Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > So what, Tim ? > > > > That is the way we tick - yawn. > > > > And all that Advaita babbling won't change it an Jota. > > Then stop reading it. > > > And please again, don't offer me all that stale and boring non-dual > rubbish - I know all that stuff already. > > Then stop reading it. > > Duh. i don't think werner can read. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > So what, Tim ? > > > > > > That is the way we tick - yawn. > > > > > > And all that Advaita babbling won't change it an Jota. > > > > Then stop reading it. > > > > > And please again, don't offer me all that stale and boring non-dual > rubbish - I know all that stuff already. > > > > Then stop reading it. > > > > Duh. > > > i don't think werner can read. > > .b b.b. In a way - everybody can write, nobody can read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > So what, Tim ? > > > > That is the way we tick - yawn. Oh, and I would add... it would do very well to look into " how we tick " instead of yawning at it. I thought that's what this advaita stuff was all about, not about reading dull, boring abstract concepts. Even Ramana said so... it's about self-inquiry. But it's boring... yawn. When it isn't boring anymore, drop me an Email and say hi. Until then, shut the f*ck up, as Bob said ;-). Quit yer bitching and either read the messages or turn the computer off. Too obvious for words. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:17 PM Re: The human being Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > 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- not other than what? ..b b.b. The same -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 > > > > > > - > > 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. The saying must use concepts - but that is unavoidable. Just as " saying that it is not conceptual is conceptual. " -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > So what, Tim ? > > > > > > That is the way we tick - yawn. > > Oh, and I would add... it would do very well to look into " how we tick " instead of yawning at it. > > I thought that's what this advaita stuff was all about, not about reading dull, boring abstract concepts. Even Ramana said so... it's about self-inquiry. Self-inquiry is a myth, Tim. It won't work. Because who is the inquirer and second what is there to inquire ? The self or one's psychological structure is not a fix and stable thing to watch and to inquire into. It is dynamically changing from moment to moment. You cannot put it in a box or a cage and say from now on I will inquire it. The inquirer IS the inquired. They are not two. Werner > > But it's boring... yawn. > > When it isn't boring anymore, drop me an Email and say hi. > > Until then, shut the f*ck up, as Bob said ;-). Quit yer bitching and either read the messages or turn the computer off. Too obvious for words. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > Self-inquiry is a myth, Tim. It won't work. > > Because who is the inquirer and second what is there to inquire ? Idiot... stop with the concepts and try it. Stupid!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:17 PM > Re: The human being > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > 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- > > not other than what? > > .b b.b. > > The same > -geo- if there is a same and an other.. and that other is the same.. like your brother Daryl and your other brother Daryl.. your blowing bad weed bud. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 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. > > The saying must use concepts - but that is unavoidable. > Just as " saying that it is not conceptual is conceptual. " > -geo- saying either IS avoidable. just don't say either. don't say both. don't say neither. don't say neither nor nor either or. go bare ass free. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > So what, Tim ? > > > > > > > > That is the way we tick - yawn. > > > > Oh, and I would add... it would do very well to look into " how we tick " instead of yawning at it. > > > > I thought that's what this advaita stuff was all about, not about reading dull, boring abstract concepts. Even Ramana said so... it's about self-inquiry. > > > Self-inquiry is a myth, Tim. It won't work. > > Because who is the inquirer and second what is there to inquire ? The self or one's psychological structure is not a fix and stable thing to watch and to inquire into. It is dynamically changing from moment to moment. You cannot put it in a box or a cage and say from now on I will inquire it. > > The inquirer IS the inquired. They are not two. > > Werner and that shit won't work either wiener. who is saying what you say? what is it you are making an attempt at saying? you are boxed in. i know you'll be grateful for the reminder. we are not two. except you are a loser. ..b b.b. > > > > > But it's boring... yawn. > > > > When it isn't boring anymore, drop me an Email and say hi. > > > > Until then, shut the f*ck up, as Bob said ;-). Quit yer bitching and either read the messages or turn the computer off. Too obvious for words. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Self-inquiry is a myth, Tim. It won't work. > > > > Because who is the inquirer and second what is there to inquire ? > > Idiot... stop with the concepts and try it. Stupid!!! Actually, I don't think you're stupid. Fear stands in your way, that's all. The 'inquirer' is awareness, and it just happens when it's going to happen. When you can no longer " take it " . Nisargadatta: " The urge to find oneself is a sign that you are getting ready. The impulse always comes from within. Unless your time has come, you will have neither the desire nor the strength to go for self-enquiry whole-heartedly. " Now that you know the obvious, you know why all the concepts, why all the boredom, why nothing ever changes. Now SIT ON IT ;-). Enjoy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:57 PM Re: The human being Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:17 PM > Re: The human being > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > 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- > > not other than what? > > .b b.b. > > The same > -geo- if there is a same and an other.. and that other is the same.. like your brother Daryl and your other brother Daryl.. your blowing bad weed bud. ..b b.b. Right...you will have to invent a new language to describe precisely how molecules of this consciousness are made up by atoms of awareness, an awareness that is no other then this and are not atoms at all either. Now... this drop of the ocean is all there is but it is just a drop so it is not all of it. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:57 PM > Re: The human being > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:17 PM > > Re: The human being > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > 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- > > > > not other than what? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > The same > > -geo- > > if there is a same and an other.. > > and that other is the same.. > > like your brother Daryl and your other brother Daryl.. > > your blowing bad weed bud. > > .b b.b. > > Right...you will have to invent a new language to describe precisely how > molecules of this consciousness are made up by atoms of awareness, an > awareness that is no other then this and are not atoms at all either. Now... > this drop of the ocean is all there is but it is just a drop so it is not > all of it. > -geo- yeah man you said it. ..b b.b. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Saturday, June 13, 2009 2:06 PM > Re: The human being > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> 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 " . > > Imagines continuity where there is none. > > And is scared spitless of its essential emptiness. > > geo> I am better then you: I am beyond life. Unborn. I lose. ;-) - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Yes, this stuff is interesting. There is no point that a " present experience " becomes " memory. " There is no point that a " memory " is retreived and becomes " an actual present experience. " All of this is relative, and verified in a circular manner. Memory validates and defines what is present which validates memory. The observer is memory, not a processor of memory that exists in the present. What is truly " present " is not the present that is between the past and the future. - D - Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > If it's conceptualized.... it's concept. Ha...that is very clever. > > -geo- > > Perception is of the nature of memory/thought as well. > > I tried an experiment yesterday... looking at my hand, then shutting my eyes very quickly and looking for any " after-image " . > > Not only was there one, but it persists for a full half-second. > > What you see when you " see " something is memory. > > I also tried moving my hand toward and away from my face, then shutting my eyes. > > In the after-image, I " saw " my hand come much closer to my face than it actually did. > > What we " see " is a pattern of prediction. > > Our own memory. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Yes, this stuff is interesting. > > There is no point that a " present experience " becomes " memory. " > > There is no point that a " memory " is retreived and becomes " an actual present experience. " > > All of this is relative, and verified in a circular manner. Memory validates and defines what is present which validates memory. > > The observer is memory, not a processor of memory that exists in the present. > > What is truly " present " is not the present that is between the past > and the future. > > - D - Yes, awareness is 'defocused'... time exists 'within' it, all at once. Impossible to put into words, tho. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Sunday, June 14, 2009 7:06 AM Re: The human being Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Yes, this stuff is interesting. > > There is no point that a " present experience " becomes " memory. " > > There is no point that a " memory " is retreived and becomes " an actual > present experience. " > > All of this is relative, and verified in a circular manner. Memory > validates and defines what is present which validates memory. > > The observer is memory, not a processor of memory that exists in the > present. > > What is truly " present " is not the present that is between the past > and > the future. > > - D - Yes, awareness is 'defocused'... time exists 'within' it, all at once. Impossible to put into words, tho. geo> Time and timelessness- side by side Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Yes, this stuff is interesting. > > > > There is no point that a " present experience " becomes " memory. " > > > > There is no point that a " memory " is retreived and becomes " an actual present experience. " > > > > All of this is relative, and verified in a circular manner. Memory validates and defines what is present which validates memory. > > > > The observer is memory, not a processor of memory that exists in the present. > > > > What is truly " present " is not the present that is between the past > and the future. > > > > - D - > > Yes, awareness is 'defocused'... time exists 'within' it, all at once. Impossible to put into words, tho. True. We communicate about what can't be stated verbally: one's awareness. And why not? It is as it is. All communication about anything is putting awareness into words, location, form. Which can't be done. We communicate to point out that what can't be done, what hasn't really occurred. Or something like that. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
