Question to bbb

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > bitch bitch bitch...

> >

> > cry and whine and complain.

>

> Quit bitching about bitching.

 

 

you're trying to be a bitch.

 

but honey..

 

i wasn't bitching.

 

i was pointing out a fact.

 

don't try and tell me what or what not to do.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > d: i agree. that's all it is. and the personality being referred to or

labeled, isn't there. so, if that's understood, why put out words that refer to

that personality and characterize that person (who supposedly isn't being seen

as having a reality)?

> >

> > as you've pointed out, the world shows a great deal of hurt inflicted in the

service of what you have been calling " the inner entity " or what I might call

something like " the investment in maintaining a separate self-sense. " so, it's

surprising to see personalizing words of condescension used on a list devoted to

seeing through the imagined (the " inner psychological entity " ). i tend to

associate that kind of speech with actions that i have seen occur that result in

hurt, such as associated with the maintenance of separate self-sense, or what

you have called " ego " or " inner psychological entity " or " disease. "

> >

>

> Quite a paradox, eh? " There is no I, and *I* know more about it than *you*

do! " (chuckling)...

>

> " Let's give 'em something to talk about " - Bonnie Raitt

 

a self-contradiction, rather than a paradox.

 

" there is no I, no you, and nothing is happening, so therefore I can do what I

want. "

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > bitch bitch bitch...

> > >

> > > cry and whine and complain.

> >

> > Quit bitching about bitching.

>

>

> you're trying to be a bitch.

>

> but honey..

>

> i wasn't bitching.

>

> i was pointing out a fact.

>

> don't try and tell me what or what not to do.

>

> .b b.b.

 

Try re-reading what was said above, this way:

 

> i'm trying to be a bitch.

>

> but honey..

>

> you weren't bitching.

>

> you were pointing out a fact.

>

> don't try and tell you what or what not to do.

>

> .t t.t.

 

Interesting how all the " confusion " departs the scene...

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:56 PM

Re: Question to bbb

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> ...does this mean i am a saint who has no reactivity? no, i'm not claiming

> that. in terms of being a person, i have faults like any other person. but

> the person is a label in a world that labels, and the world is formed by

> labels (concepts) of the person.

> -dan-

>

> This is the point I was adressing when you said that I was figgurin it all

> out (hipocrisy and the rest....). That is the way usually happens with

> stuff that really should matter with us. We escape. This is not personal.

> A person is ONLY just a label for onlookers, never

> for us ourselves.

 

If there is no " us, ourselves " , there are no 'onlookers'.

-tim-

 

You are imagining, lie-ing., pure hipocrisy

What are you doing in a list? Masturbating? Writing posts, waiting for them

to came back, and reading them yourself and enjoing the act?

Ignorance generating lies - as is the norm. Impersonal norm for the case.

-ego-

 

Nobody is 'looking at you', Geo. Nobody has ever seen you. You have never

seen anyone else. This is a fact.

-tim-

 

You can not stay in such " position " for more then an instant, becasue you

must breathe - it is the turning of the pendulum, but you are trying to cary

the bag of that conviction and the result is this.

-ego-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> You are imagining, lie-ing., pure hipocrisy

> What are you doing in a list? Masturbating? Writing posts, waiting > for them

> to came back, and reading them yourself and enjoing the act?

 

Yes, that's more or less the case.

 

 

> Ignorance generating lies - as is the norm. Impersonal norm for the > case.

> -ego-

 

So much hostility. What's being protected/defended here?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > d: i agree. that's all it is. and the personality being referred to or

labeled, isn't there. so, if that's understood, why put out words that refer to

that personality and characterize that person (who supposedly isn't being seen

as having a reality)?

> > >

> > > as you've pointed out, the world shows a great deal of hurt inflicted in

the service of what you have been calling " the inner entity " or what I might

call something like " the investment in maintaining a separate self-sense. " so,

it's surprising to see personalizing words of condescension used on a list

devoted to seeing through the imagined (the " inner psychological entity " ). i

tend to associate that kind of speech with actions that i have seen occur that

result in hurt, such as associated with the maintenance of separate self-sense,

or what you have called " ego " or " inner psychological entity " or " disease. "

> > >

> >

> > Quite a paradox, eh? " There is no I, and *I* know more about it than *you*

do! " (chuckling)...

> >

> > " Let's give 'em something to talk about " - Bonnie Raitt

>

> a self-contradiction, rather than a paradox.

 

Thanks, indeed a better word 'choice'.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> if there is no self..

>

> how the hell can there be " self-contradiction " ?

 

The fact that a word or action is self-contradictory does not suggest a self.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> > Interesting how all the " confusion " departs the scene...

>

>

> that's not interesting.

>

> that's just an uncreative copy-cat piece of shit.

 

OK, well maybe this is interesting: Given all the pieces of shit posted around

here, it's interesting how roberibus continues to eat them.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > if there is no self..

> >

> > how the hell can there be " self-contradiction " ?

>

> The fact that a word or action is self-contradictory does not suggest a self.

 

 

oh????

 

pray tell then..

 

what does it suggest?

 

why use the term if it suggests nothing realting to " self " .

 

you are behind the clouds.

 

and you are beginning to sound as asinine as your pal.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

....does this mean i am a saint who has no reactivity? no, i'm not claiming

> that. in terms of being a person, i have faults like any other person. but

> the person is a label in a world that labels, and the world is formed by

> labels (concepts) of the person.

> -dan-

>

> This is the point I was adressing when you said that I was figgurin it all

> out (hipocrisy and the rest....). That is the way usually happens with

> stuff that really should matter with us. We escape. This is not personal.

> A person is ONLY just a label for onlookers, never for us ourselves. If we

> react like a person it is because there was some kind of a contraction and

> the consequent fragmentation. I am looking at myself. I can never react

> like a person who feels ofended..or anything else, without the imagined

> dark spot. The dark spot of observation. One CAN NOT see that dark spot -

> but our reactions betray us. I dont know what you make of this.....so i

> will stop.

> -geo-

 

what i make of it is that it's good stuff.

 

also this:

 

i am looking at the contraction, so to speak, at the fragementation.

 

it is not " my " contraction, or someone else's, there is not a possessor of

it. the contraction, fragmentation, is the attempt to possess, the attempt

to have a location from which to possess.

 

what is looking is not fragmentable.

 

i am not looking from the contraction, or within the contraction.

 

the contraction is the result of memory, of experience, and is memory, is

the past.

 

what is looking, is not the past.

 

labels, word meanings, are the past.

 

- d -

 

That is not the way it happens! When the contraction happens there is

blindness. We are unable to see it!. There is light or no light at all.

There is no dimed light in this issue, only courage to see. What happens is

that right after the contraction, when there is the remembering of it we

say: oh...I wasnt really in darkness BECAUSE light is always here - but that

is already in the conceptual field....the looking that is not from the past

is conceptual at that time....then maybe some time later we wake up. All

this talk of nobady here, there..is the same thing: it has been seen some

time before...probably will be sen later...but most of the time is just a

kind of wannabe.

-ego-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > > Interesting how all the " confusion " departs the scene...

> >

> >

> > that's not interesting.

> >

> > that's just an uncreative copy-cat piece of shit.

>

> OK, well maybe this is interesting: Given all the pieces of shit posted around

here, it's interesting how roberibus continues to eat them.

 

 

 

no..

 

i point that shit out.

 

you eat it.

 

and tell your boyfriend how sweet it is as you eat his fecal posts.

 

ain't love grand!

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> > OK, well maybe this is interesting: Given all the pieces of shit posted

around here, it's interesting how roberibus continues to eat them.

>

>

>

> no..

>

> i point that shit out.

>

> you eat it.

>

> and tell your boyfriend how sweet it is as you eat his fecal posts.

>

> ain't love grand!

>

> LOL!

>

> .b b.b.

 

Love between two thought-entities, both 'here', is actually quite silly ;-).

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:27 PM

Re: Question to bbb

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> >

> > d: i agree. that's all it is. and the personality being referred to or

> > labeled, isn't there. so, if that's understood, why put out words that

> > refer to that personality and characterize that person (who supposedly

> > isn't being seen as having a reality)?

> >

> > as you've pointed out, the world shows a great deal of hurt inflicted in

> > the service of what you have been calling " the inner entity " or what I

> > might call something like " the investment in maintaining a separate

> > self-sense. " so, it's surprising to see personalizing words of

> > condescension used on a list devoted to seeing through the imagined (the

> > " inner psychological entity " ). i tend to associate that kind of speech

> > with actions that i have seen occur that result in hurt, such as

> > associated with the maintenance of separate self-sense, or what you have

> > called " ego " or " inner psychological entity " or " disease. "

> >

>

> Quite a paradox, eh? " There is no I, and *I* know more about it than *you*

> do! " (chuckling)...

>

> " Let's give 'em something to talk about " - Bonnie Raitt

 

a self-contradiction, rather than a paradox.

 

" there is no I, no you, and nothing is happening, so therefore I can do what

I want. "

 

- d -

 

I was going to say something but I am not sure wethere you are being satiric

or serious...up to what point.. There is people in this fucking world.

Perhaps not as " before " but sorrow is real.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> no..

>

> i point that shit out.

>

> you eat it.

 

Exactly... just as stated above. I point that shit out, you eat it.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> I was going to say something but I am not sure wethere you are being satiric

> or serious...up to what point.. There is people in this fucking world.

> Perhaps not as " before " but sorrow is real.

> -geo-

 

Yes. Your sorrow, which is the only sorrow there is.

 

You refuse to see that others are yourself, and you are them.

 

Your sorrow brings sorrow to their doorstep.

 

Stop it.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > > OK, well maybe this is interesting: Given all the pieces of shit posted

around here, it's interesting how roberibus continues to eat them.

> >

> >

> >

> > no..

> >

> > i point that shit out.

> >

> > you eat it.

> >

> > and tell your boyfriend how sweet it is as you eat his fecal posts.

> >

> > ain't love grand!

> >

> > LOL!

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> Love between two thought-entities, both 'here', is actually quite silly ;-).

 

 

 

you're breaking dan's heart.

 

you're cracking me up.

 

you're making a laughing stock out of Tim.

 

thanks silly.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

> oh shit kid..

>

> you can call this wonder anything you like.

>

> it doesn't matter and has no effect.

>

> and..i don't call myself Bob.

>

> but what the hell that's me not you.

 

The contradiction above isn't obvious? First saying " I don't call myself Bob " ,

then saying " that's me (not you)? "

 

Is there anything around right now but a solid mass of conflict, contradiction

and confusion?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > no..

> >

> > i point that shit out.

> >

> > you eat it.

>

> Exactly... just as stated above. I point that shit out, you eat it.

 

 

timmy..

 

grow up.

 

this is like pin the tail on the donkey.

 

you're fucked up kid.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > no..

> > >

> > > i point that shit out.

> > >

> > > you eat it.

> >

> > Exactly... just as stated above. I point that shit out, you eat it.

>

>

> timmy..

>

> grow up.

 

Good suggestion. Now, if only applied to the right imaginary entity... but

that's hoping for too much.

 

> this is like pin the tail on the donkey.

>

> you're fucked up kid.

 

Indeed. I am. I'm a mess.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > oh shit kid..

> > >

> > > you can call this wonder anything you like.

> > >

> > > it doesn't matter and has no effect.

> > >

> > > and..i don't call myself Bob.

> > >

> > > but what the hell that's me not you.

> >

> > The contradiction above isn't obvious? First saying " I don't call myself

Bob " , then saying " that's me (not you)? "

>

>

> i didn't say that's Bob not you.

>

> what the hell is wrong with you?

 

Confusion, obviously. Almost dizziness. About to fall out the computer chair.

Trying so hard to be a separate entity, I'm almost dying.

[Guest guest]

> You are imagining, lie-ing., pure hipocrisy

> What are you doing in a list? Masturbating? Writing posts, waiting > for

> them

> to came back, and reading them yourself and enjoing the act?

 

Yes, that's more or less the case.

 

> Ignorance generating lies - as is the norm. Impersonal norm for the >

> case.

> -ego-

 

So much hostility. What's being protected/defended here?

-tim-

 

Not a tinge of hostility here. What you are interpreting as hostility is a

certain discomfort about being shaken to awaken. We are lazy. You want

convictions to carry as a bag because you think that is safer and you may

sit back and relax. Also you are discomfortable with the idea that you are

upset with the words that you think you are writing to yourself - so there

is conflict. We must wake up many times...many times....times...time..time.

Dont fool yourself.

-ego-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > no..

> > > >

> > > > i point that shit out.

> > > >

> > > > you eat it.

> > >

> > > Exactly... just as stated above. I point that shit out, you eat it.

> >

> >

> > timmy..

> >

> > grow up.

>

> Good suggestion. Now, if only applied to the right imaginary entity... but

that's hoping for too much.

>

> > this is like pin the tail on the donkey.

> >

> > you're fucked up kid.

>

> Indeed. I am. I'm a mess.

 

 

yes you are.

 

how does anything apply to an imaginary entity?

 

i think you're trying to display imaginary wisdom.

 

it fails miserably.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> d: i agree. that's all it is. and the personality being referred to or

> labeled, isn't there. so, if that's understood, why put out words that refer

> to that personality and characterize that person (who supposedly isn't being

> seen as having a reality)?

>

> geo> First I want to say that I said " just words in the net " as a reaction, a

joke, not meaning it in fact.

> What is there, behind the words? Either no-person, or a person INDEED! The

sequence of words shows that there is a person there somewhere! It may be mixed

with more or less imagination but there is. Or none - but then there is complete

agreement and the two organisms feel that agreement as the isness. Sounds stupid

and vain I know.

 

you are basing this awareness in the organism, i am not.

 

it is not something the organism sees or knows.

 

it is how the organism is known as such, but it is how everything that is known

as anything, is known.

 

it is indivisible.

 

it is not something the organism gets or knows.

 

 

> as you've pointed out, the world shows a great deal of hurt inflicted in the

> service of what you have been calling " the inner entity " or what I might

> call something like " the investment in maintaining a separate self-sense. "

>

> geo> So it has a certain importance doesn it? I can hardly bear hearing ideas

that there is nobady here there and everywhere. There is suffering and hurt in

the world, there are persons, and there are persons behind the lines that you

read. All ideas in the contrary are...sorry..hipocrisy.

> ==

 

or a misunderstanding of what is being said.

 

it isn't only that none of this can be determined to exist. it is equally that

none of this can be determined to not exist.

 

in other words, it is not affirmed as having an existence, and it is not negated

as not having any existence.

 

therefore, it is simply understood as what is.

 

the suffering and the hurt, much of it, are the result of belief.

 

not the result of persons, but the result of belief in having an existence as

persons, separated entities, in other words.

 

> so, it's surprising to see personalizing words of condescension used on a

> list devoted to seeing through the imagined (the " inner psychological

> entity " ). i tend to associate that kind of speech with actions that i have

> seen occur that result in hurt, such as associated with the maintenance of

> separate self-sense, or what you have called " ego " or " inner psychological

> entity " or " disease. "

> -dan-

>

> So we are dealing with persons and not just imagination. I was referring to

this problem when talking about rithm. If you dont see it right now doesnt mean

I am inventing it. Either we are all and love or we are nothing and are wise.

This movement is part of what is. Maybe one can see it maybe not...but that will

not change the fact. This movement is interpreted in one way by persons and

" felt " in another way by wholeness. Not conceptual.....but maybe just new to

some..I dont know.

 

one is dealing with beliefs that affirm and negate.

 

and one understands as what is. there isn't any attaching to a belief, either

positive or negative, either in favor of existing or against existing, nor in

favor of nonexistence or against it.

 

in terms of living: not affirming self as existing through living, not negating

that one exists, not needing to have existence or attention, not looking to end

existence or looking not to be noticed.

 

if belief isn't there, it isn't noticed as a lack of anything, nor is anything

(such as pain, hurt, or suffering) negated.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:46 PM

Re: Question to bbb

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111

wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > if there is no self..

> > >

> > > how the hell can there be " self-contradiction " ?

> >

> > The fact that a word or action is self-contradictory does not suggest a

> > self.

>

>

> oh????

>

> pray tell then..

>

> what does it suggest?

 

The words " self " and " contradiction " , used in a particular way.

 

But then, you take yourself to be the word " Bob " , so... words can be pretty

dangerous, I guess ;-).

-tim tim-

 

words can be pretty dangerous, I guess ;-). (???) Your own words that you

say that only you have writen all over the list?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

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

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > no..

> > > > >

> > > > > i point that shit out.

> > > > >

> > > > > you eat it.

> > > >

> > > > Exactly... just as stated above. I point that shit out, you eat it.

> > >

> > >

> > > timmy..

> > >

> > > grow up.

> >

> > Good suggestion. Now, if only applied to the right imaginary entity... but

that's hoping for too much.

> >

> > > this is like pin the tail on the donkey.

> > >

> > > you're fucked up kid.

> >

> > Indeed. I am. I'm a mess.

>

>

> yes you are.

>

> how does anything apply to an imaginary entity?

 

The imaginary entity *is* the mess.

 

I am that mess.

 

I need to look at it, take a good, hard look.

 

> i think you're trying to display imaginary wisdom.

>

> it fails miserably.

 

Yes, it does. Miserably.