it's not there or over there either.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:55 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

> One understands the instant there is no other.

>

> But who wants to give up the self that seemingly exists in relation

> to an other, and by losing this self gain nothing?

 

Nobody. That's probably why nobody ever does ;-).

 

> All the alternatives have choicelessly dried up.

 

Exactly. And in my case, it was a case of 'crisis', just as you've talked

about before. Right in the midst of 'suicidal' substance use. Acknowledging,

of course, that this is a story, and 'now never happened'.

 

geo> I like to hear stories. Mind telling it? Not important though...

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> Exactly. And in my case, it was a case of 'crisis', just as you've talked

> about before. Right in the midst of 'suicidal' substance use. Acknowledging,

> of course, that this is a story, and 'now never happened'.

>

> geo> I like to hear stories. Mind telling it? Not important though...

 

Yes, I don't want to tell it on a public mailing list. If you like, you can

Email me.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:11 PM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > And, surely, the source of darkness is light.

> > -tim-

> >

> > In that case prefer the light, but make sure you dont look at it.

> > -geo-

>

> I am darkness and light both, and the source of them.

> -tim-

>

> Just the source.

> -geo-

 

Source?

 

Of what?

 

Something that came out from the source?

 

-- D --

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:11 PM

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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > And, surely, the source of darkness is light.

> > > -tim-

> > >

> > > In that case prefer the light, but make sure you dont look at it.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > I am darkness and light both, and the source of them.

> > -tim-

> >

> > Just the source.

> > -geo-

>

> Source?

>

> Of what?

>

> Something that came out from the source?

>

> -- D --

 

Certainly, all talk of 'source' involves objectification, thus makes no sense.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > Tim G.

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:11 PM

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > And, surely, the source of darkness is light.

> > > > -tim-

> > > >

> > > > In that case prefer the light, but make sure you dont look at it.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > I am darkness and light both, and the source of them.

> > > -tim-

> > >

> > > Just the source.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > Source?

> >

> > Of what?

> >

> > Something that came out from the source?

> >

> > -- D --

>

> Certainly, all talk of 'source' involves objectification, thus

> makes no sense.

 

Actually, all talk involves objectification, thus makes no sense.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:23 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:11 PM

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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > And, surely, the source of darkness is light.

> > > -tim-

> > >

> > > In that case prefer the light, but make sure you dont look at it.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > I am darkness and light both, and the source of them.

> > -tim-

> >

> > Just the source.

> > -geo-

>

> Source?

>

> Of what?

>

> Something that came out from the source?

>

> -- D --

 

Certainly, all talk of 'source' involves objectification, thus makes no

sense.

-tim

 

Any name, symbol, referrence or pointing is objectification not only

" source " . Nonetheless it is.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:23 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:34 PM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> > > >

> > > > You don't have any substantiality, nor do I, to try to grasp some

> > > > " universal mind " or any other b.s.

> > > > -d-

> > > >

> > > > You are being ridiculous dan.

> > > > Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin

> > > > authoritative

> > > > nun you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some truth?

> > > > I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the climate

> > > > in

> > > > NY - if he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he was

> > > > not

> > > > trained to do so. " You can do anything if are properly trained " . It

> > > > is

> > > > just a matter of interest. You can unravel any issue -> if you

> > > > really

> > > > want

> > > > to.

> > >

> > > Aren't 'you' the issue that must unravel?

> > > -tim-

> > >

> > > Why dont you ask dan the same question? He thinks there is some

> > > universal

> > > mind outside of here/there.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > yeah, right

> > -d-

> >

> > Yeah right, ok I will say what is in my mind...

> >

> > Nis, in his later talks would not let 3 ~4 days pass without talking

> > about

> > the five gunas, the five " forces " of consciousness. At that particular

> > time

> > in his life he found it important to look at the play of the gunas so he

> > asked for those around him to look at them. Someone might have never

> > given

> > too much importance to it, nonetheless it would be incorrect to say that

> > the

> > gunas where only in Nis mind. K though it was important to consider the

> > psichological self. Marc did not gave too much thought to it, but that

> > is

> > no

> > reason to say that it was just something K invented in his mind. We tend

> > to

> > think we are totaly unfocused absolutes, but in fact we all have agendas

> > and

> > are focused in one thing or another at different times.

> > Sometimes I feel it is relevant to consider Univesral MInd, there is the

> > seeing of it, so I ask to look at it. You cant see it, not interested,

> > but

> > that doesnt mean you can conclude it is just geos invention in his mind.

> > It

> > is ignorance to do that. Such atitude is an " easy " way to call " another "

> > stupid contrasting with " my " enormous unquestionable wisdom.

> >

> > The world has waves that have their source in different " places " like

> > the

> > ocean with its waves originated by the winds and temperature changes,

> > and

> > the tides realated to the moon and the sun. No self, no inner entity,

> > and

> > the ocean/world is a flat mirror...but.... there are still the the

> > tides...that have nothing to do with that self...

> > I had to use lots of words, but the fact is being seen. Anyway...who

> > cares?

> > -geo-

>

> Who cares?

>

> Of what importance is a description?

>

> Is there any actual distance between what is described, the description of

> it, the describer, and someone else to whom the description is

> communicated?

>

> - Dan

>

> A fact is confused with its description while the fact is not yet seen.

> -geo-

 

you'll never see this.

 

honest.

 

- d -

 

This what?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:23 PM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > Tim G.

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:11 PM

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > And, surely, the source of darkness is light.

> > > > -tim-

> > > >

> > > > In that case prefer the light, but make sure you dont look at it.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > I am darkness and light both, and the source of them.

> > > -tim-

> > >

> > > Just the source.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > Source?

> >

> > Of what?

> >

> > Something that came out from the source?

> >

> > -- D --

>

> Certainly, all talk of 'source' involves objectification, thus makes no

> sense.

> -tim

>

> Any name, symbol, referrence or pointing is objectification not only

> " source " . Nonetheless it is.

> -geo-

 

Not.

 

Think this.

 

Now think this.

 

Now think this.

 

Is any of the above, existent now?

 

Not.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > Tim G.

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:11 PM

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > And, surely, the source of darkness is light.

> > > > > -tim-

> > > > >

> > > > > In that case prefer the light, but make sure you dont look at it.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > > I am darkness and light both, and the source of them.

> > > > -tim-

> > > >

> > > > Just the source.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > Source?

> > >

> > > Of what?

> > >

> > > Something that came out from the source?

> > >

> > > -- D --

> >

> > Certainly, all talk of 'source' involves objectification, thus

> > makes no sense.

>

> Actually, all talk involves objectification, thus makes no sense.

 

making sense from sensing, makes no sense.

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:23 PM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:34 PM

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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > > > >

> > > > > You don't have any substantiality, nor do I, to try to grasp some

> > > > > " universal mind " or any other b.s.

> > > > > -d-

> > > > >

> > > > > You are being ridiculous dan.

> > > > > Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin

> > > > > authoritative

> > > > > nun you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some truth?

> > > > > I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the climate

> > > > > in

> > > > > NY - if he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he was

> > > > > not

> > > > > trained to do so. " You can do anything if are properly trained " . It

> > > > > is

> > > > > just a matter of interest. You can unravel any issue -> if you

> > > > > really

> > > > > want

> > > > > to.

> > > >

> > > > Aren't 'you' the issue that must unravel?

> > > > -tim-

> > > >

> > > > Why dont you ask dan the same question? He thinks there is some

> > > > universal

> > > > mind outside of here/there.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > yeah, right

> > > -d-

> > >

> > > Yeah right, ok I will say what is in my mind...

> > >

> > > Nis, in his later talks would not let 3 ~4 days pass without talking

> > > about

> > > the five gunas, the five " forces " of consciousness. At that particular

> > > time

> > > in his life he found it important to look at the play of the gunas so he

> > > asked for those around him to look at them. Someone might have never

> > > given

> > > too much importance to it, nonetheless it would be incorrect to say that

> > > the

> > > gunas where only in Nis mind. K though it was important to consider the

> > > psichological self. Marc did not gave too much thought to it, but that

> > > is

> > > no

> > > reason to say that it was just something K invented in his mind. We tend

> > > to

> > > think we are totaly unfocused absolutes, but in fact we all have agendas

> > > and

> > > are focused in one thing or another at different times.

> > > Sometimes I feel it is relevant to consider Univesral MInd, there is the

> > > seeing of it, so I ask to look at it. You cant see it, not interested,

> > > but

> > > that doesnt mean you can conclude it is just geos invention in his mind.

> > > It

> > > is ignorance to do that. Such atitude is an " easy " way to call " another "

> > > stupid contrasting with " my " enormous unquestionable wisdom.

> > >

> > > The world has waves that have their source in different " places " like

> > > the

> > > ocean with its waves originated by the winds and temperature changes,

> > > and

> > > the tides realated to the moon and the sun. No self, no inner entity,

> > > and

> > > the ocean/world is a flat mirror...but.... there are still the the

> > > tides...that have nothing to do with that self...

> > > I had to use lots of words, but the fact is being seen. Anyway...who

> > > cares?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > Who cares?

> >

> > Of what importance is a description?

> >

> > Is there any actual distance between what is described, the description of

> > it, the describer, and someone else to whom the description is

> > communicated?

> >

> > - Dan

> >

> > A fact is confused with its description while the fact is not yet seen.

> > -geo-

>

> you'll never see this.

>

> honest.

>

> - d -

>

> This what?

> -geo-

 

this fact, as you put it.

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > One understands the instant there is no other.

> > >

> > > But who wants to give up the self that seemingly exists in relation

> > > to an other, and by losing this self gain nothing?

> >

> > Nobody. That's probably why nobody ever does ;-).

> >

> > > All the alternatives have choicelessly dried up.

> >

> > Exactly. And in my case, it was a case of 'crisis', just as you've talked

about before. Right in the midst of 'suicidal' substance use. Acknowledging,

of course, that this is a story, and 'now never happened'.

>

> Yes.

>

> I constructed the basis for crisis when I decided I had encountered an other,

who decided I had been encountered.

>

> The crisis can be avoided only imaginarily, and so keeps

> reappearing in various ways. Look around. It is not " my " crisis, > it is the

world, I am the world, and it is always only " my " crisis.

 

I don't see a world in crisis.

 

If anything, I am a world in crisis.

 

If/when I see a world, I see myself.

 

No self, no world.

 

> Finally, one acknowledges that it can't be avoided, and the entire > reality

constructed that way inevitably collapses (now).

>

> - D -

 

It doesn't ever seem to have arisen.

 

What's 'seen' here now is + and -.

 

If 'myself' is seen as truth, 'others' are seen as ignorant.

 

If 'others' are seen as truth, 'myself is seen as ignorant.

 

If neither are seen, neither appear.

 

Nothing more can be said in words. " What is " , or even " this " , is saying far too

much.

[Guest guest]

> > > > And, surely, the source of darkness is light.

> > > > -tim-

> > > >

> > > > In that case prefer the light, but make sure you dont look at it.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > I am darkness and light both, and the source of them.

> > > -tim-

> > >

> > > Just the source.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > Source?

> >

> > Of what?

> >

> > Something that came out from the source?

> >

> > -- D --

>

> Certainly, all talk of 'source' involves objectification, thus makes no

> sense.

> -tim

>

> Any name, symbol, referrence or pointing is objectification not only

> " source " . Nonetheless it is.

> -geo-

 

Not.

 

Think this.

 

Now think this.

 

Now think this.

 

Is any of the above, existent now?

 

Not.

 

geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the now is more

like a joke. Either time or no-time.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the now is more

> like a joke.

 

This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to apply

especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:39 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > One understands the instant there is no other.

> >

> > But who wants to give up the self that seemingly exists in relation

> > to an other, and by losing this self gain nothing?

>

> Nobody. That's probably why nobody ever does ;-).

>

> > All the alternatives have choicelessly dried up.

>

> Exactly. And in my case, it was a case of 'crisis', just as you've talked

> about before. Right in the midst of 'suicidal' substance use.

> Acknowledging, of course, that this is a story, and 'now never happened'.

 

Yes.

 

I constructed the basis for crisis when I decided I had encountered an

other, who decided I had been encountered.

 

The crisis can be avoided only imaginarily, and so keeps reappearing in

various ways. Look around. It is not " my " crisis, it is the world, I am the

world, and it is always only " my " crisis.

 

Finally, one acknowledges that it can't be avoided, and the entire reality

constructed that way inevitably collapses (now).

 

- D -

 

Sense of self is the avoidance ot the ongoing crisis.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:44 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:23 PM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:34 PM

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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > > > >

> > > > > You don't have any substantiality, nor do I, to try to grasp some

> > > > > " universal mind " or any other b.s.

> > > > > -d-

> > > > >

> > > > > You are being ridiculous dan.

> > > > > Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin

> > > > > authoritative

> > > > > nun you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some

> > > > > truth?

> > > > > I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the

> > > > > climate

> > > > > in

> > > > > NY - if he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he

> > > > > was

> > > > > not

> > > > > trained to do so. " You can do anything if are properly trained " .

> > > > > It

> > > > > is

> > > > > just a matter of interest. You can unravel any issue -> if you

> > > > > really

> > > > > want

> > > > > to.

> > > >

> > > > Aren't 'you' the issue that must unravel?

> > > > -tim-

> > > >

> > > > Why dont you ask dan the same question? He thinks there is some

> > > > universal

> > > > mind outside of here/there.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > yeah, right

> > > -d-

> > >

> > > Yeah right, ok I will say what is in my mind...

> > >

> > > Nis, in his later talks would not let 3 ~4 days pass without talking

> > > about

> > > the five gunas, the five " forces " of consciousness. At that particular

> > > time

> > > in his life he found it important to look at the play of the gunas so

> > > he

> > > asked for those around him to look at them. Someone might have never

> > > given

> > > too much importance to it, nonetheless it would be incorrect to say

> > > that

> > > the

> > > gunas where only in Nis mind. K though it was important to consider

> > > the

> > > psichological self. Marc did not gave too much thought to it, but that

> > > is

> > > no

> > > reason to say that it was just something K invented in his mind. We

> > > tend

> > > to

> > > think we are totaly unfocused absolutes, but in fact we all have

> > > agendas

> > > and

> > > are focused in one thing or another at different times.

> > > Sometimes I feel it is relevant to consider Univesral MInd, there is

> > > the

> > > seeing of it, so I ask to look at it. You cant see it, not interested,

> > > but

> > > that doesnt mean you can conclude it is just geos invention in his

> > > mind.

> > > It

> > > is ignorance to do that. Such atitude is an " easy " way to call

> > > " another "

> > > stupid contrasting with " my " enormous unquestionable wisdom.

> > >

> > > The world has waves that have their source in different " places " like

> > > the

> > > ocean with its waves originated by the winds and temperature changes,

> > > and

> > > the tides realated to the moon and the sun. No self, no inner entity,

> > > and

> > > the ocean/world is a flat mirror...but.... there are still the the

> > > tides...that have nothing to do with that self...

> > > I had to use lots of words, but the fact is being seen. Anyway...who

> > > cares?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > Who cares?

> >

> > Of what importance is a description?

> >

> > Is there any actual distance between what is described, the description

> > of

> > it, the describer, and someone else to whom the description is

> > communicated?

> >

> > - Dan

> >

> > A fact is confused with its description while the fact is not yet seen.

> > -geo-

>

> you'll never see this.

>

> honest.

>

> - d -

>

> This what?

> -geo-

 

this fact, as you put it.

 

- d -

 

The fact is that there is only one fact and it is being.... a seen-fact.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> The fact is that there is only one fact and it is being.... a seen-fact.

> -geo-

 

What???

 

Being is being. One cannot 'see' oneself being. That's the illusion!

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:49 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the now is

> more

> like a joke.

 

This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to apply

especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

 

All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may not be

avidance.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:49 PM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the now is

> > more

> > like a joke.

>

> This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to apply

> especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

>

> All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may not be

> avidance.

> -geo-

 

I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

 

But, enjoy ;-).

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:56 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> The fact is that there is only one fact and it is being.... a seen-fact.

> -geo-

 

What???

 

Being is being. One cannot 'see' oneself being. That's the illusion!

-tim-

 

Stay cool.

 

" Being " can have two meanings. The fact is consciousness. Being can only

be-ing. Consciousness is not a sum of many facts.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:03 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:49 PM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the now is

> > more

> > like a joke.

>

> This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to apply

> especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

>

> All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may not

> be

> avidance.

> -geo-

 

I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

 

But, enjoy ;-).

 

Maybe I am not using the correct english word. " Conception " as in designing

a bridge, conception of a new bridge. Is this valid in english?

I said the imaging of a new mechanism is not necessarily an avoidance - it

not need to invleve any sense of separate self.

Lost?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> > > And, surely, the source of darkness is light.

> > > -tim-

> > >

> > > In that case prefer the light, but make sure you dont look at it.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > I am darkness and light both, and the source of them.

> > -tim-

> >

> > Just the source.

> > -geo-

>

> just the source????

>

> " you " 're kidding " me " .

>

> why that's just nothing!

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Why are you offending me? I am not that!

> -geo-

 

 

 

 

 

only if there's a " you " ..

 

can offense be taken.

 

give that shit a break!

 

the source = nothing = the source.

 

that's all that was being stated.

 

you put " you " into it.

 

not i.

 

i didn't have " you " in mind at all.

 

you're being egotistical.

 

it's not all about you geo.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > Exactly. And in my case, it was a case of 'crisis', just as you've talked

> > about before. Right in the midst of 'suicidal' substance use. Acknowledging,

> > of course, that this is a story, and 'now never happened'.

> >

> > geo> I like to hear stories. Mind telling it? Not important though...

>

> Yes, I don't want to tell it on a public mailing list. If you like, you can

Email me.

 

 

in public????

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Aren't 'you' the issue that must unravel?

> > > > > > > -tim-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why dont you ask dan the same question? He thinks there is some

> > > > > > > universal

> > > > > > > mind outside of here/there.

> > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dan doesn't think there's anything inside or outside anything else,

and he's made this abundantly clear.

> > > > >

> > > > > yes

> > > > >

> > > > > but nothing i say will help

> > > > >

> > > > > it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and forth

> > > > >

> > > > > and that which is

> > > > >

> > > > > has no involvement in back and forth

> > > > >

> > > > > one who knows without knowing, simply is

> > > > >

> > > > > doesn't require anything from words

> > > > >

> > > > > one who is moving toward knowing, and engaged in experiences

> > > > >

> > > > > can also engage in endless repartee

> > > > >

> > > > > believing that there is meaningful contact being made

> > > > >

> > > > > or imagining there is entertainment through the contact

> > > > >

> > > > > - d -

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and forth " ..

> > > >

> > > > daaaaaaaaaaany!

> > > >

> > > > you're looking for " meaning " ?

> > > >

> > > > " meaning for what and for whom.

> > > >

> > > > " contact " ???

> > > >

> > > > with whom by what?

> > > >

> > > > all is one for true and for fun.

> > > >

> > > > silly guy!

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > yes.

> > >

> > > the moon is round.

> > >

> > > - d. -

> >

> >

> > ten lashes of the whip!

> >

> > wake up!

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> first put on your captain marvel boots.

>

> - d -

 

 

 

 

help can only come from within.

 

though you marvel at my boots..

 

they're not miraculous..

 

they are merely Gucci.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:19 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> > > And, surely, the source of darkness is light.

> > > -tim-

> > >

> > > In that case prefer the light, but make sure you dont look at it.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > I am darkness and light both, and the source of them.

> > -tim-

> >

> > Just the source.

> > -geo-

>

> just the source????

>

> " you " 're kidding " me " .

>

> why that's just nothing!

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Why are you offending me? I am not that!

> -geo-

 

only if there's a " you " ..

 

can offense be taken.

 

give that shit a break!

 

the source = nothing = the source.

 

that's all that was being stated.

 

you put " you " into it.

 

not i.

 

i didn't have " you " in mind at all.

 

you're being egotistical.

 

it's not all about you geo.

 

..b b.b.

 

Ah...good. I thought the joke was on me. I thought you where calling me a

thing.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:20 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > Exactly. And in my case, it was a case of 'crisis', just as you've

> > talked

> > about before. Right in the midst of 'suicidal' substance use.

> > Acknowledging,

> > of course, that this is a story, and 'now never happened'.

> >

> > geo> I like to hear stories. Mind telling it? Not important though...

>

> Yes, I don't want to tell it on a public mailing list. If you like, you

> can Email me.

 

in public????

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

 

Well...in fact there might be members that know tim in person. Why not. So

it is his right...

-geo-