn't involved in

subject/object division.

Everything you're discussing involves objectification.

Understanding, awareness, with no object, has no subject.

It is not a matter of skill or choice.

One contends with the identification with experiences, including the

objectification involves.

One moves through and past experiencing, so to speak, through and beyond

objects.

Now, there is neither subject nor object located.

Yet, one can discuss objects, no problem.

Thought functions, memory functions.

- D -

June 16, 2009

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-

>

> because you imagine there are two sets of people.

>

> and who can form this imagining, other than an " I " that is separated from

> the people being categorized?

>

> - d -

> geo>Do I need an " I " to see the color of her hair or skin? Do I need an I to

> recognise when a person is so angry that is about to shoot?

Yes.

Call it " I " or call it " the observer, " whatever you wish.

Yes.

You are located as a subject to which an object can appear and be understood.

You understand that you are looking at someone with red hair.

That experience is of the past.

Redness is based on memories of red.

Hair is based on memories of hair.

The distance between you and the one you observe is based on memories of

distance.

The same with the person who is angry.

The same with any experience, any perception that involves recognizable

qualities.

Any experience that involves time (duration) and space (location).

- D -

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 4:29 PM

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

>

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

> >

> > 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 -

> >

> > There are apples and oranges, there are people identified with their

> > bodies and those who are not. The world is not better with apples or with

> > oranges. Those identified with their body feel there is an inner entity

> > inside looking at an outside world - AS IF. They behave accordingly, they

> > react accordingly, they live accordingly...nothing is better or worth. Geo

> > is not interested in changing the world or humanity.

> > -geo-

>

> The person is not someone who identifies with their body or doesn't, or

> identifies with something else, or doesn't. That is because the person

> doesn't exist apart to identify with something. The person is the attempt at

> identification, however that takes place.

>

> geo> Exactly.

> ===

>

> You can differentiate fat people from skinny people, or use any criteria you

> like, including more aware people and less aware people.

>

> Whatever works for you, conceptually, as you employ thought.

>

> geo>Yes.

> ====

>

> However, none of that will reveal what is so that thought doesn't touch,

> what isn't in the realm of thought's delineations.

>

> geo> That is revealed here. Why would I look for it in other organisms?

> ===

>

> Thus, the person comes to the point of understanding, that the person is the

> attempt at identification.

>

> At this point, there is a shift from the person being considered as the one

> who understands, to the person being the attempt at attaching, that is being

> understood.

>

> geo>Dont understand.

>

> -- D --

You can't locate awareness in a person at this point.

- D -

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-

>

> 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.

>

> geo> Awareness is not a " attached " to some personality. You are getting it

> wrong. Personality is a set of behaviours. To the person living these

> pesonalities feels as if he was defending something inside, or improving

> it,

> or fearing for it. Personality is the self seen from outsde the organism.

> ===

>

> 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.

>

> geo> No it is not indeed. I did not say it was. There is a focusing in the

> sense if inner entity.

> ===

>

> 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?

>

> geo> Some things can be changed and otheres not. Forget this issue....it

> leads nowhere. I regret having raise it. I dont want to change the world.

> ===

>

> 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.

>

> geo> So...?

>

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

> co-arising of events is clear.

>

> geo> At this point there is no personality.

> =====

>

> 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.

>

> geo> You can choose what interests you from an infinitude of options. If

> you

> are interested in understanding what personality is - you are. If not -

> then

> no. It is your agenda.

> ====

I don't have a problem with wanting to understand personality, or anything

else.

But as long as there is an object you are directing your awareness to, to

try to understand, you have a subject/object division involved.

Anything that comes out of such an understanding, carries the

subject/object, self/other division.

geo> There is a focusing in some subject, yes. That doesnt mean there is the

arising of some inner separate entity.

===

To understand without such division, involves no personality here, and no

personality there.

In other words, there is no personality involved as subject, and no self as

subject - and no personality involved as object, nor other having a

personality as object.

And this is true for any object, not just personality.

geo> Any object? Then we are back again to our first dialogue. In order to

walk in the street I need a sense of inner separate entity? Or just a

separte body is enough.

- D -

June 16, 2009

>

> > >

> > > 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-

>

> because you imagine there are two sets of people.

>

> and who can form this imagining, other than an " I " that is separated from

> the people being categorized?

>

> - d -

> geo>Do I need an " I " to see the color of her hair or skin? Do I need an I

> to

> recognise when a person is so angry that is about to shoot?

Yes.

Call it " I " or call it " the observer, " whatever you wish.

Yes.

You are located as a subject to which an object can appear and be

understood.

You understand that you are looking at someone with red hair.

geo> No. That is just how the organism manages to live in the human world.

If it is the way you say, how can you talk about awareness and selflessness

and atemporality in this list? You must see the keyboard, its color..etc...

So all that is just theory, hipocrisy? BTW, you are being an hipocrit right

now, are you not?

===

That experience is of the past.

Redness is based on memories of red.

Hair is based on memories of hair.

The distance between you and the one you observe is based on memories of

distance.

The same with the person who is angry.

The same with any experience, any perception that involves recognizable

qualities.

Any experience that involves time (duration) and space (location).

geo> The human world dan, that is the human world.

- D -

June 16, 2009

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

> one

> is aware without imagining, then that imagined pattern isn't found

> anywhere.

>

> geo> Wrong. If one is aware without imagining then personality is a set of

> conditionings. Some people are conditioned to inject heroin. Otheres to

> coffee.

> ===

You say I am wrong. That is your judgment. All I can say is that here is

awareness that does not depend on attaching to a personality, and no

personality is real here. The " Dan " personality is not real here, anymore

than " Geo, " " Tim, " or any other. There isn't a patterning going on here that

was determined in the past. Nothing is being continued from a past and

brought forward in time.

That is all I can say.

You can certainly reject what I am saying, as you have.

geo> No I am not rejecting what you are saying. Except that you say that to

recognise a keyboard, letters, words, sentences, color of the table, etc..

you must have an " I " (in another post). So how should your statement

" nothing is being continued from a past and brought forward in time. "

understood. A mistake?

June 16, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 4:44 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.

>

> 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 -

>

> geo> You can be simple and say. All is consciousness and its doing. It is

> perfectly OK. And you can dissecate consciousness in infinite ways, in

> organisms, in brains, minds, heart, chacras, qui energies, yin,

> yang......etc......etc.....take your candy. Your choice and skill.

None of that has anything to do with understanding that isn't involved in

subject/object division.

Everything you're discussing involves objectification.

Understanding, awareness, with no object, has no subject.

It is not a matter of skill or choice.

One contends with the identification with experiences, including the

objectification involves.

One moves through and past experiencing, so to speak, through and beyond

objects.

Now, there is neither subject nor object located.

Yet, one can discuss objects, no problem.

Thought functions, memory functions.

- D -

And where is " the street that I shouldnt recognise in order to not have an

I " ?

-geo-

June 16, 2009

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 , " 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 -

i love watching you entertain yourself danny boy.

i'm just starting to catch up with your endless..

self-appreciating bullshit...

put forth in a barrage of puke ridden nonsense.

post after post after..

well let's see where it goes from here.

LOL!

..b b.b.

god you love yourself so much dan boy.

June 16, 2009

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 , " 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 -

it's all the wonder of you.

..b b.b.

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 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.

>

> that's funny.

>

> that's what I said.

>

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

>

> - d -

call me anything..

call my mother anything...

but don't call me a " guru " mofo!

that's your sad ass wannabe trip.

..b b.b.

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