it's not there or over there either.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> it's the same designation.

>

> the bible stole it.

>

> in a biblical way of speaking.

>

> .b b.b.

 

What.... Roberibus, speaking biblically?

 

F*ck that! (chuckling).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > it's the same designation.

> >

> > the bible stole it.

> >

> > in a biblical way of speaking.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> What.... Roberibus, speaking biblically?

>

> F*ck that! (chuckling).

 

 

no...fuckin' way!

 

the deal is..

 

using the word " stole " ..

 

as in " thieving " of the idea or thought..

 

and all the shit that goes with that...

 

sorta like..

 

indicating some kind of judgment and moral 'tude..

 

towards the using of a thought or word..

 

that has been used and known and identified as " I " Identity..

 

from the dawn of conscious analytic awareness...

 

was a " biblical " and strange and fucking funny sort of..

 

bullshit way of looking at that notion that i had not in mind.

 

can you dig it?

 

the notion of " mine " and " yours " is dense.

 

nothing can be " stolen " anymore than it can be " lost " .

 

unless of course one is fucking " lost " in religious sanctity..

 

and utter and unbelievably common blindness..

 

as to what the fuck is actually happenin'.

 

long before " something " happens to that lost asshole..

 

that one has put out that kind of blind and unreal " judgment " ..

 

as to what is out of nowhere considered Righteous and True.

 

" you " create your own " sons-a-bitches " and " problems " .

 

and " you " aren't even fucking real.

 

but " you " sure as hell get to be " Right " .

 

and lose every fucking game going down.

 

so that's what it is in a nutshell.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > it's the same designation.

> > >

> > > the bible stole it.

> > >

> > > in a biblical way of speaking.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > What.... Roberibus, speaking biblically?

> >

> > F*ck that! (chuckling).

>

>

> no...fuckin' way!

>

> the deal is..

>

> using the word " stole " ..

>

> as in " thieving " of the idea or thought..

>

> and all the shit that goes with that...

>

> sorta like..

>

> indicating some kind of judgment and moral 'tude..

>

> towards the using of a thought or word..

>

> that has been used and known and identified as " I " Identity..

>

> from the dawn of conscious analytic awareness...

>

> was a " biblical " and strange and fucking funny sort of..

>

> bullshit way of looking at that notion that i had not in mind.

>

> can you dig it?

>

> the notion of " mine " and " yours " is dense.

>

> nothing can be " stolen " anymore than it can be " lost " .

>

> unless of course one is fucking " lost " in religious sanctity..

>

> and utter and unbelievably common blindness..

>

> as to what the fuck is actually happenin'.

>

> long before " something " happens to that lost asshole..

>

> that one has put out that kind of blind and unreal " judgment " ..

>

> as to what is out of nowhere considered Righteous and True.

>

> " you " create your own " sons-a-bitches " and " problems " .

>

> and " you " aren't even fucking real.

>

> but " you " sure as hell get to be " Right " .

>

> and lose every fucking game going down.

>

> so that's what it is in a nutshell.

>

> .b b.b.

 

The perception of what's going on with others and religion may not be true.

 

After all, any interpretation of what's happening with 'others' is based on our

own experience. We can't get inside anyone's head.

 

Thus, from here at least, it's an utter waste of time. A useless way to

maintain the self through thinking about others (self/other always go together).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > it's the same designation.

> > > >

> > > > the bible stole it.

> > > >

> > > > in a biblical way of speaking.

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > What.... Roberibus, speaking biblically?

> > >

> > > F*ck that! (chuckling).

> >

> >

> > no...fuckin' way!

> >

> > the deal is..

> >

> > using the word " stole " ..

> >

> > as in " thieving " of the idea or thought..

> >

> > and all the shit that goes with that...

> >

> > sorta like..

> >

> > indicating some kind of judgment and moral 'tude..

> >

> > towards the using of a thought or word..

> >

> > that has been used and known and identified as " I " Identity..

> >

> > from the dawn of conscious analytic awareness...

> >

> > was a " biblical " and strange and fucking funny sort of..

> >

> > bullshit way of looking at that notion that i had not in mind.

> >

> > can you dig it?

> >

> > the notion of " mine " and " yours " is dense.

> >

> > nothing can be " stolen " anymore than it can be " lost " .

> >

> > unless of course one is fucking " lost " in religious sanctity..

> >

> > and utter and unbelievably common blindness..

> >

> > as to what the fuck is actually happenin'.

> >

> > long before " something " happens to that lost asshole..

> >

> > that one has put out that kind of blind and unreal " judgment " ..

> >

> > as to what is out of nowhere considered Righteous and True.

> >

> > " you " create your own " sons-a-bitches " and " problems " .

> >

> > and " you " aren't even fucking real.

> >

> > but " you " sure as hell get to be " Right " .

> >

> > and lose every fucking game going down.

> >

> > so that's what it is in a nutshell.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> The perception of what's going on with others and religion may not be true.

>

> After all, any interpretation of what's happening with 'others' is based on

our own experience. We can't get inside anyone's head.

>

> Thus, from here at least, it's an utter waste of time. A useless way to

maintain the self through thinking about others (self/other always go together).

 

 

it's not an interpretation.

 

thinking that is the same need to be righteous bullshit.

 

it has not one fucking thing to do with right and wrong.

 

nor wastes nor gains nor anyone thinking that they even " are " .

 

it's missed irrevocably as soon as " we " is conceived as projection.

 

these are the only words possible.

 

and they sin...missing the mark.

 

because all marks are void and all words are white noise.

 

it's useless to talk about or attempt to bring alive.

 

it's for slaughter:

 

the Lamb of God.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> it's not an interpretation.

 

Wake up.... everything's an interpretation.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:56 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Wake up.... everything's an interpretation.

-tim-

 

When there is an imagined inner observer who or what is interpreting?

When there is just an organism as a physical center who or what is

interpreting?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:56 PM

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

>

>

>

>

>

> Wake up.... everything's an interpretation.

> -tim-

>

> When there is an imagined inner observer who or what is interpreting?

> When there is just an organism as a physical center who or what is

> interpreting?

> -geo-

 

Interpretation.

[Guest guest]

> Wake up.... everything's an interpretation.

> -tim-

>

> When there is an imagined inner observer who or what is interpreting?

> When there is just an organism as a physical center who or what is

> interpreting?

> -geo-

 

Interpretation.

-tim-

 

Maybe you feel it is not interesting. But I would like to look at this.

I think that there are two different situations described above.

In the first case life is being lived through a veil of illusion as a

consequence of the dynamics imagined-center/its-periphery.

In the second case...what is going on? Is there some " real " world outside

that something is interpreting? What is being interpreted and to whom and

through what?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> > Wake up.... everything's an interpretation.

> > -tim-

> >

> > When there is an imagined inner observer who or what is interpreting?

> > When there is just an organism as a physical center who or what is

> > interpreting?

> > -geo-

>

> Interpretation.

> -tim-

>

> Maybe you feel it is not interesting. But I would like to look at

> this.

 

Who's stopping ya? Why look 'with' someone else? Is it too scary looking

alone?

[Guest guest]

> > Wake up.... everything's an interpretation.

> > -tim-

> >

> > When there is an imagined inner observer who or what is interpreting?

> > When there is just an organism as a physical center who or what is

> > interpreting?

> > -geo-

>

> Interpretation.

> -tim-

>

> Maybe you feel it is not interesting. But I would like to look at

> this.

 

Who's stopping ya? Why look 'with' someone else? Is it too scary looking

alone?

-tim-

 

 

Sure... my hair is standing. So, what happens if interpretation stops?

Or it never stops? Is there some " real " world outside being interpreted?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

geo

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 07, 2009 6:04 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

> > Wake up.... everything's an interpretation.

> > -tim-

> >

> > When there is an imagined inner observer who or what is interpreting?

> > When there is just an organism as a physical center who or what is

> > interpreting?

> > -geo-

>

> Interpretation.

> -tim-

>

> Maybe you feel it is not interesting. But I would like to look at

> this.

 

Who's stopping ya? Why look 'with' someone else? Is it too scary looking

alone?

-tim-

 

Sure... my hair is standing. So, what happens if interpretation stops?

Or it never stops? Is there some " real " world outside being interpreted?

 

I dont think this is correct. If one admits that there is some organism

interpreting an outside real world then obviously the very organism that is

the interpreter is being interpreted. Fssssszzzz.....you see, I am not good

at this alone - I need your help.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

geo

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 07, 2009 6:15 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

geo

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 07, 2009 6:04 PM

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

 

> > Wake up.... everything's an interpretation.

> > -tim-

> >

> > When there is an imagined inner observer who or what is interpreting?

> > When there is just an organism as a physical center who or what is

> > interpreting?

> > -geo-

>

> Interpretation.

> -tim-

>

> Maybe you feel it is not interesting. But I would like to look at

> this.

 

Who's stopping ya? Why look 'with' someone else? Is it too scary looking

alone?

-tim-

 

Sure... my hair is standing. So, what happens if interpretation stops?

Or it never stops? Is there some " real " world outside being interpreted?

 

I dont think this is correct. If one admits that there is some organism

interpreting an outside real world then obviously the very organism that is

the interpreter is being interpreted. Fssssszzzz.....you see, I am not good

at this alone - I need your help.

 

No...I must be brave. I'll do this all by myself. So tim sujestion is that

interpretation is interpreting. It must be interpreting something supposed

to be real into some interpreted. But is this interpretation real or also

interpreted?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> Sure... my hair is standing. So, what happens if interpretation

> stops?

 

" Just what is " . It's very plain, and looks awfully dull, meaningless and

useless to the mind.

 

But the mind is mistaken.

 

> Or it never stops? Is there some " real " world outside being

> interpreted?

 

" Real " is itself an interpretation.

 

Outside interpretation, things are neither real nor unreal.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > Sure... my hair is standing. So, what happens if interpretation

> > stops?

>

> " Just what is " . It's very plain, and looks awfully dull, meaningless and

useless to the mind.

>

> But the mind is mistaken.

 

Or rather, thought puts negative connotations on concepts such as meaningless,

useless, pointless.

 

Everything really *is* meaningless, useless and pointless.

 

And that's good.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:04 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > Sure... my hair is standing. So, what happens if interpretation

> > stops?

>

> " Just what is " . It's very plain, and looks awfully dull, meaningless and

> useless to the mind.

>

> But the mind is mistaken.

 

Or rather, thought puts negative connotations on concepts such as

meaningless, useless, pointless.

 

Everything really *is* meaningless, useless and pointless.

 

And that's good.

 

geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an

interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it?

I dont know

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an

> interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it?

> I dont know

 

Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation.

 

Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such.

 

There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject to

interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an

> > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it?

> > I dont know

>

> Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation.

>

> Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such.

>

> There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject to

interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation.

>

 

 

All talk of absence is interpretation of the highest degree; beyond that nothing

is.

 

Wink.

 

~A

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an

> > > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it?

> > > I dont know

> >

> > Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation.

> >

> > Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such.

> >

> > There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject to

interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation.

> >

>

>

> All talk of absence is interpretation of the highest degree; beyond > that

nothing is.

 

" Beyond that nothing is " is absence.

 

Wink 2u2...

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an

> > > > interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it?

> > > > I dont know

> > >

> > > Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation.

> > >

> > > Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such.

> > >

> > > There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject

to interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation.

> > >

> >

> >

> > All talk of absence is interpretation of the highest degree; beyond > that

nothing is.

>

> " Beyond that nothing is " is absence.

>

> Wink 2u2...

>

 

 

That's what i said, but first the interpretation...

 

~A

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > it's not an interpretation.

>

> Wake up.... everything's an interpretation.

 

 

there is nothing to wake up nor fall asleep.

 

the only interpretation here is..

 

you don't " get " it.

 

this cannot be told nor taught.

 

it is absorbed as Identity through " infection " .

 

it is not for the fainthearted.

 

it is not for you.

 

it is not for the is not.

 

eat your crackers.

 

..b b.b.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:35 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an

> interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it?

> I dont know

 

Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation.

 

Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such.

 

There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject to

interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation.

 

geo> The only way you can get away with this is if you say that

interpretation is the same as consciousness or the same as the world.

Any implication of something being interpreted to a subject receiver of some

interpretation is conceptual.

[Guest guest]

> geo> I understand, but then your statement " .... everything's an

> interpretation. " is not a fact....or is it?

> I dont know

 

Even to say " everything's an interpretation " is an interpretation.

 

Dan will talk about 'what was never interpreted' and such.

 

There may be such a 'thing' (that isn't a 'thing'), but it isn't subject to

interpretation. It's just absence of all interpretation.

 

geo> The only way you can get away with this is if you say that

interpretation is the same as consciousness or the same as the world.

Any implication of something being interpreted to a subject receiver of some

interpretation is conceptual.

 

I think what is is absense of any interpretation. There is living as

orgnism/consciousness.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:22 PM

> it's not there or over there either.

>

>

>

>

>

> awareness is not found on the " other side " ..

>

> through any process or meditation.

>

> the very first thought..

>

> happens already in awareness.

>

> any journey from that thought foreward..

>

> can only happen in awareness.

>

> it cannot be taking " you " towards awareness.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Before the very first thought is already awareness

 

 

and prior to awareness ....

 

..

..

..

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > roberibus111

> > Nisargadatta

> > Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:22 PM

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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > awareness is not found on the " other side " ..

> >

> > through any process or meditation.

> >

> > the very first thought..

> >

> > happens already in awareness.

> >

> > any journey from that thought foreward..

> >

> > can only happen in awareness.

> >

> > it cannot be taking " you " towards awareness.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> > Before the very first thought is already awareness

>

>

> and prior to awareness ....

>

> .

> .

> .

 

" Three periods at the end of a sentence "

 

They're having a party... they're dancing and singing... join us for the

celebration! ;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > Before the very first thought is already awareness

>

> Before the first thought, before the first sight, sound, smell, taste or

touch;

>

> In the beginning was the word.

>

> Prior to the beginning, no word ever was.

 

 

" the b'bird's the word "

 

Trashmen