it's not there or over there either.

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> 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 -

yep..

it's not gonna quit.

let's have more dan and then some danny and some more dan afterward.

daniel:

i am not different than anyone or everyone or no one.

you have a queer necessity so see things..

as some matter of " personal " projection.

that's your lost adventure danny.

it's not happenin' here.

be clear on this.

..b b.b.

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> 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 -

of course you wouldn't understand.

a satirical bon mot.

and you want to parse it as serious.

sister mary danny strikes again.

what an asshole.

:-)

..b b.b.

June 16, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> 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 -

ole!

..b b.b.

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.

>

> 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 -

dan prefers DannyWorld.

everything is possible there and he and his funny ears is GOD.

..b b.b.

June 17, 2009

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 -

Following the logic of your own words dan, there is not the slightest possibility that you have ever "experienced" directly, or "realized" directly what atemporality is, what awareness is, what selflessness is, what absense of "I" is, unless we are supposed to beleive that you are in a state of complete non-recognition all the time - or for any lengh of time for the matter. All you know is states where there is the "I", "the observer," or whatever you wish to call it - as you said.

Now, If you perhaps say that sometimes you enter a state where you dont recognise time and space and any objects, then what about the other periods of the day or week of month? Just memories? You must admit that I have the "right" to not understand what you are saying.

-geo-

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> 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 -

>

> Following the logic of your own words dan, there is not the slightest

possibility that you have ever " experienced " directly, or " realized " directly

what atemporality is, what awareness is, what selflessness is, what absense of

" I " is, unless we are supposed to beleive that you are in a state of complete

non-recognition all the time - or for any lengh of time for the matter. All you

know is states where there is the " I " , " the observer, " or whatever you wish to

call it - as you said.

> Now, If you perhaps say that sometimes you enter a state where you dont

recognise time and space and any objects, then what about the other periods of

the day or week of month? Just memories? You must admit that I have the " right "

to not understand what you are saying.

> -geo-

in simpler more earthy terms..

dan is full of shit.

..b b.b.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> dan prefers DannyWorld.

>

> everything is possible there and he and his funny ears is GOD.

>

> .b b.b.

Bob don't prefer Bobbyworld?

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> 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 -

>

> Following the logic of your own words dan,

Don't follow the logic of anyone's words, if you want to understand someone.

Follow your own understanding, as it arises, now, as the words are read. When

the reading is done, it's gone. This is understanding (in the) now.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> i love watching you entertain yourself danny boy.

>

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

>

> self-appreciating bullshit...

Keep catching up... when you get there, you'll find yourself as what was being

chased. But you won't get there, cuz you're chasing another :-p.

June 17, 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.

> >

> > 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.

> > ===

D: Who is doing the focusing?

No one.

The focusing, to use your word, *is* the so-called inner entity.

So, if " you " aren't " focusing " - there's no focusing, right?

It's not something someone else is doing.

The only " you " that is attempting existing is this " focusing " - which I would

rather call " attempt to attach. "

Someone else isn't doing it.

There isn't any someone else.

The only " you " is this attempt, that you are calling " focusing. "

It's not happening " out there " done by " someone else. "

> > 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.

> > =====

Yes. It is clear that there is no past pattern making anything exist in the

present.

Nothing is existing in the present, including a 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.

> ===

The way you are using the term " inner separate entity " doesn't make much sense

to me, I must confess.

I don't see or feel an inner separate entity, and I don't see some people having

one of those.

You seem to be saying you don't have one of these, but you know that other

people do have one of them.

How do you know this?

> 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.

Now you are saying the body is separate.

Earlier, you said the body and world co-arise as empty waves.

So, which is it?

If the body and world co-arise, then walking down the street just happens as a

function of the body-world co-arising.

You don't need any separation of a body.

You don't need a particular body to be yours.

- D -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > dan prefers DannyWorld.

> >

> > everything is possible there and he and his funny ears is GOD.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> Bob don't prefer Bobbyworld?

that's nowheresville.

..b b.b. is without preferences.

baba is here gracing your presence with the True Word.

this dynamic presentation while being manifested through .b bobji..

who in and of his own humble self is nothing..

is of Great Significance and is Unutterable in Itself.

Blessings flow like refreshing tropic breezes...

towards he who attends to .b b.b.'s transmission.

for it comes not from BobbyWorld but directly from God.

BobbyWorld is God's amusement park.

lit up like a carnival circus at night.

i live but for His pleasure.

..b b.b.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > 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 -

> >

> > Following the logic of your own words dan,

>

> Don't follow the logic of anyone's words, if you want to understand someone.

Follow your own understanding, as it arises, now, as the words are read. When

the reading is done, it's gone. This is understanding (in the) now.

the nowness of a now..

like the cowness of a cow..

gets lost like the thought not thought in the thoughtless.

it covers all the bases.

bases loaded.

right goddamn now.

..b b.b.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> 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-

That isn't what I'm saying.

It's much closer to what you were saying when you talked about seeing body and

world co-arise as empty waves.

The waves are truly empty of any self-nature.

That appearance (of anything) involves an observer.

That observer is a position, an assumed existence of a point from which to

observe something, anything, say a movement occurring.

The observer is assumed, but not actually existing.

The observer assumes a partialization of being, a point from which to experience

something, anything.

No one is making this assumption.

The assumption is how there seems to be a someone.

The seeming of someone, of a point of existence of " me " can be called the basic

feeling " I am, " or you can call it whatever you want.

It is how observer/world differentiate.

How the world is projected, so to speak, to and from an observer who can have

some kind of sensory experience.

This is what I understand as happening as I am typing.

This is how experience manifests in a way that has form, and is observed.

Not as theory - although putting it into words, any putting of it into words,

becomes theory.

- D -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > i love watching you entertain yourself danny boy.

> > >

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

> > >

> > > self-appreciating bullshit...

> >

> > Keep catching up... when you get there, you'll find yourself as what was

being chased. But you won't get there, cuz you're chasing another :-p.

>

> as you chase me?

>

> .b b.b.

As I chase myself ;-). But not really.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> > 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?

Not a mistake.

In words, in concepts, it makes it sound like two different " realities. "

The reality of time, of thought, of the past being projected, of the observer

and the observed, of experience.

And the reality, or truth, if you will, of no-thing: timeless, no division, no

separation, no experience - just " being " just " is " just " unnameable nothing "

just " all possible possibility. "

These two realities are not divided.

But in words, concept, they will necessarily seem to be discussed as if

different.

The " I " or " I am " or " observer " is the bringing forward of location through time

and experience.

So, saying that nothing continues here makes it sound like two realities.

But they aren't.

Otherwise, it would perhaps have linear logic to it, and someone would see it,

and immediately die, because their body-mind isn't there.

But it's not linear logic, and not someone's possession.

So, the body-mind not being here doesn't mean that the body-mind-world dies

physically. It is more that the body-mind-self dies in terms of having any

grasp, or existence here.

This is where a " leap " is involved that can't be spoken, languaged, thought

about, conceived.

A timeless leap that doesn't depend on logic, and no words do justice to.

Not a leap made by someone.

Not a leap that I made and someone else didn't make.

Not a leap involving moving from somewhere to somewhere else.

- D -

June 17, 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 , " 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.

I so loved the world that I gave my only begotten bullshit.

Thank you for appreciating it so.

- d -

June 17, 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 , " 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.

sigh.

ain't love grand?

- d -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> 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.

only you, my guru, could call me out so confidently, so wisely.

you have put me in my place.

i am screwed.

i am up shit creek with no paddle.

i am on a sad-ass trip.

i am a wannabe.

thanks for your pearls of wisdom.

wonderful!

- d -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > 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 -

>

> yep..

>

> it's not gonna quit.

>

> let's have more dan and then some danny and some more dan afterward.

>

> daniel:

>

> i am not different than anyone or everyone or no one.

>

> you have a queer necessity so see things..

>

> as some matter of " personal " projection.

>

> that's your lost adventure danny.

>

> it's not happenin' here.

>

> be clear on this.

>

> .b b.b.

yes, your here is different than my here.

my here is there to you.

and your here is better than mine.

let's be clear on how your here is different and better,

and my here, which is there to you, is worse and lost.

i am so clear on this, bobby.

wonderful.

- d -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > 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 -

>

> of course you wouldn't understand.

>

> a satirical bon mot.

>

> and you want to parse it as serious.

>

> sister mary danny strikes again.

>

> what an asshole.

>

> :-)

>

> .b b.b.

so, now we're into your nun hatred.

okay, whatever works for you.

some more profanity please.

that really gets to the heart of things.

calling people " asshole, " is something Nisargadatta would have appreciated.

he wasted so much time talking about awareness.

he could have just told people what assholes they are constantly.

why didn't he think of that?

- D -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > 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 -

>

> ole!

>

> .b b.b.

is that ass ole?

or free ole?

- d -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 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.

> > > >

> > > > 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 -

>

> dan prefers DannyWorld.

>

> everything is possible there and he and his funny ears is GOD.

>

> .b b.b.

no, you are god

because you have the divine right to label other people as assholes.

and to say that they don't exist.

and to call them names again.

and to say that nothing exists.

and to tell others that they think they are god.

and they are spouting bullshit.

only god could be doing that.

thank you, your holiness.

- d -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> 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 -

>

> Following the logic of your own words dan, there is not the slightest

possibility that you have ever " experienced " directly, or " realized " directly

what atemporality is, what awareness is, what selflessness is, what absense of

" I " is, unless we are supposed to beleive that you are in a state of complete

non-recognition all the time - or for any lengh of time for the matter. All you

know is states where there is the " I " , " the observer, " or whatever you wish to

call it - as you said.

Let me slightly rephrase what you are saying, so it rings true to me:

There is not the slightest possibility that any " you " has ever experienced truth

directly, what awareness is, what no-self is, etc.

There is no " you " who is supposed to believe Dan is in any state, because this

is not about Dan or any personality or any " you. "

All any observer, any knowing entity knows, is states where the observer is.

This is true for a Dan observer, a Geo observer, a Bob observer, a Tim or Pete

or Anna observer, etc., etc.

> Now, If you perhaps say that sometimes you enter a state where you dont

recognise time and space and any objects, then what about the other periods of

the day or week of month? Just memories? You must admit that I have the " right "

to not understand what you are saying.

Yes, of course.

I throughly enjoy these futile dialogues.

They are wonderful.

It is in their failure that truth opens.

Please let me be as clear as possible:

This is not about " me " entering into any state, or being in any state.

Whether that " me " is the Dan me, the Geo " me " or any other me.

There is no separation whatsoever in this truth.

So, there is no way for any " me " to enter, to get it, to have it, etc.

- Dan

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > 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 -

> >

> > Following the logic of your own words dan, there is not the slightest

possibility that you have ever " experienced " directly, or " realized " directly

what atemporality is, what awareness is, what selflessness is, what absense of

" I " is, unless we are supposed to beleive that you are in a state of complete

non-recognition all the time - or for any lengh of time for the matter. All you

know is states where there is the " I " , " the observer, " or whatever you wish to

call it - as you said.

> > Now, If you perhaps say that sometimes you enter a state where you dont

recognise time and space and any objects, then what about the other periods of

the day or week of month? Just memories? You must admit that I have the " right "

to not understand what you are saying.

> > -geo-

>

> in simpler more earthy terms..

>

> dan is full of shit.

>

> .b b.b.

yes, great.

dan is full of shit.

thanks for letting us all know.

- d -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > dan prefers DannyWorld.

> > >

> > > everything is possible there and he and his funny ears is GOD.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > Bob don't prefer Bobbyworld?

>

> that's nowheresville.

>

> .b b.b. is without preferences.

>

> baba is here gracing your presence with the True Word.

>

> this dynamic presentation while being manifested through .b bobji..

>

> who in and of his own humble self is nothing..

>

> is of Great Significance and is Unutterable in Itself.

>

> Blessings flow like refreshing tropic breezes...

>

> towards he who attends to .b b.b.'s transmission.

>

> for it comes not from BobbyWorld but directly from God.

>

> BobbyWorld is God's amusement park.

>

> lit up like a carnival circus at night.

>

> i live but for His pleasure.

>

> .b b.b.

and you sure hate being a guru, too.

- 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