Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2009 The world is not. " is " implies continuity, existence, which is an illusion of memory. The world does not exist. It insists ;-). Have a look at this insistence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2009 The world is not. " is " implies continuity, existence, which is an illusion of memory. The world does not exist. It insists ;-). Have a look at this insistence. geo> The insistence, memory, illusions are all patterns in the human world - or is it a rats world? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > The world is not. > > " is " implies continuity, existence, which is an illusion of memory. > > The world does not exist. It insists ;-). Have a look at this insistence. > > geo> The insistence, memory, illusions are all patterns in the human world - > or is it a rats world? It's an imaginary world, based on memory. Suppose you lost all your memory, right now, forever. Where is your world? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2009 > The world is not. > > " is " implies continuity, existence, which is an illusion of memory. > > The world does not exist. It insists ;-). Have a look at this insistence. > > geo> The insistence, memory, illusions are all patterns in the human > world - > or is it a rats world? It's an imaginary world, based on memory. Suppose you lost all your memory, right now, forever. Where is your world? geo> Imagination is a patterning in the human world. Loosing memory and becoming cooco, is a paterning in the human cooco's world. Now... if a martian lost his memory then it is a patterning in a martian cooco's world. You dont have to add concepts of what is or what is not a world to a world. The world is this as it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Monday, June 08, 2009 5:47 PM Re: Re: Where is the world? > The world is not.>> "is" implies continuity, existence, which is an illusion of memory.>> The world does not exist. It insists ;-). Have a look at this insistence.>> geo> The insistence, memory, illusions are all patterns in the human > world -> or is it a rats world?It's an imaginary world, based on memory.Suppose you lost all your memory, right now, forever. Where is your world?geo> Imagination is a patterning in the human world. Loosing memory and becoming cooco, is a paterning in the human cooco's world. Now... if a martian lost his memory then it is a patterning in a martian cooco's world. You dont have to add concepts of what is or what is not a world to a world. The world is this as it is. This human world may pattern into a centered-mode or a centerless-mode. But both way are patterns of the human world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2009 > The world is not. > > " is " implies continuity, existence, which is an illusion of memory. > > The world does not exist. It insists ;-). Have a look at this insistence. > > geo> The insistence, memory, illusions are all patterns in the human > world - > or is it a rats world? It's an imaginary world, based on memory. Suppose you lost all your memory, right now, forever. Where is your world? geo> Imagination is a patterning in the human world. Loosing memory and becoming cooco, is a paterning in the human cooco's world. Now... if a martian lost his memory then it is a patterning in a martian cooco's world. You dont have to add concepts of what is or what is not a world to a world. The world is this as it is. This human world may pattern into a centered-mode or a centerless-mode. But both way are patterns of the human world. Better: both are empty patternings as human worlds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > The world is not. > > > > " is " implies continuity, existence, which is an illusion of memory. > > > > The world does not exist. It insists ;-). Have a look at this insistence. > > > > geo> The insistence, memory, illusions are all patterns in the human > > world - > > or is it a rats world? > > It's an imaginary world, based on memory. > > Suppose you lost all your memory, right now, forever. Where is your world? > > geo> Imagination is a patterning in the human world. " The " human world is part of your world. Suppose you lost all your memory, right now, forever. Where is " the " human world? What does " the " mean? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 8, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, June 08, 2009 6:17 PM Re: Where is the world? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > The world is not. > > > > " is " implies continuity, existence, which is an illusion of memory. > > > > The world does not exist. It insists ;-). Have a look at this > > insistence. > > > > geo> The insistence, memory, illusions are all patterns in the human > > world - > > or is it a rats world? > > It's an imaginary world, based on memory. > > Suppose you lost all your memory, right now, forever. Where is your world? > > geo> Imagination is a patterning in the human world. " The " human world is part of your world. Suppose you lost all your memory, right now, forever. Where is " the " human world? What does " the " mean? geo> It is the same as asking what death is. When the body dies the human world is not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > " The " human world is part of your world. Suppose you lost all your memory, > right now, forever. Where is " the " human world? What does " the " mean? > > geo> It is the same as asking what death is. When the body dies the human > world is not. There's only one death, and it isn't death of the body. Physical death only symbolizes the loss of identification. Death is death of the 'me', whether it's identified with one's own body, or somebody else's (or anything else, for that matter). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, June 08, 2009 7:19 PM Re: Where is the world? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > " The " human world is part of your world. Suppose you lost all your memory, > right now, forever. Where is " the " human world? What does " the " mean? > > geo> It is the same as asking what death is. When the body dies the human > world is not. There's only one death, and it isn't death of the body. Physical death only symbolizes the loss of identification. Death is death of the 'me', whether it's identified with one's own body, or somebody else's (or anything else, for that matter). -tim- I see it different. The ending of the ME is the ending of identification with this body. Ending of the body is the ending of the human world. How can ME by identified with another body? I suppose that is when ME sees through your eyes or ME feels your pain. That is new to me... :>) -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Monday, June 08, 2009 7:19 PM > Re: Where is the world? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > " The " human world is part of your world. Suppose you lost all your memory, > > right now, forever. Where is " the " human world? What does " the " mean? > > > > geo> It is the same as asking what death is. When the body dies the human > > world is not. > > There's only one death, and it isn't death of the body. Physical death only > symbolizes the loss of identification. Death is death of the 'me', whether > it's identified with one's own body, or somebody else's (or anything else, > for that matter). > -tim- > > I see it different. The ending of the ME is the ending of identification > with this body. Ending of the body is the ending of the human world. > How can ME by identified with another body? " I love you " . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, June 08, 2009 7:19 PM > > Re: Where is the world? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > " The " human world is part of your world. Suppose you lost all your memory, > > > right now, forever. Where is " the " human world? What does " the " mean? > > > > > > geo> It is the same as asking what death is. When the body dies the human > > > world is not. > > > > There's only one death, and it isn't death of the body. Physical death only > > symbolizes the loss of identification. Death is death of the 'me', whether > > it's identified with one's own body, or somebody else's (or anything else, > > for that matter). > > -tim- > > > > I see it different. The ending of the ME is the ending of identification > > with this body. Ending of the body is the ending of the human world. > > How can ME by identified with another body? > You otta see my neighbor's wife. :-0 toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > How can ME by identified with another body? > > > > > > You otta see my neighbor's wife. > > > > :-0 Would I want to? ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Monday, June 08, 2009 7:19 PM > Re: Where is the world? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > " The " human world is part of your world. Suppose you lost all your memory, > > right now, forever. Where is " the " human world? What does " the " mean? > > > > geo> It is the same as asking what death is. When the body dies the human > > world is not. > > There's only one death, and it isn't death of the body. Physical death only > symbolizes the loss of identification. Death is death of the 'me', whether > it's identified with one's own body, or somebody else's (or anything else, > for that matter). > -tim- > > I see it different. The ending of the ME is the ending of identification > with this body. Not quite, Geo, There is no me which does or is able to identify with something. The delusion of identification is created by thought using past memory when saying " I am this, I am that " . But the main reason why there exists this illusion of a me is that the intellect needs a real object when usings a noun which it can refer to. For example the word " tree " needs a realiter existing object tree as a reference to anchor that word. Because the word " me " or " I " is just a nebulous expression without some real object to refer to as its anchor therefore thought is using the body as a reference.. Why is that ? Because we are trained as children when learning to speak also to learn the corresponding objects words are pointing at. And we are trained to use the body as the reference to the noun 'I'. You understand, Geo, why there is no me which does identify with anything and yet there is the illuion of a me doing that. Werner > Ending of the body is the ending of the human world. > How can ME by identified with another body? I suppose that is when ME sees > through your eyes or ME feels your pain. That is new to me... :>) > -geo- > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > And we are trained to use the body as the reference to the noun 'I'. What's interesting (from here) is that when talking on the computer, the body is (rarely or never) used as a reference -- as we don't see the body of the 'other', nor our own body when chatting on list. So, these words really don't relate to anything, and we see examples of 'projection' happening all the time. The " I " and the " you " get reversed and obfuscated in the attempt to figure out which of us is " I " and which is " you " . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > And we are trained to use the body as the reference to the noun 'I'. > > What's interesting (from here) is that when talking on the computer, the body is (rarely or never) used as a reference -- as we don't see the body of the 'other', nor our own body when chatting on list. So, these words really don't relate to anything, and we see examples of 'projection' happening all the time. The " I " and the " you " get reversed and obfuscated in the attempt to figure out which of us is " I " and which is " you " . > It may also be worth noting that both " I " and " you " are 'within', i.e. constructed via thought. So, we make many assumptions about the other on this list format, probably none of which are correct, and all of which relate to 'us', something in our own thoughts/memories. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > And we are trained to use the body as the reference to the noun 'I'. > > What's interesting (from here) is that when talking on the computer, the body is (rarely or never) used as a reference -- as we don't see the body of the 'other', nor our own body when chatting on list. So, these words really don't relate to anything, and we see examples of 'projection' happening all the time. The " I " and the " you " get reversed and obfuscated in the attempt to figure out which of us is " I " and which is " you " . > Way to comnplicated, Tim, The noun " I " since childhood is glued to the body by having used this noun/object reference I/body already billions of times. And it is impossible to loosen this fixation just by explanaining and intellectualizing it. It is utter foolishness to believe in the power of explanation without taking in account the power of a lifelong conditioning. Don't overestimat your intellect, Tim ! Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > And we are trained to use the body as the reference to the noun 'I'. > > > > What's interesting (from here) is that when talking on the computer, the body is (rarely or never) used as a reference -- as we don't see the body of the 'other', nor our own body when chatting on list. So, these words really don't relate to anything, and we see examples of 'projection' happening all the time. The " I " and the " you " get reversed and obfuscated in the attempt to figure out which of us is " I " and which is " you " . > > > > > Way to comnplicated, Tim, > > The noun " I " since childhood is glued to the body by having used this noun/object reference I/body already billions of times. > > And it is impossible to loosen this fixation just by explanaining and intellectualizing it. > > It is utter foolishness to believe in the power of explanation without taking in account the power of a lifelong conditioning. > > Don't overestimat your intellect, Tim ! > > Werner Don't mistake who's Tim and who's Werner, Werner ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > And we are trained to use the body as the reference to the noun 'I'. > > > > > > What's interesting (from here) is that when talking on the computer, the body is (rarely or never) used as a reference -- as we don't see the body of the 'other', nor our own body when chatting on list. So, these words really don't relate to anything, and we see examples of 'projection' happening all the time. The " I " and the " you " get reversed and obfuscated in the attempt to figure out which of us is " I " and which is " you " . > > > > > > > > > Way to comnplicated, Tim, > > > > The noun " I " since childhood is glued to the body by having used this noun/object reference I/body already billions of times. > > > > And it is impossible to loosen this fixation just by explanaining and intellectualizing it. > > > > It is utter foolishness to believe in the power of explanation without taking in account the power of a lifelong conditioning. > > > > Don't overestimat your intellect, Tim ! > > > > Werner > > Don't mistake who's Tim and who's Werner, Werner ;-). I might try explaining this one final time (before giving up, and letting you project): What do you know about " Tim " , other than a single word on a screen? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > And we are trained to use the body as the reference to the noun 'I'. > > > > > > What's interesting (from here) is that when talking on the computer, the body is (rarely or never) used as a reference -- as we don't see the body of the 'other', nor our own body when chatting on list. So, these words really don't relate to anything, and we see examples of 'projection' happening all the time. The " I " and the " you " get reversed and obfuscated in the attempt to figure out which of us is " I " and which is " you " . > > > > > > > > > Way to comnplicated, Tim, > > > > The noun " I " since childhood is glued to the body by having used this noun/object reference I/body already billions of times. > > > > And it is impossible to loosen this fixation just by explanaining and intellectualizing it. > > > > It is utter foolishness to believe in the power of explanation without taking in account the power of a lifelong conditioning. > > > > Don't overestimat your intellect, Tim ! > > > > Werner > > Don't mistake who's Tim and who's Werner, Werner ;-). > Tim, Your remark is just the usual intellectual splish-splash when playing with some material you have read when sticking a bit your nose into non-dual literature. Ok, it maybe uselful for having conversations on lists like this to spend one's time to overcome boredom, but besides that it won't change anything. Eveything will go on as it already does. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > And we are trained to use the body as the reference to the noun 'I'. > > > > What's interesting (from here) is that when talking on the computer, the body is (rarely or never) used as a reference -- as we don't see the body of the 'other', nor our own body when chatting on list. So, these words really don't relate to anything, and we see examples of 'projection' happening all the time. The " I " and the " you " get reversed and obfuscated in the attempt to figure out which of us is " I " and which is " you " . > > > > > Way to comnplicated, Tim, > > The noun " I " since childhood is glued to the body by having used this noun/object reference I/body already billions of times. > > And it is impossible to loosen this fixation just by explanaining and intellectualizing it. > > It is utter foolishness to believe in the power of explanation without taking in account the power of a lifelong conditioning. > > Don't overestimat your intellect, Tim ! > > Werner that's easy for you to say wernie. you don't have an intellect to make ANY sort of estimate about. stupidity is bliss though isn't it. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > that's easy for you to say wernie. > > you don't have an intellect to make ANY sort of estimate about. > > stupidity is bliss though isn't it. > > .b b.b. He's just afraid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > that's easy for you to say wernie. > > > > you don't have an intellect to make ANY sort of estimate about. > > > > stupidity is bliss though isn't it. > > > > .b b.b. > > He's just afraid. there's fearing..but.. there is no werner. i know. i get no responses. gee..i wonder why? hmm.. oh right! he's not there. there's an acting like " i'm above it all " ..but.. there is no werner. all there is is fearing and dumb ass posting. mystery solved. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > that's easy for you to say wernie. > > > > > > you don't have an intellect to make ANY sort of estimate about. > > > > > > stupidity is bliss though isn't it. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > He's just afraid. > > > there's fearing..but.. > > there is no werner. > > i know. > > i get no responses. > > gee..i wonder why? > > hmm.. > > oh right! > > he's not there. > > there's an acting like " i'm above it all " ..but.. > > there is no werner. > > all there is is fearing and dumb ass posting. > > mystery solved. > > .b b.b. LOL... seems pretty accurate from here :-). " Self and other " is a pretty wacko game... what isn't faced by 'self' is put off onto 'other'. It's all like poles of a magnet, nothing fancier than that, despite how " fancy " it may seem. + and - in various interactions, with nobody controlling anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 9, 2009 : > > > > " The " human world is part of your world. Suppose you lost all your > > memory, > > right now, forever. Where is " the " human world? What does " the " mean? > > > > geo> It is the same as asking what death is. When the body dies the > > human > > world is not. > > There's only one death, and it isn't death of the body. Physical death > only > symbolizes the loss of identification. Death is death of the 'me', whether > it's identified with one's own body, or somebody else's (or anything else, > for that matter). > -tim- > > I see it different. The ending of the ME is the ending of identification > with this body. Not quite, Geo, There is no me which does or is able to identify with something. The delusion of identification is created by thought using past memory when saying " I am this, I am that " . But the main reason why there exists this illusion of a me is that the intellect needs a real object when usings a noun which it can refer to. For example the word " tree " needs a realiter existing object tree as a reference to anchor that word. Because the word " me " or " I " is just a nebulous expression without some real object to refer to as its anchor therefore thought is using the body as a reference.. Why is that ? Because we are trained as children when learning to speak also to learn the corresponding objects words are pointing at. And we are trained to use the body as the reference to the noun 'I'. You understand, Geo, why there is no me which does identify with anything and yet there is the illuion of a me doing that. Werner Lots of material to think about....thanks. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
