it's not there or over there either.

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> are you telling that to Dan?

>

> he's the one that would have said " You dudes disgust me " .

>

> that's not what i would say or have said.

>

> that's what i posted.

Is there a difference between saying it and posting it?

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > are you telling that to Dan?

> >

> > he's the one that would have said " You dudes disgust me " .

> >

> > that's not what i would say or have said.

> >

> > that's what i posted.

>

> Is there a difference between saying it and posting it?

what i posted is what i said.

no difference:

" as dan might say if he wasn't one of you...

'you dudes disgust me'. "

i said that that's what dan would say.

not what i would say.

you commented on that comment that dan would say.

i asked you if your comment was for dan..

i.e.: " are you telling that to Dan?

meaning that since you were commenting on what he would say..

as outlined in my post..

it is likely a comment meant for him as the one likely to say that.

if you need further clarification just ask.

i'm here to help you fellas.

..b b.b.

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > are you telling that to Dan?

> > >

> > > he's the one that would have said " You dudes disgust me " .

> > >

> > > that's not what i would say or have said.

> > >

> > > that's what i posted.

> >

> > Is there a difference between saying it and posting it?

what i posted is what i said.

>

> no difference:

>

> " as dan might say if he wasn't one of you...

>

> 'you dudes disgust me'. "

>

> i said that that's what dan would say.

>

> not what i would say.

>

> you commented on that comment that dan would say.

>

> i asked you if your comment was for dan..

>

> i.e.: " are you telling that to Dan?

>

> meaning that since you were commenting on what he would say..

>

> as outlined in my post..

>

> it is likely a comment meant for him as the one likely to say that.

>

> if you need further clarification just ask.

>

> i'm here to help you fellas.

>

> .b b.b.

you're hilarious.

evil, but hilarious.

- d -

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > are you telling that to Dan?

> > > >

> > > > he's the one that would have said " You dudes disgust me " .

> > > >

> > > > that's not what i would say or have said.

> > > >

> > > > that's what i posted.

> > >

> > > Is there a difference between saying it and posting it?

> >

> > what i posted is what i said.

> >

> > no difference:

> >

> > " as dan might say if he wasn't one of you...

> >

> > 'you dudes disgust me'. "

> >

> > i said that that's what dan would say.

> >

> > not what i would say.

> >

> > you commented on that comment that dan would say.

> >

> > i asked you if your comment was for dan..

> >

> > i.e.: " are you telling that to Dan?

> >

> > meaning that since you were commenting on what he would say..

> >

> > as outlined in my post..

> >

> > it is likely a comment meant for him as the one likely to say that.

> >

> > if you need further clarification just ask.

> >

> > i'm here to help you fellas.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> you're hilarious.

>

> evil, but hilarious.

>

> - d -

Could you really make heads or tails of any of that? " Clarification " , LOL.

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

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

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > are you telling that to Dan?

> > > > >

> > > > > he's the one that would have said " You dudes disgust me " .

> > > > >

> > > > > that's not what i would say or have said.

> > > > >

> > > > > that's what i posted.

> > > >

> > > > Is there a difference between saying it and posting it?

> > >

> > > what i posted is what i said.

> > >

> > > no difference:

> > >

> > > " as dan might say if he wasn't one of you...

> > >

> > > 'you dudes disgust me'. "

> > >

> > > i said that that's what dan would say.

> > >

> > > not what i would say.

> > >

> > > you commented on that comment that dan would say.

> > >

> > > i asked you if your comment was for dan..

> > >

> > > i.e.: " are you telling that to Dan?

> > >

> > > meaning that since you were commenting on what he would say..

> > >

> > > as outlined in my post..

> > >

> > > it is likely a comment meant for him as the one likely to say that.

> > >

> > > if you need further clarification just ask.

> > >

> > > i'm here to help you fellas.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > you're hilarious.

> >

> > evil, but hilarious.

> >

> > - d -

>

> Could you really make heads or tails of any of that? " Clarification " , LOL.

it's doubtful either of you could make heads or tails of anything.

this couldn't be clearer.

..b b.b.

June 18, 2009

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:54 PM

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

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Indeed so... one could name it as an 'infant state' prior to naming,

> although there's little point to that. Objects are not seen (at least not

> here).

> -tim-

>

> Objects are not seen?

> -geo-

Objects are named and defined as objects by thought.

Seeing is seen, not objects.

geo>I see.

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

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

Tested on: 18/6/2009 07:19:45

June 18, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:30 PM

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

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:14 PM

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

>

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

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:51 PM

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > There is nothing wrong with a human being expressing emotional

> > > > reactions

> > > > or a sense of self. Krishnmurti, who popularized this idea about not

> > > > having a psychological center, frequently expressed emotional

> > > > reactions

> > > > and a sense of self. For example, he often expressed irritation in

> > > > his

> > > > tone when talking about how his audience was missing points he was

> > > > making, or would chastise people for being selfish, or enjoyed

> > > > shopping

> > > > for nice clothes, etc.

> > > >

> > >

> > > The rumor is that Niz. frequently 'got angry' as well.

> > >

> > > Clearly, a psychological center isn't needed, and wasn't ever there.

> > >

> > > However, emotional reactivity of the type associated with having a

> > > self

> > > may disappear. For example, sitting alone and missing somebody, and

> > > crying

> > > about it.

> >

> > From here, the whole endeavor to imagine that one person has no

> > psychological self and another person does, is the endeavor of the

> > psychological self.

> >

> > It's a meaningless distinction.

> >

> > You never met Niz., yet you imagine him as acting without a

> > psychological

> > center.

> >

> > This is a mind creation of an image of a human being along with a

> > rationale

> > for the motives of that human being.

> >

> > Such images are mind-created, and involve psychological choices in the

> > formation of the image.

> >

> > Any human being forming such images is evidencing a so-called

> > " psychological

> > self. "

> >

> > Nonetheless, there never has been an actual psychological self for

> > anyone.

> >

> > That is because there has never been any thing, including any organismic

> > thing.

> >

> > And thus, there has never been a real center for an imagined thing.

> >

> > - D -

> >

> > What is this now?... Amnesia, or I miss-read something? It was you who

> > wrote

> > " Krishnmurti, who popularized this idea about not having a psychological

> > center, frequently expressed emotional reactions and a sense of self " -

> > was

> > it not? Then you say: " nonetheless, there never has been an actual

> > psychological self for anyone " . That is nonsense. The issue is not to

> > find

> > some spot like a center, but the illusion of the feeling of an entity

> > inside

> > looking at an outside world.

>

> Aha! When you say it that way, it makes much more sense to me.

> -d-

>

> JEEEEZZZzzzzzz....I said that at least 28 times just this week.

> -geo-

Well, you were saying it was an inner psychological entity, and that just

doesn't make sense in the same way to me.

I don't see people as having any such entity.

I do see people believing that awareness is located within them, which is

also something I have said.

At any rate, we've reached agreement on what we're talking about.

However we got here, we got here.

-- D --

OK :>)))

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

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

Tested on: 18/6/2009 07:19:46

June 18, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:31 PM

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

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:16 PM

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

>

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

> >

> > geo> I will not engage in a discussion about the self or no-self of K or

> > Nis or any other, or analyse their doings.

> >

> > D: Great! So, it's a meaningless discussion, is it not?

> >

> > geo> Of course it is. We dont know them, never met them.

> >

> > geo said> Now...human beings can live with or without the illusion of a

> > self.

> > It is a fact. I know it in myself.

> >

> > D: You just said you wouldn't discuss this.

> >

> > geo> Ks or Nis or Buddhas or Jesus selfs

>

> If we are talking about the distorted belief of a separately existing

> awareness, it makes a lot more sense to me.

>

> And I would look at it this way:

>

> A human being is a construction appearing in and through awareness.

>

> Awareness is not something in a human being.

>

> Being awake may be construed in the human community as something that a

> person does, or a quality belonging to a person.

>

> But that is not so.

>

> The entirety of the human community, and the world that human relate to,

> appears in and through awareness.

>

> -- D --

>

> The entirety of the human community, the whole human history, the entirety

> of time span...is just a bubble. Probably there are infinite different

> bubbles - who can tell?

What can be imagined (imaged) once, can be imagined countless times.

Because the number of times is also imaginary (imaged).

- D -

That there are infinite bubbles? Of course. Any ponderations about this is

conceptual. We just dont know.

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

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

Tested on: 18/6/2009 07:19:46

June 18, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:35 PM

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

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > > How would you tackle say.....smoking habit? It is not a good habit. Or

> > > heroin.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > by presupposing someone who would benefit from changing the

> > self-destructive habit.

> >

> > - d -

>

> Or presupposing a body that would benefit, which seems reasonable. Does a

> " someone " really have to be presupposed to benefit a body?

Someone means a person-type-body, which is a body-mind. A someone to whom

speaking makes sense, and who can use our verbal interaction to plan a

change in the habit.

- D -

What tim is saying - I suppose - is that " body " is in fact the whole

organism-body-mind. It is completly functional. No need for some person. A

person is a body with an imagined entity inside.

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

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

Tested on: 18/6/2009 07:19:46

June 18, 2009

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:39 PM

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

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:42 PM

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > And what is aware of " consciousness " one cannot speak of.

> > >

> > > Yet, here one rests.

> > >

> > > This " rest " involves no activity, ever.

> > >

> > > It is timeless and inexpressible.

> > >

> > > It is not what we are talking about, which are words.

> > >

> > > I rest here.

> > >

> > > No mentation, nothing to conceptualize.

> > >

> > > " Eternal rest " you could say.

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> > Indeed so... one could name it as an 'infant state' prior to naming,

> > although there's little point to that. Objects are not seen (at least

> > not

> > here).

> > -tim-

> >

> > Objects are not seen?

> > -geo-

>

> He bumps into chairs a lot.

>

> - D -

Objects are not seen as objects.

Seeing is seen.

Nobody bumps into chairs ;-).

geo> Or...there is the seeing of an organism seeing objects. All empty.

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

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

Tested on: 18/6/2009 07:19:47

June 18, 2009

By the way, Geo.

If we're talking about belief in partialized awareness here, and that is

what the " psychological inner entity " you've been talking about is, then

isn't awareness also partialized if there is an " organic center " as you were

calling it?

You seemed to be implying that awareness is assumed to be in the organism

which recognizes a chair as something existing separately from the

organism's awareness, so the organism can sit in the chair.

Doesn't such an " organismic center " also separate out awareness?

This was a point I made earlier, and it didn't seem to make sense to you.

Does it make sense at this point in our dialogue?

- D -

I understand your questioning. Indeed when there is the imagined inner entiy

there is fragmentation - for that person, obviously. That person perceives

the whole world in a distorted limited fragmented way. It is the

dynamic-imagined-center-periphery- back and forth. Our society is molded

according to this dynamic. Mine, yours, I must evolve...etc...

Now let us look carefully where we aparently differ - only aparently I am

sure.

Once there is seeing from awareness (I know that this sounds naive...or

strange to some), there is the seeing of the whole field of manifestation. I

think Nis. calls this consciousness. I prefer human world, or mind of

mankind. Doesnt matter the name. This mind of mankind involves the existence

of objects, and one of these objects exhibits some particularities (that in

fact are universal, does not belong to anyone). Like thunder, rain,

wind...there is in this particular body " sensations " , feelings, pain

(without those it could no survive). Obviously these sensations, feelings

are not divided from awareness, but in the other hande they " define " a

non-personal field called organism - a body/mind. What I call as a center,

that in fact is not quite a center, is the " localization " of these

sensations, feelings, is the body/mind, the organism. When the illusion is

acting I call it MY organism. When there is no illusion it is just an

organism where sensations and feelings are gathered....not mine. There is no

division. Where could sensations and feelings arise if not in THIS organism?

This organism avoids bumping in objects, nonetheless from awareness all

objects are empty. This organism sees sun-sets, protects and defends its own

existence instinctively.

Is this somehow clear?

-geo-

June 18, 2009

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:04 PM

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

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Oh, it's nobody bumping into those chairs.

>

> He gets blamed for everything.

>

> " It's nobody's fault. "

>

> Wonder how he lives with the guilt?

>

> - D -

Probably the same way " you " (everyone else to everyone) lives with it.

geo> So...why the organism dont bump into chairs? Because it sees them,

identifies them as any healthy organism does.

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

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

Tested on: 18/6/2009 07:19:49

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:04 PM

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

>

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

> >

> > Oh, it's nobody bumping into those chairs.

> >

> > He gets blamed for everything.

> >

> > " It's nobody's fault. "

> >

> > Wonder how he lives with the guilt?

> >

> > - D -

>

> Probably the same way " you " (everyone else to everyone) lives with it.

>

> geo> So...why the organism dont bump into chairs? Because it sees them,

> identifies them as any healthy organism does.

actually the chairs as bumpees(as those bumped into)..

are just thicker emptiness than the bumper.

there's a sense of " bumping into " ..

but that's only false identification with the bumper.

it's more of a blending of blendingers than it is a bump by bumpers.

it's an illusion designed for and by tap dancers and car enthusiasts.

Detroit still holds the keys to the bumpers' hearts.

..b b.b.

June 18, 2009

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:15 AM

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

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:04 PM

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

>

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

> >

> > Oh, it's nobody bumping into those chairs.

> >

> > He gets blamed for everything.

> >

> > " It's nobody's fault. "

> >

> > Wonder how he lives with the guilt?

> >

> > - D -

>

> Probably the same way " you " (everyone else to everyone) lives with it.

>

> geo> So...why the organism dont bump into chairs? Because it sees them,

> identifies them as any healthy organism does.

actually the chairs as bumpees(as those bumped into)..

are just thicker emptiness than the bumper.

there's a sense of " bumping into " ..

but that's only false identification with the bumper.

it's more of a blending of blendingers than it is a bump by bumpers.

it's an illusion designed for and by tap dancers and car enthusiasts.

Detroit still holds the keys to the bumpers' hearts.

..b b.b.

A wave hitting another wave.

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

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

Tested on: 18/6/2009 10:31:14

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:15 AM

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

>

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

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:04 PM

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > Oh, it's nobody bumping into those chairs.

> > >

> > > He gets blamed for everything.

> > >

> > > " It's nobody's fault. "

> > >

> > > Wonder how he lives with the guilt?

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> > Probably the same way " you " (everyone else to everyone) lives with it.

> >

> > geo> So...why the organism dont bump into chairs? Because it sees them,

> > identifies them as any healthy organism does.

>

> actually the chairs as bumpees(as those bumped into)..

>

> are just thicker emptiness than the bumper.

>

> there's a sense of " bumping into " ..

>

> but that's only false identification with the bumper.

>

> it's more of a blending of blendingers than it is a bump by bumpers.

>

> it's an illusion designed for and by tap dancers and car enthusiasts.

>

> Detroit still holds the keys to the bumpers' hearts.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> A wave hitting another wave.

> -geo-

>

almost every other Thursday.

and astoundingly...

right on time!

..b b.b.

June 18, 2009

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:38 AM

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

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:15 AM

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

>

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

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:04 PM

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > Oh, it's nobody bumping into those chairs.

> > >

> > > He gets blamed for everything.

> > >

> > > " It's nobody's fault. "

> > >

> > > Wonder how he lives with the guilt?

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> > Probably the same way " you " (everyone else to everyone) lives with it.

> >

> > geo> So...why the organism dont bump into chairs? Because it sees them,

> > identifies them as any healthy organism does.

>

> actually the chairs as bumpees(as those bumped into)..

>

> are just thicker emptiness than the bumper.

>

> there's a sense of " bumping into " ..

>

> but that's only false identification with the bumper.

>

> it's more of a blending of blendingers than it is a bump by bumpers.

>

> it's an illusion designed for and by tap dancers and car enthusiasts.

>

> Detroit still holds the keys to the bumpers' hearts.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> A wave hitting another wave.

> -geo-

>

almost every other Thursday.

and astoundingly...

right on time!

..b b.b.

....and first friday nights of the month

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

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

Tested on: 18/6/2009 10:52:39

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

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

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > are you telling that to Dan?

> > > > >

> > > > > he's the one that would have said " You dudes disgust me " .

> > > > >

> > > > > that's not what i would say or have said.

> > > > >

> > > > > that's what i posted.

> > > >

> > > > Is there a difference between saying it and posting it?

> > >

> > > what i posted is what i said.

> > >

> > > no difference:

> > >

> > > " as dan might say if he wasn't one of you...

> > >

> > > 'you dudes disgust me'. "

> > >

> > > i said that that's what dan would say.

> > >

> > > not what i would say.

> > >

> > > you commented on that comment that dan would say.

> > >

> > > i asked you if your comment was for dan..

> > >

> > > i.e.: " are you telling that to Dan?

> > >

> > > meaning that since you were commenting on what he would say..

> > >

> > > as outlined in my post..

> > >

> > > it is likely a comment meant for him as the one likely to say that.

> > >

> > > if you need further clarification just ask.

> > >

> > > i'm here to help you fellas.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > you're hilarious.

> >

> > evil, but hilarious.

> >

> > - d -

>

> Could you really make heads or tails of any of that? " Clarification " , LOL.

yes, it is nice to see bob having fun.

funny stuff.

- d -

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:31 PM

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

>

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

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:16 PM

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > geo> I will not engage in a discussion about the self or no-self of K or

> > > Nis or any other, or analyse their doings.

> > >

> > > D: Great! So, it's a meaningless discussion, is it not?

> > >

> > > geo> Of course it is. We dont know them, never met them.

> > >

> > > geo said> Now...human beings can live with or without the illusion of a

> > > self.

> > > It is a fact. I know it in myself.

> > >

> > > D: You just said you wouldn't discuss this.

> > >

> > > geo> Ks or Nis or Buddhas or Jesus selfs

> >

> > If we are talking about the distorted belief of a separately existing

> > awareness, it makes a lot more sense to me.

> >

> > And I would look at it this way:

> >

> > A human being is a construction appearing in and through awareness.

> >

> > Awareness is not something in a human being.

> >

> > Being awake may be construed in the human community as something that a

> > person does, or a quality belonging to a person.

> >

> > But that is not so.

> >

> > The entirety of the human community, and the world that human relate to,

> > appears in and through awareness.

> >

> > -- D --

> >

> > The entirety of the human community, the whole human history, the entirety

> > of time span...is just a bubble. Probably there are infinite different

> > bubbles - who can tell?

>

> What can be imagined (imaged) once, can be imagined countless times.

>

> Because the number of times is also imaginary (imaged).

>

> - D -

>

> That there are infinite bubbles? Of course. Any ponderations about this is

> conceptual. We just dont know.

> -geo-

all ponderation is conceptual.

yes, one knows not.

nothing to know.

- d -

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:35 PM

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

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > > How would you tackle say.....smoking habit? It is not a good habit. Or

> > > > heroin.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > by presupposing someone who would benefit from changing the

> > > self-destructive habit.

> > >

> > > - d -

> >

> > Or presupposing a body that would benefit, which seems reasonable. Does a

> > " someone " really have to be presupposed to benefit a body?

>

> Someone means a person-type-body, which is a body-mind. A someone to whom

> speaking makes sense, and who can use our verbal interaction to plan a

> change in the habit.

>

> - D -

>

> What tim is saying - I suppose - is that " body " is in fact the whole

> organism-body-mind. It is completly functional. No need for some person. A

> person is a body with an imagined entity inside.

> -geo-

I think it gets a little ponderous to keep having to repeat that there is no

imagined inner entity inside just because you use the word " someone. "

A person is a person. I would speak to a person about how to stop an addiction.

I wouldn't speak about stopping an addiction to a tree sloth, armadillo, or

wildebeest. Although they also " are bodies. "

But on this list, before you speak to someone, you have to clarify with that

someone that no inner psychological entity exists, and when you speak, that you

are not speaking to an imagined inner psychological entity.

Laughing,

Dan

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:39 PM

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

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > -

> > > Tim G.

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:42 PM

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > And what is aware of " consciousness " one cannot speak of.

> > > >

> > > > Yet, here one rests.

> > > >

> > > > This " rest " involves no activity, ever.

> > > >

> > > > It is timeless and inexpressible.

> > > >

> > > > It is not what we are talking about, which are words.

> > > >

> > > > I rest here.

> > > >

> > > > No mentation, nothing to conceptualize.

> > > >

> > > > " Eternal rest " you could say.

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > >

> > > Indeed so... one could name it as an 'infant state' prior to naming,

> > > although there's little point to that. Objects are not seen (at least

> > > not

> > > here).

> > > -tim-

> > >

> > > Objects are not seen?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > He bumps into chairs a lot.

> >

> > - D -

>

> Objects are not seen as objects.

>

> Seeing is seen.

>

> Nobody bumps into chairs ;-).

>

> geo> Or...there is the seeing of an organism seeing objects. All empty.

Yes, there is the " seeing " at once of organism/chair/sitting activity.

Undivided.

Aware.

- D -

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> By the way, Geo.

>

> If we're talking about belief in partialized awareness here, and that is

> what the " psychological inner entity " you've been talking about is, then

> isn't awareness also partialized if there is an " organic center " as you were

> calling it?

>

> You seemed to be implying that awareness is assumed to be in the organism

> which recognizes a chair as something existing separately from the

> organism's awareness, so the organism can sit in the chair.

>

> Doesn't such an " organismic center " also separate out awareness?

>

> This was a point I made earlier, and it didn't seem to make sense to you.

>

> Does it make sense at this point in our dialogue?

>

> - D -

>

> I understand your questioning. Indeed when there is the imagined inner entiy

> there is fragmentation - for that person, obviously. That person perceives

> the whole world in a distorted limited fragmented way. It is the

> dynamic-imagined-center-periphery- back and forth. Our society is molded

> according to this dynamic. Mine, yours, I must evolve...etc...

>

> Now let us look carefully where we aparently differ - only aparently I am

> sure.

>

> Once there is seeing from awareness (I know that this sounds naive...or

> strange to some), there is the seeing of the whole field of manifestation. I

> think Nis. calls this consciousness. I prefer human world, or mind of

> mankind. Doesnt matter the name. This mind of mankind involves the existence

> of objects, and one of these objects exhibits some particularities (that in

> fact are universal, does not belong to anyone). Like thunder, rain,

> wind...there is in this particular body " sensations " , feelings, pain

> (without those it could no survive). Obviously these sensations, feelings

> are not divided from awareness, but in the other hande they " define " a

> non-personal field called organism - a body/mind. What I call as a center,

> that in fact is not quite a center, is the " localization " of these

> sensations, feelings, is the body/mind, the organism. When the illusion is

> acting I call it MY organism. When there is no illusion it is just an

> organism where sensations and feelings are gathered....not mine. There is no

> division. Where could sensations and feelings arise if not in THIS organism?

> This organism avoids bumping in objects, nonetheless from awareness all

> objects are empty. This organism sees sun-sets, protects and defends its own

> existence instinctively.

>

> Is this somehow clear?

> -geo-

Yes, this is clear.

It is helpful to me that you used the term " localization. "

The no-thing particularizes as apparent forms, locations of experience involving

time/space, localizations.

A person sitting in a chair is one possible localization among infinite possible

possibilities (which is no-thing-ness).

It's true that to try to believe that the localizing of an experience has

resulted in " my organism " involves a kind of delusion - the delusion of trying

to attach to a line of memory that illusorily indicates a " me " attached to the

organism.

At the same time, even the attempt to hold a sensing pattern of " an organism

that exists in time and space " involves a related delusion. The delusion of

something having continuity in time/space.

The localizing of an experience is all-at-once and all-at-nonce. It is one

movement, undivided, and no movement - simultaneously.

So, nothing continues.

If anything could continue and have its existence, there would be ultimate

separation of something from " awareness " or " the awareness field. "

It is interesting to notice that memory is involved in any localization.

Time-space-memory is a template that is involved with an observation, i.e., with

an experience, with a localization.

Any experience that is recognized, even a brief stimuli of pain, for example,

requires memory. Not necessarily conscious memory of the upper brain centers.

It can involve cellular, bodily memory, or lower brain center memory that we

generally consider to be " unconscious. "

What is interesting about this is that any localization requires memory as a

template for the experience, because experience involves time, duration.

So, that which has no duration (no-thing-ness) inexplicably formulates

time/space/memory experience and localizes an observation (such as a person

taking a seat).

The inexplicable incredible non-event is resulting in countless experiences and

versions of time. We imagine a strong of bubbles of experience as " the

continuity of an organism, " or " the continuity of me. "

There is no me inhabiting an organism. And there is not even an organism

inhabiting time-space as a continuing existence or center for sensation.

Nonetheless, there is the immediate sensing of a localized space-time event,

called " experience " - infinitely reverberating, past-present-future indivisible,

organism/environment/movement indivisible, observer/observed - subject/object

indivisible.

Maya, in other words.

- Dan -

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:04 PM

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

>

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

> >

> > Oh, it's nobody bumping into those chairs.

> >

> > He gets blamed for everything.

> >

> > " It's nobody's fault. "

> >

> > Wonder how he lives with the guilt?

> >

> > - D -

>

> Probably the same way " you " (everyone else to everyone) lives with it.

>

> geo> So...why the organism dont bump into chairs? Because it sees them,

> identifies them as any healthy organism does.

D: Sure, that's one way to explain the inexplicable

organism/environment/recognition/response appearance.

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:04 PM

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > Oh, it's nobody bumping into those chairs.

> > >

> > > He gets blamed for everything.

> > >

> > > " It's nobody's fault. "

> > >

> > > Wonder how he lives with the guilt?

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> > Probably the same way " you " (everyone else to everyone) lives with it.

> >

> > geo> So...why the organism dont bump into chairs? Because it sees them,

> > identifies them as any healthy organism does.

>

> actually the chairs as bumpees(as those bumped into)..

>

> are just thicker emptiness than the bumper.

>

> there's a sense of " bumping into " ..

>

> but that's only false identification with the bumper.

>

> it's more of a blending of blendingers than it is a bump by bumpers.

>

> it's an illusion designed for and by tap dancers and car enthusiasts.

>

> Detroit still holds the keys to the bumpers' hearts.

>

> .b b.b.

Yes, this is as good an explanation as any.

It's true that identifying with the bumper is how the organism senses a self

apart from a chair.

- D -

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > By the way, Geo.

> >

> > If we're talking about belief in partialized awareness here, and that is

> > what the " psychological inner entity " you've been talking about is, then

> > isn't awareness also partialized if there is an " organic center " as you were

> > calling it?

> >

> > You seemed to be implying that awareness is assumed to be in the organism

> > which recognizes a chair as something existing separately from the

> > organism's awareness, so the organism can sit in the chair.

> >

> > Doesn't such an " organismic center " also separate out awareness?

> >

> > This was a point I made earlier, and it didn't seem to make sense to you.

> >

> > Does it make sense at this point in our dialogue?

> >

> > - D -

> >

> > I understand your questioning. Indeed when there is the imagined inner entiy

> > there is fragmentation - for that person, obviously. That person perceives

> > the whole world in a distorted limited fragmented way. It is the

> > dynamic-imagined-center-periphery- back and forth. Our society is molded

> > according to this dynamic. Mine, yours, I must evolve...etc...

> >

> > Now let us look carefully where we aparently differ - only aparently I am

> > sure.

> >

> > Once there is seeing from awareness (I know that this sounds naive...or

> > strange to some), there is the seeing of the whole field of manifestation. I

> > think Nis. calls this consciousness. I prefer human world, or mind of

> > mankind. Doesnt matter the name. This mind of mankind involves the existence

> > of objects, and one of these objects exhibits some particularities (that in

> > fact are universal, does not belong to anyone). Like thunder, rain,

> > wind...there is in this particular body " sensations " , feelings, pain

> > (without those it could no survive). Obviously these sensations, feelings

> > are not divided from awareness, but in the other hande they " define " a

> > non-personal field called organism - a body/mind. What I call as a center,

> > that in fact is not quite a center, is the " localization " of these

> > sensations, feelings, is the body/mind, the organism. When the illusion is

> > acting I call it MY organism. When there is no illusion it is just an

> > organism where sensations and feelings are gathered....not mine. There is no

> > division. Where could sensations and feelings arise if not in THIS organism?

> > This organism avoids bumping in objects, nonetheless from awareness all

> > objects are empty. This organism sees sun-sets, protects and defends its own

> > existence instinctively.

> >

> > Is this somehow clear?

> > -geo-

>

> Yes, this is clear.

>

> It is helpful to me that you used the term " localization. "

>

> The no-thing particularizes as apparent forms, locations of experience

involving time/space, localizations.

>

> A person sitting in a chair is one possible localization among infinite

possible possibilities (which is no-thing-ness).

>

> It's true that to try to believe that the localizing of an experience has

resulted in " my organism " involves a kind of delusion - the delusion of trying

to attach to a line of memory that illusorily indicates a " me " attached to the

organism.

>

> At the same time, even the attempt to hold a sensing pattern of " an organism

that exists in time and space " involves a related delusion. The delusion of

something having continuity in time/space.

>

> The localizing of an experience is all-at-once and all-at-nonce. It is one

movement, undivided, and no movement - simultaneously.

>

> So, nothing continues.

>

> If anything could continue and have its existence, there would be ultimate

separation of something from " awareness " or " the awareness field. "

>

> It is interesting to notice that memory is involved in any localization.

>

> Time-space-memory is a template that is involved with an observation, i.e.,

with an experience, with a localization.

>

> Any experience that is recognized, even a brief stimuli of pain, for example,

requires memory. Not necessarily conscious memory of the upper brain centers.

It can involve cellular, bodily memory, or lower brain center memory that we

generally consider to be " unconscious. "

>

> What is interesting about this is that any localization requires memory as a

template for the experience, because experience involves time, duration.

>

> So, that which has no duration (no-thing-ness) inexplicably formulates

time/space/memory experience and localizes an observation (such as a person

taking a seat).

>

> The inexplicable incredible non-event is resulting in countless experiences

and versions of time. We imagine a strong of bubbles of experience as " the

continuity of an organism, " or " the continuity of me. "

>

> There is no me inhabiting an organism. And there is not even an organism

inhabiting time-space as a continuing existence or center for sensation.

>

> Nonetheless, there is the immediate sensing of a localized space-time event,

called " experience " - infinitely reverberating, past-present-future indivisible,

organism/environment/movement indivisible, observer/observed - subject/object

indivisible.

>

> Maya, in other words.

>

> - Dan -

Elegant, interesting... and windy ;-).

When applied to " did an observer write this? " , says a lot about whether an

observer exists or not, but says nothing about what it purports to be talking

about.

Without " self-inquiry " it says nothing. With " self-inquiry " , nothing need be

said.

" Mental entertainment to pass the time " , as Nisargadatta said ;-).

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > By the way, Geo.

> > >

> > > If we're talking about belief in partialized awareness here, and that is

> > > what the " psychological inner entity " you've been talking about is, then

> > > isn't awareness also partialized if there is an " organic center " as you

were

> > > calling it?

> > >

> > > You seemed to be implying that awareness is assumed to be in the organism

> > > which recognizes a chair as something existing separately from the

> > > organism's awareness, so the organism can sit in the chair.

> > >

> > > Doesn't such an " organismic center " also separate out awareness?

> > >

> > > This was a point I made earlier, and it didn't seem to make sense to you.

> > >

> > > Does it make sense at this point in our dialogue?

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> > > I understand your questioning. Indeed when there is the imagined inner

entiy

> > > there is fragmentation - for that person, obviously. That person perceives

> > > the whole world in a distorted limited fragmented way. It is the

> > > dynamic-imagined-center-periphery- back and forth. Our society is molded

> > > according to this dynamic. Mine, yours, I must evolve...etc...

> > >

> > > Now let us look carefully where we aparently differ - only aparently I am

> > > sure.

> > >

> > > Once there is seeing from awareness (I know that this sounds naive...or

> > > strange to some), there is the seeing of the whole field of manifestation.

I

> > > think Nis. calls this consciousness. I prefer human world, or mind of

> > > mankind. Doesnt matter the name. This mind of mankind involves the

existence

> > > of objects, and one of these objects exhibits some particularities (that

in

> > > fact are universal, does not belong to anyone). Like thunder, rain,

> > > wind...there is in this particular body " sensations " , feelings, pain

> > > (without those it could no survive). Obviously these sensations, feelings

> > > are not divided from awareness, but in the other hande they " define " a

> > > non-personal field called organism - a body/mind. What I call as a center,

> > > that in fact is not quite a center, is the " localization " of these

> > > sensations, feelings, is the body/mind, the organism. When the illusion is

> > > acting I call it MY organism. When there is no illusion it is just an

> > > organism where sensations and feelings are gathered....not mine. There is

no

> > > division. Where could sensations and feelings arise if not in THIS

organism?

> > > This organism avoids bumping in objects, nonetheless from awareness all

> > > objects are empty. This organism sees sun-sets, protects and defends its

own

> > > existence instinctively.

> > >

> > > Is this somehow clear?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > Yes, this is clear.

> >

> > It is helpful to me that you used the term " localization. "

> >

> > The no-thing particularizes as apparent forms, locations of experience

involving time/space, localizations.

> >

> > A person sitting in a chair is one possible localization among infinite

possible possibilities (which is no-thing-ness).

> >

> > It's true that to try to believe that the localizing of an experience has

resulted in " my organism " involves a kind of delusion - the delusion of trying

to attach to a line of memory that illusorily indicates a " me " attached to the

organism.

> >

> > At the same time, even the attempt to hold a sensing pattern of " an organism

that exists in time and space " involves a related delusion. The delusion of

something having continuity in time/space.

> >

> > The localizing of an experience is all-at-once and all-at-nonce. It is one

movement, undivided, and no movement - simultaneously.

> >

> > So, nothing continues.

> >

> > If anything could continue and have its existence, there would be ultimate

separation of something from " awareness " or " the awareness field. "

> >

> > It is interesting to notice that memory is involved in any localization.

> >

> > Time-space-memory is a template that is involved with an observation, i.e.,

with an experience, with a localization.

> >

> > Any experience that is recognized, even a brief stimuli of pain, for

example, requires memory. Not necessarily conscious memory of the upper brain

centers. It can involve cellular, bodily memory, or lower brain center memory

that we generally consider to be " unconscious. "

> >

> > What is interesting about this is that any localization requires memory as a

template for the experience, because experience involves time, duration.

> >

> > So, that which has no duration (no-thing-ness) inexplicably formulates

time/space/memory experience and localizes an observation (such as a person

taking a seat).

> >

> > The inexplicable incredible non-event is resulting in countless experiences

and versions of time. We imagine a strong of bubbles of experience as " the

continuity of an organism, " or " the continuity of me. "

> >

> > There is no me inhabiting an organism. And there is not even an organism

inhabiting time-space as a continuing existence or center for sensation.

> >

> > Nonetheless, there is the immediate sensing of a localized space-time event,

called " experience " - infinitely reverberating, past-present-future indivisible,

organism/environment/movement indivisible, observer/observed - subject/object

indivisible.

> >

> > Maya, in other words.

> >

> > - Dan -

>

> Elegant, interesting... and windy ;-).

>

> When applied to " did an observer write this? " , says a lot about whether an

observer exists or not, but says nothing about what it purports to be talking

about.

>

> Without " self-inquiry " it says nothing. With " self-inquiry " , nothing need be

said.

>

> " Mental entertainment to pass the time " , as Nisargadatta said ;-).

Yes, windy like the wind blowing through and gone.

Read one sentence or read it all.

However you like.

There are millions of sentences available on the internet.

Read one or read a million.

However you like.

All appearance is entertainment. It's not really divided into mental and

physical.

The mental is physical, and vice versa.

The deepest inquiry involves no question arising, no answer sought, no statement

made.

This is, and reading any amount won't change it.

Authors are aribitrary.

The author is additional letters added to the letters of the message.

- 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