The human being

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> There is the time measured by the watch and there is psychological > time like

past and future.

 

And there is apparently an (artificial, arbitrary) separation of the two... fair

enough ;-).

 

> The 'Now' does not exist, it is a concept.

 

You can't say the " Now " is a concept, right after asserting that clock-time is

real. It makes no sense. Either clock time is (and there is now), or it isn't,

and there is no now.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > There is the time measured by the watch and there is psychological > time

like past and future.

>

> And there is apparently an (artificial, arbitrary) separation of the two...

fair enough ;-).

>

> > The 'Now' does not exist, it is a concept.

>

> You can't say the " Now " is a concept, right after asserting that clock-time is

real. It makes no sense. Either clock time is (and there is now), or it isn't,

and there is no now.

>

 

Fwiw, the way I'd put it is that " Now " is the absence of conceptualizing past

and future. Yes, in truth there is no Now, but it's one of those nondual

pointers or indicators. If it makes people feel all cool and nondual to say

" there is no Now " , it's all good :-p.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The human being cannot get outside itself to know it's a human

> > > > > > > being.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Therefore, the human being is not a human being.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Reality is. Nothing more can be said.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Allow me please to add a bit more:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There are as many realities as ther are human beings.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Werner

> > > > >

> > > > > True, as there are no human beings ;-).

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Get your nose out of all those Advaita books and forget all that bull.

Get

> > > > a live, Tim.

> > > >

> > > > Werner

> > >

> > > I am Life.

> > >

> > > Reality is artificially split by thought and imagination.

> > >

> > > Reality imagines itself a human being.

> > >

> > > Imagines there's a " Tim " .

> > >

> > > geo> There is difference between " Tim " and " human being " .

> > > Tim may leave right now....the human being will remain till the body kicks

-

> > > without Tim.

> >

> > " The human being " is a verbal/conceptual definition. It's imaginary.

> >

>

>

> No, Tim,

>

> " Human being " is a spezifying category like for example insects, birs, snakes

etc ...

>

> When we speak of human beings we don't mean insects, or do we ?

>

> Werner

 

 

when we speak of the human being werner we mean that yes.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > And if you get bitten by such a conceptual skane (which God might

> > fobid) the you will suffer from conceptual pain, right Tim ?

>

> Right, Werner ;-).

 

 

what the hell is werner trying to say?

 

i've read the full rendition too.

 

is it me?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Got life?

> >

> > ~A

>

> Life is what I am, not what I " have " .

 

 

it will improve.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > There is the time measured by the watch and there is psychological > time

like past and future.

>

> And there is apparently an (artificial, arbitrary) separation of the two...

fair enough ;-).

>

> > The 'Now' does not exist, it is a concept.

>

> You can't say the " Now " is a concept, right after asserting that clock-time is

real. It makes no sense. Either clock time is (and there is now), or it isn't,

and there is no now.

>

 

 

Where did I write that the time measured by the watch is resl ? Can you plesase

show it to me, Tim ?

 

The time by watch is just a convenience, an agreement within society not to miss

an appointment or it is technically used by the stop watch etc ...

 

But as already explained the philosophical 'now' does not exist. It is a

concept. So many so called spiritual people are riding the horse of the 'now'

and are so proud of this horse but it won't bring them anywhere besides into

day-dreaming of a spiritual career as a guru

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Where did I write that the time measured by the watch is resl ? Can

> you plesase show it to me, Tim ?

 

Stop calling me Tim... I'm Werner ;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > And if you get bitten by such a conceptual skane (which God might

> > > fobid) the you will suffer from conceptual pain, right Tim ?

> >

> > Right, Werner ;-).

>

>

> what the hell is werner trying to say?

 

He's trying to say about hell, but can't express it.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > There is the time measured by the watch and there is psychological > time

like past and future.

> >

> > And there is apparently an (artificial, arbitrary) separation of the two...

fair enough ;-).

> >

> > > The 'Now' does not exist, it is a concept.

> >

> > You can't say the " Now " is a concept, right after asserting that clock-time

is real. It makes no sense. Either clock time is (and there is now), or it

isn't, and there is no now.

> >

>

>

> Where did I write that the time measured by the watch is resl ? Can you

plesase show it to me, Tim ?

>

> The time by watch is just a convenience, an agreement within society not to

miss an appointment or it is technically used by the stop watch etc ...

>

> But as already explained the philosophical 'now' does not exist. It is a

concept. So many so called spiritual people are riding the horse of the 'now'

and are so proud of this horse but it won't bring them anywhere besides into

day-dreaming of a spiritual career as a guru

>

> Werner

 

 

why the fuck are you obsessed with what is and what isn't real?

 

what kind of phony fucking doctor science are you?

 

here i had thought you were saying something about nothing..

 

but you're actually saying nothing about something.

 

you don't know what you're talking about.

 

you don't even know why you're talking.

 

i want a refund!

 

time doesn't come cheap.

 

$.b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > Got life?

> > >

> > > ~A

> >

> > Life is what I am, not what I " have " .

>

>

> it will improve.

>

> .b b.b.

 

It will (wills, wants to) improve.

 

It does? Whazzit? What's 'it'?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

> why the fuck are you obsessed with what is and what isn't real?

 

Same reason Pete's obsessed about the brain, I'd think. Attachment, looking for

something to cling to in a conceptual universe of uncertainty.

 

All they gotta do is exit that universe, but they're scared to.

 

> what kind of phony fucking doctor science are you?

>

> here i had thought you were saying something about nothing..

>

> but you're actually saying nothing about something.

>

> you don't know what you're talking about.

>

> you don't even know why you're talking.

 

Now *that* is true ;-). Then again, I dunno either.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > why the fuck are you obsessed with what is and what isn't real?

>

> Same reason Pete's obsessed about the brain, I'd think. Attachment, looking

for something to cling to in a conceptual universe of uncertainty.

>

> All they gotta do is exit that universe, but they're scared to.

>

> > what kind of phony fucking doctor science are you?

> >

> > here i had thought you were saying something about nothing..

> >

> > but you're actually saying nothing about something.

> >

> > you don't know what you're talking about.

> >

> > you don't even know why you're talking.

>

> Now *that* is true ;-). Then again, I dunno either.

 

 

pete's like werner?

 

it was wonder wernie i was referring to.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > Where did I write that the time measured by the watch is resl ? Can

> > you plesase show it to me, Tim ?

>

> Stop calling me Tim... I'm Werner ;-).

>

 

 

Tim,

 

I have read that nonsense you are pointing at already a hundred times before.

Please be serious and do no longer offer me such stale shit. I doesn't impress

me but rather shows me that eventually it is a waste of time to go on conversing

with you.

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> pete's like werner?

 

Pete likes werner?

 

Does anyone like anyone around here? (LOL).

 

> it was wonder wernie i was referring to.

>

> .b b.b.

 

I know... I was just putting in a foot-note.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Where did I write that the time measured by the watch is resl ? Can

> > > you plesase show it to me, Tim ?

> >

> > Stop calling me Tim... I'm Werner ;-).

> >

>

>

> Tim,

>

> I have read that nonsense you are pointing at already a hundred

> times before.

 

Yes, that must be the issue... reading the same thing over and over, and nothing

changing. Eh?

 

> Please be serious and do no longer offer me such stale shit.

 

I'm going to offer what I like. You're going to take it, if you believe you and

I exist. And that's final.

[Guest guest]

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:03 PM

Re: The human being

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, June 13, 2009 3:35 PM

> Re: The human being

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> > Neither has any nature, as far as I can see, other than the nature of

> > concept.

> >

> > geo> They are concepts (as their nature) conceived by different

> > minds.

>

> The notion of " different minds " is also a concept.

>

> One cannot onceptualize themselves out of concept.

>

> Give up, let go of all of it.

>

> There's nothing else to do.

>

> geo> Dear tim, I dont need to let go of anything at all. I have already

> mastigated, swllowed and digested this stuff some time ago.

 

if there's still a " someone " who has " experienced " anything at all..

 

if there is still a present " feeling " of having " suffered " ..

 

if there is a single thought of " i am beyond all that " ..

 

if it is believed that " stuff " has been 'digested " ...

 

there is an incalculable vastness to be abolished.

 

it paints the false world it boasts within.

 

it doesn't want to lose it's audience.

 

it fears the true Vastness.

 

it is not other.

 

ha ha ho ho!

 

..b b.b.

 

geo> Nah.... Just said that it is not conceptual at all. It is fact. The

human robe is not weared on directly....there are some layers of underwear.

LOL

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

 

> > Please be serious and do no longer offer me such stale shit.

>

> I'm going to offer what I like. You're going to take it, if you

> believe you and I exist. And that's final.

 

The opposite is true also -- You're going to offer what you like, and I'm going

to take it if there's a belief here in " you and me " .

 

Such are the rules of falsehood. They don't change. It's called " dependency "

and it means you need others, can't live without them, because a self is

considered to exist.

 

That's the way it is.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:03 PM

> Re: The human being

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Saturday, June 13, 2009 3:35 PM

> > Re: The human being

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > > Neither has any nature, as far as I can see, other than the nature of

> > > concept.

> > >

> > > geo> They are concepts (as their nature) conceived by different

> > > minds.

> >

> > The notion of " different minds " is also a concept.

> >

> > One cannot onceptualize themselves out of concept.

> >

> > Give up, let go of all of it.

> >

> > There's nothing else to do.

> >

> > geo> Dear tim, I dont need to let go of anything at all. I have already

> > mastigated, swllowed and digested this stuff some time ago.

>

> if there's still a " someone " who has " experienced " anything at all..

>

> if there is still a present " feeling " of having " suffered " ..

>

> if there is a single thought of " i am beyond all that " ..

>

> if it is believed that " stuff " has been 'digested " ...

>

> there is an incalculable vastness to be abolished.

>

> it paints the false world it boasts within.

>

> it doesn't want to lose it's audience.

>

> it fears the true Vastness.

>

> it is not other.

>

> ha ha ho ho!

>

> .b b.b.

>

> geo> Nah.... Just said that it is not conceptual at all. It is fact. The

> human robe is not weared on directly....there are some layers of underwear.

> LOL

 

 

saying that it is not conceptual is conceptual.

 

" fact " itself is conceptual.

 

got to lose that shit.

 

then there's no under where for underwear to be worn.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > > Neither has any nature, as far as I can see, other than the nature of

> > > concept.

> > >

> > > geo> They are concepts (as their nature) conceived by different

> > > minds.

> >

> > The notion of " different minds " is also a concept.

> >

> > One cannot onceptualize themselves out of concept.

> >

> > Give up, let go of all of it.

> >

> > There's nothing else to do.

> >

> > geo> Dear tim, I dont need to let go of anything at all. I have already

> > mastigated, swllowed and digested this stuff some time ago.

>

> if there's still a " someone " who has " experienced " anything at all..

>

> if there is still a present " feeling " of having " suffered " ..

>

> if there is a single thought of " i am beyond all that " ..

>

> if it is believed that " stuff " has been 'digested " ...

>

> there is an incalculable vastness to be abolished.

>

> it paints the false world it boasts within.

>

> it doesn't want to lose it's audience.

>

> it fears the true Vastness.

>

> it is not other.

>

> ha ha ho ho!

>

> .b b.b.

>

> geo> Nah.... Just said that it is not conceptual at all. It is fact. The

> human robe is not weared on directly....there are some layers of

> underwear.

> LOL

 

saying that it is not conceptual is conceptual.

 

" fact " itself is conceptual.

 

got to lose that shit.

 

then there's no under where for underwear to be worn.

 

..b b.b.

 

There is only the under...and its waves.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

geo

Nisargadatta

Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:04 PM

Re: Re: The human being

 

 

 

 

 

 

> > >

> > > Neither has any nature, as far as I can see, other than the nature of

> > > concept.

> > >

> > > geo> They are concepts (as their nature) conceived by different

> > > minds.

> >

> > The notion of " different minds " is also a concept.

> >

> > One cannot onceptualize themselves out of concept.

> >

> > Give up, let go of all of it.

> >

> > There's nothing else to do.

> >

> > geo> Dear tim, I dont need to let go of anything at all. I have already

> > mastigated, swllowed and digested this stuff some time ago.

>

> if there's still a " someone " who has " experienced " anything at all..

>

> if there is still a present " feeling " of having " suffered " ..

>

> if there is a single thought of " i am beyond all that " ..

>

> if it is believed that " stuff " has been 'digested " ...

>

> there is an incalculable vastness to be abolished.

>

> it paints the false world it boasts within.

>

> it doesn't want to lose it's audience.

>

> it fears the true Vastness.

>

> it is not other.

>

> ha ha ho ho!

>

> .b b.b.

>

> geo> Nah.... Just said that it is not conceptual at all. It is fact. The

> human robe is not weared on directly....there are some layers of

> underwear.

> LOL

 

saying that it is not conceptual is conceptual.

 

" fact " itself is conceptual.

 

got to lose that shit.

 

then there's no under where for underwear to be worn.

 

..b b.b.

 

There is only the under...and its waves.

....and before the obvious is stated, the under is not other.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> then there's no under where for underwear to be worn.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> There is only the under...and its waves.

> ...and before the obvious is stated, the under is not other.

> -geo-

 

Under-where? ;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> > > >

> > > > Neither has any nature, as far as I can see, other than the nature of

> > > > concept.

> > > >

> > > > geo> They are concepts (as their nature) conceived by different

> > > > minds.

> > >

> > > The notion of " different minds " is also a concept.

> > >

> > > One cannot onceptualize themselves out of concept.

> > >

> > > Give up, let go of all of it.

> > >

> > > There's nothing else to do.

> > >

> > > geo> Dear tim, I dont need to let go of anything at all. I have already

> > > mastigated, swllowed and digested this stuff some time ago.

> >

> > if there's still a " someone " who has " experienced " anything at all..

> >

> > if there is still a present " feeling " of having " suffered " ..

> >

> > if there is a single thought of " i am beyond all that " ..

> >

> > if it is believed that " stuff " has been 'digested " ...

> >

> > there is an incalculable vastness to be abolished.

> >

> > it paints the false world it boasts within.

> >

> > it doesn't want to lose it's audience.

> >

> > it fears the true Vastness.

> >

> > it is not other.

> >

> > ha ha ho ho!

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> > geo> Nah.... Just said that it is not conceptual at all. It is fact. The

> > human robe is not weared on directly....there are some layers of

> > underwear.

> > LOL

>

> saying that it is not conceptual is conceptual.

>

> " fact " itself is conceptual.

>

> got to lose that shit.

>

> then there's no under where for underwear to be worn.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> There is only the under...and its waves.

> -geo-

 

 

as long as they stay being waves in the wave/particle duality.

 

particular particles in underwear are unbearable nuisances.

 

or at the very least a seeming nuance of a nuisance.

 

and who wants to go about picking at the back of their pants...

 

whilst participating in a past pluperfect performance program?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:12 PM

Re: The human being

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> then there's no under where for underwear to be worn.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> There is only the under...and its waves.

> ...and before the obvious is stated, the under is not other.

> -geo-

 

Under-where? ;-).

 

geo> Yes...where else?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

>

> > > Please be serious and do no longer offer me such stale shit.

> >

> > I'm going to offer what I like. You're going to take it, if you

> > believe you and I exist. And that's final.

>

> The opposite is true also -- You're going to offer what you like, and I'm

going to take it if there's a belief here in " you and me " .

>

> Such are the rules of falsehood. They don't change. It's called " dependency "

and it means you need others, can't live without them, because a self is

considered to exist.

 

 

So what, Tim ?

 

That is the way we tick - yawn.

 

And all that Advaita babbling won't change it an Jota.

 

Why always declaring the self (ego) as an enemy ? The self is a survival tool.

Without it you quickly will end up in a mental asylum.

 

There is only what is and not what should be. And the self with all its

deficiencies is part of what is. By contemptfully turning your back at the self

you stop learning about it and you will become a hypocrite who just got stuck in

proud contempt.

 

And please again, don't offer me all that stale and boring non-dual rubbish - I

know all that stuff already.

 

Werner

 

 

 

 

>

> That's the way it is.

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> >

> > > > Please be serious and do no longer offer me such stale shit.

> > >

> > > I'm going to offer what I like. You're going to take it, if you

> > > believe you and I exist. And that's final.

> >

> > The opposite is true also -- You're going to offer what you like, and I'm

going to take it if there's a belief here in " you and me " .

> >

> > Such are the rules of falsehood. They don't change. It's called

" dependency " and it means you need others, can't live without them, because a

self is considered to exist.

>

>

> So what, Tim ?

>

> That is the way we tick - yawn.

>

> And all that Advaita babbling won't change it an Jota.

>

> Why always declaring the self (ego) as an enemy ? The self is a survival tool.

Without it you quickly will end up in a mental asylum.

>

> There is only what is and not what should be. And the self with all its

deficiencies is part of what is. By contemptfully turning your back at the self

you stop learning about it and you will become a hypocrite who just got stuck in

proud contempt.

>

> And please again, don't offer me all that stale and boring non-dual rubbish -

I know all that stuff already.

>

> Werner

 

 

 

 

 

and you won't change being a frightened ignoramus.

 

you don't know anything worthwhile wernie.

 

you're full to the brim with bullshit.

 

and you can't reply because you can't deny.

 

and that's the bottom line asshole.

 

that's the way it is.

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.