it's not there or over there either.

June 17, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:09 PM

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

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 -

You said " 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 said> Wrong. You thought it was my judgment and gave that explanation

above. So I say: your statement is still wrong. Personality is a set of

behaviours based on the assumption of some inner fixed entity. If one is

aware without imagining looking at another individual who is acting based on

that imagined assumption it is his acts that will show his personality. You

say it is not found anywhere.

-geo-

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Yes, of course.

>

> I throughly enjoy these futile dialogues.

>

> They are wonderful.

>

> It is in their failure that truth opens.

For truth to open, truth would have to be closed.

The opposites play on, eh?

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> 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.

In a way, it does mean that. Don't we all die?

June 17, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:26 PM

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

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.

geo> You said that recognition of objects, location, time, presuposes an

" I " - YOU SAID THAT. So I said that there is an " I " over there

because....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

You said that recognition of objects, location, time, presuposes an " I " -

YOU SAID THAT. So I said that there is an " I " over there because you

recognise the chair, the keyboard. So when you said that " recognition of

objects, location, time, presuposes an " I " is false.

-geo-

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> > 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 -

What's interesting (from here) is why he's letting us all know over and over and

over and over again.

Self-flagellation?

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

> geo> Then what is wrong when I say: " 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. " ?

Let me be simple and say, as I see it, there isn't any finally correct way to

say what is so.

So, we're just conversing. It's a foregone conclusion that neither of us will

finally say the one true thing about it, finally, once and for all.

And right now I'm reading what you posted above.

And I'm not looking at something wrong, or right, just what you wrote.

I take in the words, and understand you're saying consciousness is all. It has

infinite ways of appearing, being understood, and appreciated.

All good.

And allow me to be simple, and just say: " consciousness is transcended. "

As I write this, I don't see it as contradicting what you said.

- D -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:39 PM

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

>

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

> >

> > Yes, of course.

> >

> > I throughly enjoy these futile dialogues.

> >

> > They are wonderful.

> >

> > It is in their failure that truth opens.

>

> For truth to open, truth would have to be closed.

>

> The opposites play on, eh?

>

> geo> So after all.... truth does opens and close. I think so also.

It might be more accurate to say, falsehood closes (truth opens), falsehood

opens (truth closes).

But neither is really accurate. Just a way of looking at things.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

> I am doing my best to try to understand you. You say: " There isn't an

> organism living in the world. There is the arising of

> body-mind-world-experience.It isn't divided. The way that objects are formed

> in that experience depends on memory. " I agree, it is so. Never said it was

> not so. But now you go further and say that there MUST be an " I " . So I dont

> understand again: dont you recognise things, time, space, words, letters,

> keyboard, when you write about awareness, selflessness? Am I judging you

> wrong?

> -geo-

The way I am using " observer " or " I " is to mean " consciousness that perceives

objects. " Any object. Including " consciousness " to whatever extent it can be

given a label and associated with a quality or capacity.

In other words, " positioned consciousness, " or " consciousness interacting with

objects that are located and have qualities. "

Of course, I'm aware of time and space while typing messages.

That is what I'm doing my best to address.

How this present experience of typing and seeing words on a monitor arises, now,

with the consciousness of the words and the meanings of the words, and the

visual stimuli of the monitor, and the feeling of hands positioned on a

keyboard.

This isn't occuring in some abstract way to no one.

It occurs including its observer.

It is circular, in a way.

The observer implies observation, the observation implies observer.

The qualities observed are from the past, the observer is from the past.

I'm not using the term " I " to mean something bad that shouldn't be there, or

which should be gotten rid of by someone wise, and someone stupid won't be able

to get rid of it.

I'm using " I " to mean any centered observation, any observation involving

qualities.

Qualities reflect a positioned observer, the observer is the past brought

forward, and qualities are " taken " from the observer by the observed, so to

speak.

Does this make sense?

The observed " pulls " qualities from the observer so as to be observed.

The observer is there for the sake of the observed, and the observed is the

observer.

There is no abstract idea of a keyboard floating around in nothingness.

There is a seemingly real, located keyboard, with actual fingers (seemingly)

typing. If a knife cuts one of the fingers, there is pain. It's not an

abstraction.

Those fingers can't appear without being observed.

It's a circular process, the appearance of any experience, no matter how

seemingly factual, painful, real, etc.

To say, at the same time, there is no " I, " there is no separation, there is no

past, no division, no separable qualities - is not to say that observation

doesn't occur, and I can't type.

But the sense of observation and what it is, is not the common sense view of a

separated I, existing apart, confronting objects existing separately from it.

Nor is the observer an enclosed existence apart from other existing observers.

> > 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.

>

> Geo, look at this world you are calling the human world.

>

> How is it constructed?

>

> It isn't constructed by people.

>

> It is constructed as a personal reality.

>

> And that depends on the past.

>

> Time, space, experience - are constructed.

>

> They aren't actually " present " in some objective sense.

>

> They depend on the observer.

>

> And the observer is the past.

>

> You keep accusing me of being theoretical.

>

> I'm just using words the best way I can to describe something that involves

> no distance, and so no description will really work.

>

> But I am doing my best and I'm not applying a theory.

>

> Except in the sense that any word is theoretical.

>

> And any putting together of words will be theoretical.

>

> Saying, " I see a person walking across the street, " is highly theoretical.

>

> - Dan -

>

> Dont you recognise things, time, space, words, letters, keyboard, when you

> write about awareness, selflessness, no-separation?

Yes.

I am functioning as a human being, as you are, and so we can interact like this,

using keyboards and electronic transmission of information. We're each aware of

fingers, letters, and visual stimuli that we interpret as we read.

- D -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:09 PM

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

>

> 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 -

>

> You said " 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 said> Wrong. You thought it was my judgment and gave that explanation

> above. So I say: your statement is still wrong. Personality is a set of

> behaviours based on the assumption of some inner fixed entity. If one is

> aware without imagining looking at another individual who is acting based on

> that imagined assumption it is his acts that will show his personality. You

> say it is not found anywhere.

> -geo-

Don't you see that you have to interpret the behavior?

And who is interpreting the behavior?

And how are the labels and the judgments supplied to define the behavior

observed?

Do you see my point?

- D -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Yes, of course.

> >

> > I throughly enjoy these futile dialogues.

> >

> > They are wonderful.

> >

> > It is in their failure that truth opens.

>

> For truth to open, truth would have to be closed.

>

> The opposites play on, eh?

Each word and idea has a limit, has other words outside of it, has an opposite

concept.

- D -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > 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.

>

> In a way, it does mean that. Don't we all die?

Yes.

What I mean is that knowing/being truth, doesn't require that the body-mind

physically die, to be known, to be as it is.

If that were true, something would exist outside of it, that could inhibit it,

and which would need to be gotten rid of, for it to be what it is.

- D -

June 17, 2009

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:50 PM

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

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> You said that recognition of objects, location, time, presuposes an " I " -

> YOU SAID THAT.

Stop. That's an assumption, based on a huge amount of past data, memory.

What if nobody ever said anything?

geo> Then I would not to a list. I understand what you are saying.

I am enjoing this.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > Yes, of course.

> > >

> > > I throughly enjoy these futile dialogues.

> > >

> > > They are wonderful.

> > >

> > > It is in their failure that truth opens.

> >

> > For truth to open, truth would have to be closed.

> >

> > The opposites play on, eh?

>

> Each word and idea has a limit, has other words outside of it, has an opposite

concept.

>

> - D -

Yes, and what I'm saying is that this 'play of opposites' must be wonderful, or

enjoyable, as you said so ;-).

Watching birds and dragonflies on the wing, they seem equally to be enjoying it,

Although this enjoyment isn't elsewhere, with them.

June 17, 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 , " 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 -

grand bullshit yes.

..b b.b.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> 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 -

you still don't get it.

it's not all about you yo-yo.

..b b.b.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:26 PM

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

>

> 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.

>

> geo> You said that recognition of objects, location, time, presuposes an

> " I " - YOU SAID THAT. So I said that there is an " I " over there

> because....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

>

> You said that recognition of objects, location, time, presuposes an " I " -

> YOU SAID THAT. So I said that there is an " I " over there because you

> recognise the chair, the keyboard. So when you said that " recognition of

> objects, location, time, presuposes an " I " is false.

> -geo-

To whom are the chair, keyboard, time to type, appearing?

A disembodied consciousness that has no location and memory?

How is memory connected, how are associations made, how is the meaning " chair "

derived from stimuli appearing now?

Without any " I, " without any observer, there wouldn't be any qualities brought

forward to project as " chair. "

The chair is appearing to someone.

The point is, that someone and the chair are actually not-two.

To observe the chair, you need distance apart from it.

So, there is the " I " in that distance between the observer and observed.

That distance is necessary to give qualities to the chair.

And understanding that " I " is " the chair " ... the distance dissolves.

Now, no-I, no chair.

So, it is not that chairs appear out of thin air to no one, or to disembodied

consciousness.

It is that the " I " (embodied consciousness, with memory, with an orientation in

time and space) and " the chair " are not two, and any separation and experience

dissolves ... now.

this is nothing, no-thing.

this is now.

I know it sounds like two different worlds or states are being discussed, but it

is not two different states.

It is the conventional way of experiencing, and the no-experience, which Nis.

calls " the absolute. "

Simultaneous.

There is no " ego " to get rid of, in other words.

Not here, and not " out there " - which is not separate from here.

- D -

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> > In a way, it does mean that. Don't we all die?

>

> Yes.

>

> What I mean is that knowing/being truth, doesn't require that the

> body-mind physically die, to be known, to be as it is.

True... nor does it require the body-mind be physically alive.

Alive/dead is another duality, from here...

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> 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 -

oh sister mary daniela!

don't we have such a pompous and phony way of being catty.

surely you have put Satan to the test!

you earn a 5 year redemption certificate..

for time off Purgatorial Duty before entering Paradise.

you're so cute danny.

LOL!

..b b.b.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:50 PM

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

>

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

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:39 PM

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > Yes, of course.

> > >

> > > I throughly enjoy these futile dialogues.

> > >

> > > They are wonderful.

> > >

> > > It is in their failure that truth opens.

> >

> > For truth to open, truth would have to be closed.

> >

> > The opposites play on, eh?

> >

> > geo> So after all.... truth does opens and close. I think so also.

>

> It might be more accurate to say, falsehood closes (truth opens), falsehood

> opens (truth closes).

>

> But neither is really accurate. Just a way of looking at things.

>

> geo> Now we are talking.

> I would say is: the shadow is there...the shadow is gone...there...gone...

> This changes the outlook.

Now see that falsehood and truth are not-two.

If one opens when the other closes, aren't they one?

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> 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 -

how the fuck am i supposed to know.

ask him.

he had his problems..

i got mine..few though they seem to be.

what other golden calf do you worship danny?

..b b.b.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> 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 -

you're mind is always in the gutter.

..b b.b.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> > 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 -

>

> how the fuck am i supposed to know.

>

> ask him.

>

> he had his problems..

Yeah, like being dead. How the fuck is Dan supposed to ask him?

> i got mine..few though they seem to be.

You got one problem... everyone else got many.

Except everyone else is you, and you is everyone else.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> 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 -

i know who i am.

i find worship and worshipers equally insignificant.

..b b.b.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> 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 -

everyone already knows dan.

funny how you're always the last to know.

..b b.b.

June 17, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:47 PM

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

>

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

>

> > geo> Then what is wrong when I say: " 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. " ?

>

> Let me be simple and say, as I see it, there isn't any finally correct way

> to say what is so.

>

> So, we're just conversing. It's a foregone conclusion that neither of us

> will finally say the one true thing about it, finally, once and for all.

>

> And right now I'm reading what you posted above.

>

> And I'm not looking at something wrong, or right, just what you wrote.

>

> I take in the words, and understand you're saying consciousness is all. It

> has infinite ways of appearing, being understood, and appreciated.

>

> All good.

>

> And allow me to be simple, and just say: " consciousness is transcended. "

>

> As I write this, I don't see it as contradicting what you said.

>

> - D -

>

> You see dan, I went through all this rigamole...and I could go further -

> because you are too fast to contradict.

Whom am I contradicting?

Only now after all this you realize

> that there is nothing wrong with my statement.

So, there is " you " over there and " me " over here. And " you " felt that " I " was

saying that something was wrong with your statement.

And yet, there is no " I " you said, no " self-center " ?

This is what you do over and

> over and over again. You sort of wake up in the morning and go quickly

> through the posts adding fast absolute comments of wisdom.

They are fast because " what is " is immediate.

There is no " you " or " me " here separated.

There is what is, and comments appearing on a screen.

I am quite stupid

> but not that much and not always. It is irritating.

To whom?

What is the irritation about?

What expectation has been violated?

An more...when there is

> the true desire or inclination to converse about something that really

> interests me - yes me - the door is closed because you are so absolutely

> right, so totaly convinced of your wisdom.

Is the door closed? Are you sure?

It seems to me we have been conversing and a worthwhile exchange occurred.

Is that just here, and not there?

Or can it be that here and there are not separated?

Am I posting to prove something?

Or is that a way of interpreting the words offered?

> I could point dozens of times you went back to read and realize: ....ohhh

> yeah that is correct...

I dont see nothing wrong with that...let me clear

> what I said....

> Like the need for the " I " to walk in the streets.... LIke your absolute

> conviction about the absurdity of truth " opening " and " closing " etc....

>

> buuuuaaaahhhh.....I feel so humiliated...

On the other hand, maybe that is the point.

Interpretations change.

There is no absolute way to state the truth.

The observer is imagined (imaged) along with the observed.

The Geo observer and the Dan observer seem to interact across a distance.

That distance allows perceptions of information being exchanged.

Yet, no real distance is involved.

No actual separation of one observer apart from a different observer.

These centers (for observation) are not actually there.

?

Is this possible?

- 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