Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > bob, there's nothing wrong with self-esteem. > > it doesn't mean there's an actual self anywhere. > > it's just a positive feeling about being, expressed through a human. Yes... " self-esteem " is not self-esteem. A self-image cannot be esteemed. Or if it is, it's poor self-esteem, in the usual way the term " self-esteem " is used. > i'd rate you as having at least 50% of a decent insight. > > now, if i can just help you to get that other 50%, what a great > understanding that will be! Which 50% of whom is helping the other 50%? LOL! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > bob, there's nothing wrong with self-esteem. > > > > it doesn't mean there's an actual self anywhere. > > > > it's just a positive feeling about being, expressed through a human. > > Yes... " self-esteem " is not self-esteem. > > A self-image cannot be esteemed. > > Or if it is, it's poor self-esteem, in the usual way the term " self-esteem " is used. > > > i'd rate you as having at least 50% of a decent insight. > > > > now, if i can just help you to get that other 50%, what a great > > understanding that will be! > > Which 50% of whom is helping the other 50%? LOL! i don't know for sure. which one is jeckle and which one is hyde? or is it heckle? or is that jackal? let me sleep on it and get back to you in the morning. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > Which 50% of whom is helping the other 50%? LOL! > > i don't know for sure. > > which one is jeckle and which one is hyde? My mother used to call the 'cup' under one's knees " jeckles " . So, I guess the jeckle is jeckle, and the knee is hyde. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:15 PM Re: ? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > You whole idea of being alone is in theory. No. One is alone. Which does not exclude hanging out with folks, of course. -tim- All-one if there is not the carrying the belief of being so - then yes. Only then. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:15 PM > Re: ? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > You whole idea of being alone is in theory. > > No. One is alone. Which does not exclude hanging out with folks, of course. > -tim- > > All-one if there is not the carrying the belief of being so - then yes. Only > then. > -geo- No. One is alone anyway. That's the hell of it, eh? ;-). Might as well be this aloneness. There's no choice whatsoever in the matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 that's more than i can say for a lot of these nondual lists, that are pretty much dead, and those that contribute have almost zero insight into anything.i'd rate you as having at least 50% of a decent insight.now, if i can just help you to get that other 50%, what a great understanding that will be!may the great turtle heap peace upon thy head,- d - This not clear. So... you are iterpreting wether another has insight? Is that possible? I think that it is possible...but when I said that, there was not agreement. Is it posible to recognise when there is a person behind the writen words? To recognise conceptual thinking? I think it is. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > This not clear. So... you are iterpreting wether another has insight? You're interpreting whether another has insight, yes, by asking them the above question. > Is that possible? No. All insight is or is not 'yours'. It is 'present here', or is not, regardless of words read on a screen. If 'someone else' appears to have insight, that is your own insight. > I think that it is possible.. Well, an " I " certainly would ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:13 AM Re: ? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:15 PM > Re: ? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > You whole idea of being alone is in theory. > > No. One is alone. Which does not exclude hanging out with folks, of > course. > -tim- > > All-one if there is not the carrying the belief of being so - then yes. > Only > then. > -geo- No. One is alone anyway. That's the hell of it, eh? ;-). Might as well be this aloneness. There's no choice whatsoever in the matter. -tim- If it is a belief then this al-one-ness is not being realized but believed. The result may be lonelyness. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > If it is a belief then this al-one-ness is not being realized but believed. > The result may be lonelyness. > -geo- Loneliness comes from avoiding aloneness. One wants to escape it. That's all it is. So simple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:05 AM Re: ? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > This not clear. So... you are iterpreting wether another has insight? You're interpreting whether another has insight, yes, by asking them the above question. > Is that possible? No. All insight is or is not 'yours'. It is 'present here', or is not, regardless of words read on a screen. If 'someone else' appears to have insight, that is your own insight. > I think that it is possible.. Well, an " I " certainly would ;-). -tim- This out of context, tim. I was questioning dan about him saying that bbb has or not insight, or people in lists (his words). But....for example...if I read teh words " I believe in the ground " ....well.....I know the writer has no insight. In other words he is being conceptual. No need for an I here to see that. Quite the opposite. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Well, an " I " certainly would ;-). > -tim- > > This out of context, tim. I am the context, not the text. > I was questioning dan about him saying that bbb > has or not insight, or people in lists (his words). Questioning Dan is questioning yourself. Seriously. Honest. > But....for example...if I read teh words " I believe in the > ground " ....well.....I know the writer has no insight. Because Geo doesn't " feel " insight when reading those words. If Geo " feels " insight, the belief is that the " other " has insight. But it was always/only Geo's insight. > In other words he is > being conceptual. No, you are 'feeling conceptual' when reading the words. > No need for an I here to see that. Quite the opposite. > -geo- If ya say so. It's your game, God. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:22 AM Re: ? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > If it is a belief then this al-one-ness is not being realized but > believed. > The result may be lonelyness. > -geo- Loneliness comes from avoiding aloneness. One wants to escape it. That's all it is. So simple. -tim- It is simple. Completly simple. Belefs are a way of avoiding aloness - then you have loneliness. Simple. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > It is simple. Completly simple. Belefs are a way of avoiding aloness - then > you have loneliness. Simple. > -geo- There is no such thing as an ongoing belief. There can be an ongoing attempt to hold a belief. All such attempts are doomed to failure, as the number of priests who eventually 'drop out' suggests. Trying to hold a belief takes a lot of effort. Effort that one identifies, without even knowing it to be so, with " myself " . You are the effort to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 > But....for example...if I read teh words " I believe in the > ground " ....well.....I know the writer has no insight. -geo- Because Geo doesn't " feel " insight when reading those words. If Geo " feels " insight, the belief is that the " other " has insight. But it was always/only Geo's insight. -tim- If I am reading and having insight I am able to identify words as being conceptual - then there is no belief for geo. If geo is not having insight he is not able to discern anything correctly. The same with tim (the tim of my world). -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > If I am reading and having insight I am able to identify words as > being > conceptual - then there is no belief for geo. Is one even aware of oneself while reading? Or is one's mind all " out there " with others, imagining to feel their feelings and think their thoughts? > If geo is not having insight he is not able to discern anything > correctly. When projecting " others " , " oneself " is out of touch (thus, a sense of relief from oneself). When projecting " oneself " , " others " are out of touch (thus, loneliness). See how this works? The only " solution " is to stop investing in the game. Allow the whole kit 'n kaboodle to drop away. Now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:57 AM Re: ? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > If I am reading and having insight I am able to identify words as > being > conceptual - then there is no belief for geo. Is one even aware of oneself while reading? Or is one's mind all " out there " with others, imagining to feel their feelings and think their thoughts? > If geo is not having insight he is not able to discern anything > correctly. When projecting " others " , " oneself " is out of touch (thus, a sense of relief from oneself). When projecting " oneself " , " others " are out of touch (thus, loneliness). See how this works? The only " solution " is to stop investing in the game. Allow the whole kit 'n kaboodle to drop away. Now. -tim- If that is what you (in my world) feel that should do...then you (in my world) do it. Here there is no projecting others out of my world. All otheres are in my world. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Re: ? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > If that is what you (in my world) feel that should do...then you (in > my > world) do it. No... by speaking to Tim as though he's separate (he can feel he should do something, etc), one still imagines something outside one's own world. > Here there is no projecting others out of my world. All > otheres are in my world. > -geo- By imagining oneself as a body, one gets the wrong impression. Geo's body is in Geo's world. Tim's body is in Geo's world. When it's clear that the body and world are in Geo, rather than Geo being in them, all is clear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Re: ? > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > If that is what you (in my world) feel that should do...then you (in > my > > world) do it. > > No... by speaking to Tim as though he's separate (he can feel he should do something, etc), one still imagines something outside one's own world. > > > Here there is no projecting others out of my world. All > > otheres are in my world. > > -geo- > > By imagining oneself as a body, one gets the wrong impression. > > Geo's body is in Geo's world. > > Tim's body is in Geo's world. > > When it's clear that the body and world are in Geo, rather than Geo > being in them, all is clear. Was it a 'big boom', or just some temporary dizziness? ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 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 , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nor would any entity that can be named know, bobby. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor is there any named entity that can be addressed... Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL! :-). > > > > > > > > > > didn't stop you, did it, Tim? > > > > > > > > > > > > oh you girls are just ever so cute! > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > thanks honey. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > money is all the thanks i'll understand. > > > > fuck your good intentions.. > > > > they're worthless. > > > > .b b.b. > > funny. > > ain't that the truth ... > > - d - yes it is. i am astonished that this first of the little truths.. has made it through that hammerhead. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > funny. > > > > ain't that the truth ... > > > > - d - > > > yes it is. > > i am astonished that this first of the little truths.. > > has made it through that hammerhead. > > .b b.b. The 'hammerhead' is imaginary, and so is he. The imaginer is that which is imagined. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > i say you " think " you're doing something. > > > > > > > > i say neither the thought nor that which is thought about is real. > > > > > > neither is the thought real that neither the thought nor that which is thought about is real. > > > > > > ad infinitum. > > > > > > ad nauseum. > > > > > > ommmmmmmmmmmmm........ > > > > > > > > > > there is delusion. > > > > > > thought labeling thought delusion, is delusion. > > > > > > > if there weren't we would have told you. > > > > > > > > you are that delusion. > > > > > > > > we have thus told you. > > > > > > > > you are unable to understand. > > > > > > > > this is understandable. > > > > > > i don't need to understand. > > > > > > this is laughable. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > i agree. > > > > that posting of yours that you end with " this is laughable. " .. > > > > is just that. > > > > and who talked about " needing " to understand? > > > > you don't need to understand. > > > > you don't. > > > > that's what i said. > > > > fuck need. > > > > you're too needy of " self " esteem. > > > > .b b.b. > > bob, there's nothing wrong with self-esteem. > > it doesn't mean there's an actual self anywhere. BULLSHIT! > > it's just a positive feeling about being, expressed through a human. > > nothing wrong with that. and WHO has that " feeling " DANNY? > > negative self-esteem leads to lots of crap. you've taken yourself to that shit heap. > > if everyone in the world had positive self-esteem, it wouldn't be a bad thing. " everyone " ???? c'mon! how many? you try and suck and blow at the same time. you're a phony. > kids would be raised in healthy ways more often, which is far from the case now. you would know. > but, be that as it may, if you feel that attempts to undermine self-esteem are going to get rid of selves that don't exist, have at it, old chap. you obsess over what selves that don't exist think or say? you're deluded. your words convict and confuse you. from all of your contradictory statements.. it must be assumed that you don't know what you're talking about. you just MUST go on mustn't you? you're a slave to your nonexistent self and it's pride. no matter how stupid it sounds you just go on and on. a twisted and tormented Energizer bunny.. which believes He Is Risen as the Easter Bunny... bringing treats and enlightenment to His children. get fucking real. > at least you speak your mind. it would appear you have little of that to speak of. > > that's more than i can say for a lot of these nondual lists, that are pretty much dead, and those that contribute have almost zero insight into anything. you spend all your time trolling lists? you know all about them too huh? fuck you ARE a wonder danny. i think one has to wonder about guys like you. > i'd rate you as having at least 50% of a decent insight. it's an all or nothing proposition dummy. you can't be a " little bit " enlightened. you like parts and levels. you'll never " get " what means " One " . > now, if i can just help you to get that other 50%, what a great understanding that will be! you can't help anyone. no one can help you. you are so stuck on yourself it's laughable. you are " EnDarkened " sport. you believe it's all about Danny and his gifts. ROFLMAO! > may the great turtle heap peace upon thy head, > > - d - may you get a life. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > that's more than i can say for a lot of these nondual lists, that are pretty much dead, and those that contribute have almost zero insight into anything. > > i'd rate you as having at least 50% of a decent insight. > > now, if i can just help you to get that other 50%, what a great understanding that will be! > > may the great turtle heap peace upon thy head, > > - d - > > This not clear. So... you are iterpreting wether another has insight? Is that possible? I think that it is possible...but when I said that, there was not agreement. > Is it posible to recognise when there is a person behind the writen words? To recognise conceptual thinking? I think it is. > -geo- dan thinks he's the " bottom " turtle. of all the turtles standing on each others shells. he's dumb. we all know that the turtles on top of turtles.. which are the supports of the earth ball.. go all the way down. there is no bottom. though i do think danny is going to bottom out himself. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 24, 2009 4:15 AM Re: ? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > If that is what you (in my world) feel that should do...then you (in > my > world) do it. No... by speaking to Tim as though he's separate (he can feel he should do something, etc), one still imagines something outside one's own world. > Here there is no projecting others out of my world. All > otheres are in my world. > -geo- By imagining oneself as a body, one gets the wrong impression. Geo's body is in Geo's world. Geo's world is NOT in Geo's body. When this is clear, it's clear that Geo's body is in Geo's world, and Tim's body is in Geo's world. Geo's world depends on Geo being in a body, which is in an objective world. When the body and world are in Geo, rather than Geo being in them, all is clear. -tim- That is funny....but lets look at it. The body and the world are one. Geo is nothing but a word in the world, not apart. I am the world or I am nothing. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 24, 2009 4:39 AM Re: ? Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Re: ? > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > If that is what you (in my world) feel that should do...then you (in > > > my > > world) do it. > > No... by speaking to Tim as though he's separate (he can feel he should do > something, etc), one still imagines something outside one's own world. > > > Here there is no projecting others out of my world. All > > otheres are in my world. > > -geo- > > By imagining oneself as a body, one gets the wrong impression. > > Geo's body is in Geo's world. > > Tim's body is in Geo's world. > > When it's clear that the body and world are in Geo, rather than Geo > > being in them, all is clear. Was it a 'big boom', or just some temporary dizziness? ;-). -tim- No problem..I hope you are feeling better :>)) -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Was it a 'big boom', or just some temporary dizziness? ;-). > -tim- > > No problem..I hope you are feeling better :>)) > -geo- I hope you're feeling better, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
