Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:44 PM Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:21 PM > Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > So there it is... Sense of ego may come and go. Or could it be that > it > > never > > left? > > -ego- > > Sure, it may come and go. It never was continuous. > > The thoughts/feelings of self (and other, too) come up at a certain > frequency. With some (mmm, wonder who? ;-), very often. Others, less > often. > Others, maybe never. > > In all cases, they're unnecessary. " The organism " takes care of itself as > always, without a single thought about " I " arising. > -tim- > Tim, tim...Do you know what ego means? It means " I " in greece. If you want to say I want water you say " ego want water " . Sense of ego IS the sense of " I " . You just convinced yourself that there is no " I " ....but the g goes on inside you as happey as ever. Maybe not always. Sense of ego is just this what you recognised happens here. There is the feeling of something to defend inside. -geo- Geo, if you want a " solid ground for dialogue " , don't start messages as though you're lecturing. It's egoic, LOL. -tim- I understand. Dont lecture me. I have an oriental name, I have a list where I have a reputation, I have invested quite a lot of enrgy in the conviction that I dont exist....so dont try to challenge that. THAT is ego. -egg- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 25/6/2009 12:48:21 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 - " geo " <inandor <Nisargadatta > Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:56 PM Re: Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:44 PM > Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: >> >> >> - >> Tim G. >> Nisargadatta >> Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:21 PM >> Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta >> >> >> >> >> >> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > So there it is... Sense of ego may come and go. Or could it be that > >> > it >> > never >> > left? >> > -ego- >> >> Sure, it may come and go. It never was continuous. >> >> The thoughts/feelings of self (and other, too) come up at a certain >> frequency. With some (mmm, wonder who? ;-), very often. Others, less >> often. >> Others, maybe never. >> >> In all cases, they're unnecessary. " The organism " takes care of itself as >> always, without a single thought about " I " arising. >> -tim- >> > Tim, tim...Do you know what ego means? It means " I " in greece. If you want > to say I want water you say " ego want water " . > Sense of ego IS the sense of " I " . You just convinced yourself that there > is > no " I " ....but the g goes on inside you as happey as ever. > Maybe not always. Sense of ego is just this what you recognised happens > here. There is the feeling of something to defend inside. > -geo- > > Geo, if you want a " solid ground for dialogue " , don't start messages as > though you're lecturing. It's egoic, LOL. > -tim- > > I understand. Dont lecture me. I have an oriental name, I have a list > where I have a reputation, I have invested quite a lot of enrgy in the > conviction that I dont exist....so dont try to challenge that. THAT is > ego. I know it. I go through the same thing over and over...HERE (before you get started) > -egg- > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 > Tested on: 25/6/2009 12:48:21 > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Of course it is unescessary, of course the organism takes care of itself -as > you say - but the thing is that understanding doesnt seem to be suficiently > deep or something like that..... > -geo- It will be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:14 PM Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Of course it is unescessary, of course the organism takes care of > itself -as > you say - but the thing is that understanding doesnt seem to be > suficiently > deep or something like that..... > -geo- It will be. geo> I dont know wether you mean " geo, be confident..it will all be well " , or you are seeing the fact that a " kind of hope " resulant of insight gives one the certainty that insight will be there... avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 25/6/2009 13:17:11 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Of course it is unescessary, of course the organism takes care of itself -as > > you say - but the thing is that understanding doesnt seem to be suficiently > > deep or something like that..... > > -geo- > > It will be. " will be " ??????????????????????? All is NOW. ROFLMAO! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Tim, tim...Do you know what ego means? > > > > Geo, if you want a " solid ground for dialogue " , don't start messages as > > though you're lecturing. It's egoic, LOL. > > -tim- > > > > THAT...THAT...that is sense of ego. " I know...dont lecture me. " > > Whenever something really touches the point....you delete it and refuse to > > look. Invariably. > > -geo- > > Discussion over. it never was a discussion from the first. it didn't start..it can't be " over " . ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:14 PM > > Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Of course it is unescessary, of course the organism takes care of > > > itself -as > > > you say - but the thing is that understanding doesnt seem to be > > > suficiently > > > deep or something like that..... > > > -geo- > > > > It will be. > > > > geo> I dont know wether you mean " geo, be confident..it will all be well " , > > or you are seeing the fact that a " kind of hope " resulant of insight gives > > one the certainty that insight will be there... > > I see that you're interested, somewhat 'serious' about looking into all this deeper. That's enough, from here... whatever is running the show (a wordless, supra-mental nothingness) will carry things the rest of the way, as it always has. you're both too fucking serious. you really believe this hocus-pocus! time for lunch and some fucking rock and roll. take it easy kids. it's ok. life is life and it's not any of that phony bullshit. neither are either of you..or me..or them. what you see is what you get. why obsess over some bullshit or other about " deeper meaning " . what crap! there is nothing going to come of it. you and i are going to die and that's it. Poof! or..do you think it's not good enough for you? LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:26 PM Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:14 PM > Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Of course it is unescessary, of course the organism takes care of > > itself -as > > you say - but the thing is that understanding doesnt seem to be > > suficiently > > deep or something like that..... > > -geo- > > It will be. > > geo> I dont know wether you mean " geo, be confident..it will all be well " , > or you are seeing the fact that a " kind of hope " resulant of insight gives > one the certainty that insight will be there... I see that you're interested, somewhat 'serious' about looking into all this deeper. That's enough, from here... whatever is running the show (a wordless, supra-mental nothingness) will carry things the rest of the way, as it always has. -tim- Sorry tim....you are still saying " I know and you dont, whatever is running the show has carried me already to the rest of the way " . Dont be fooled...we are not different. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 25/6/2009 13:34:13 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:26 PM > Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:14 PM > > Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Of course it is unescessary, of course the organism takes care of > > > itself -as > > > you say - but the thing is that understanding doesnt seem to be > > > suficiently > > > deep or something like that..... > > > -geo- > > > > It will be. > > > > geo> I dont know wether you mean " geo, be confident..it will all be well " , > > or you are seeing the fact that a " kind of hope " resulant of insight gives > > one the certainty that insight will be there... > > I see that you're interested, somewhat 'serious' about looking into all this > deeper. That's enough, from here... whatever is running the show (a > wordless, supra-mental nothingness) will carry things the rest of the way, > as it always has. > -tim- > > Sorry tim....you are still saying " I know and you dont, whatever is running > the show has carried me already to the rest of the way " . Dont be fooled...we > are not different. > -geo- geo we are all fools. foolishness and being fooled are not mutually exclusive. it's like yelling at a dog to not bark.. and expecting it to understand what the fuck you're about... as you bark at it. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:45 PM Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:26 PM > Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:14 PM > > Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Of course it is unescessary, of course the organism takes care of > > > itself -as > > > you say - but the thing is that understanding doesnt seem to be > > > suficiently > > > deep or something like that..... > > > -geo- > > > > It will be. > > > > geo> I dont know wether you mean " geo, be confident..it will all be > > well " , > > or you are seeing the fact that a " kind of hope " resulant of insight > > gives > > one the certainty that insight will be there... > > I see that you're interested, somewhat 'serious' about looking into all > this > deeper. That's enough, from here... whatever is running the show (a > wordless, supra-mental nothingness) will carry things the rest of the way, > as it always has. > -tim- > > Sorry tim....you are still saying " I know and you dont, whatever is > running > the show has carried me already to the rest of the way " . Dont be > fooled...we > are not different. > -geo- geo we are all fools. foolishness and being fooled are not mutually exclusive. it's like yelling at a dog to not bark.. and expecting it to understand what the fuck you're about... as you bark at it. ..b b.b. (bark bark bark) Of course. Here in the list we have masters bbbji, geoji, timji, danji, etc..each in his own way claiming not be lecturing but doing it -grr- __ Messages in this topic (37) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Change settings via the Web ( ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Terms of Use | Un Recent Activity 1New Members Visit Your Group Give Back for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > Tim, tim...Do you know what ego means? It means " I " in greece. If you want > to say I want water you say " ego want water " . > Sense of ego IS the sense of " I " . You just convinced yourself that there is > no " I " ....but the g goes on inside you as happey as ever. > Maybe not always. Sense of ego is just this what you recognised happens > here. There is the feeling of something to defend inside. > -geo- > Yes, ego means " I " or " I am " as Nisargadatta put it. Good to just get down to the basics. The " I " is the center looking out and seeing everything pointing back at me. The " I " is an interpretation: the interpretation of sense stimuli in terms of what can i get, what will that do for me, is that good for me, bad from me, to i want it, want to get away from it. The " I " is basic. The nonverbal feelings, wanting, striving, fearing that are involved in " I " are earlier in development than the " self-image " or the conceptual center in the brain (that is called the " executive function. " ). The " I " isn't something that will be gotten rid of. Trying to get rid of " I " is a losing proposition, because only an " I " would conceive of getting rid of " I. " And yet you find countless religious and spiritual programs designed to decrease the " I " or get rid of the " I " or honor someone who supposedly is " beyond ego. " All absurd, yet not to those who " believe. " All such programs do is reinforce " I " as a really existing center that needs to be dealt with in some way. The " I " is not gotten rid of. The " I " is seen through. It is seen through by not taking it on its own terms (as the center). Seeing through I, does not mean perception stops, or anything stops. Seeing through I is the understanding that what is (awareness) does not require an I, or the I, or a center. Awareness is not the property of an I. The I tries to claim awareness because it arises as the attempt to have a center, and therefore awareness is wanted to be at that center, in order to judge the world in terms of what " it " can do for " me. " So, the " I " is seen through, seen for the basic interpretation format (for thought and memory) that it is. Simply by being as is, being the awareness that actually is. That never has had an " I " center. Seeing through " I " does not get rid of anything. Yet, everything is different, simply because it is as it is. The heaviness of an I-centered reality is not here, even if " I " appears. " I " is understood as an appearance that disappears. " I " is not the rock-solid center. There is no claim on awareness by any center anywhere. Awareness has never been held, grasped, or placed. And this is so now, here. Not because of words or thoughts about it. Not because of the idea or label " awareness. " But simply as it is. -- D -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:14 PM > Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Of course it is unescessary, of course the organism takes care of > > itself -as > > you say - but the thing is that understanding doesnt seem to be > > suficiently > > deep or something like that..... > > -geo- > > It will be. > > geo> I dont know wether you mean " geo, be confident..it will all be well " , > or you are seeing the fact that a " kind of hope " resulant of insight gives > one the certainty that insight will be there... " It will be " is a projection to an imaged future. " It is so " is direct. Not projected. It is. This is. It will be as it now is. -- D -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Of course. Here in the list we have masters bbbji, geoji, timji, danji, > etc..each in his own way claiming not be lecturing but doing it > -grr- if your words speak to me, i respond. vice versa. i put out ideas. i enjoy the process and interaction. that's all. if it comes across as a lecture - so be it. that in and of itself is neither good or bad. just how it was received and interpreted. anything received and interpreted involves memory. yet we attempt to speak of this, which is not constructed by memory. where does one's energy go? does it stay here, with and as what is? or does it attempt involvement with memory programs? moving into a located position in memory programs just leads to more and more contradictions within and between memory programs. i observe the programming operate. but i am not what i am observing (not a memory-generated image). this is not to say that awareness is separated from what is observed. it is to say that the " I " generated by the program, and all of the images generated by the program, are not the actuality of the awareness that is. the programming is arising of/through/by awareness. but the awareness isn't located in it. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Thursday, June 25, 2009 3:26 PM Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > Tim, tim...Do you know what ego means? It means " I " in greece. If you want > to say I want water you say " ego want water " . > Sense of ego IS the sense of " I " . You just convinced yourself that there > is > no " I " ....but the g goes on inside you as happey as ever. > Maybe not always. Sense of ego is just this what you recognised happens > here. There is the feeling of something to defend inside. > -geo- > Yes, ego means " I " or " I am " as Nisargadatta put it. Good to just get down to the basics. The " I " is the center looking out and seeing everything pointing back at me. The " I " is an interpretation: the interpretation of sense stimuli in terms of what can i get, what will that do for me, is that good for me, bad from me, to i want it, want to get away from it. The " I " is basic. The nonverbal feelings, wanting, striving, fearing that are involved in " I " are earlier in development than the " self-image " or the conceptual center in the brain (that is called the " executive function. " ). The " I " isn't something that will be gotten rid of. Trying to get rid of " I " is a losing proposition, because only an " I " would conceive of getting rid of " I. " And yet you find countless religious and spiritual programs designed to decrease the " I " or get rid of the " I " or honor someone who supposedly is " beyond ego. " All absurd, yet not to those who " believe. " All such programs do is reinforce " I " as a really existing center that needs to be dealt with in some way. The " I " is not gotten rid of. The " I " is seen through. It is seen through by not taking it on its own terms (as the center). Seeing through I, does not mean perception stops, or anything stops. Seeing through I is the understanding that what is (awareness) does not require an I, or the I, or a center. Awareness is not the property of an I. The I tries to claim awareness because it arises as the attempt to have a center, and therefore awareness is wanted to be at that center, in order to judge the world in terms of what " it " can do for " me. " So, the " I " is seen through, seen for the basic interpretation format (for thought and memory) that it is. Simply by being as is, being the awareness that actually is. That never has had an " I " center. Seeing through " I " does not get rid of anything. Yet, everything is different, simply because it is as it is. The heaviness of an I-centered reality is not here, even if " I " appears. " I " is understood as an appearance that disappears. " I " is not the rock-solid center. There is no claim on awareness by any center anywhere. Awareness has never been held, grasped, or placed. And this is so now, here. Not because of words or thoughts about it. Not because of the idea or label " awareness. " But simply as it is. -- D -- I is a conceptual observer - nonexistent in fact. There is no such thing as getting rid of somethng that does not exist. It is the " sense " of a spot inside that is able to observe and consequently not observable. When all there is is light no darkness is as obsrver. Either light or darkness. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:14 PM > > Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Of course it is unescessary, of course the organism takes care of > > > itself -as > > > you say - but the thing is that understanding doesnt seem to be > > > suficiently > > > deep or something like that..... > > > -geo- > > > > It will be. > > > > geo> I dont know wether you mean " geo, be confident..it will all be well " , > > or you are seeing the fact that a " kind of hope " resulant of insight gives > > one the certainty that insight will be there... > > " It will be " is a projection to an imaged future. Yes, that's so. And also, " my words are meant to be taken in context, when they were sent, to the poster they were sent to " , blah blah (ring any bells? ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > I understand. Dont lecture me. I have an oriental name, I have a list where > I have a reputation, I have invested quite a lot of enrgy in the conviction > that I dont exist....so dont try to challenge that. THAT is ego. > -egg- Cool... hey, I would love to join your list if you'd like to join mine. But only if there's no plan on being bossy and playing guru (and vice versa). I want to be able to talk freely, and probably you do too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Sorry tim....you are still saying " I know and you dont, whatever is running > the show has carried me already to the rest of the way " . Dont be fooled...we > are not different. > -geo- Not only are we not different, we are each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > I is a conceptual observer - nonexistent in fact. There is no such thing as > getting rid of somethng that does not exist. It is the " sense " of a spot > inside that is able to observe and consequently not observable. When all > there is is light no darkness is as obsrver. Either light or darkness. > -geo- There is no inside of anything - except conceptually. Only concepts have insides and outsides. What is actual, is not a concept. Thus, it has no center. What is conceptual has a center. If one conceptualizes self as an organism, there is an outside and inside to the organism, and some kind of assumed center of it - a coherence, if you will. If one conceptualizes self as making decisions, there is an inside and outside implied in the decision-making. The inside center for decision-making is called " I. " To understand that there is no " I " is to understand that there is no volition. So, in the sense you are talking about this as either/or, person A may have no sense of volitionality (to anything) and thus, no attempt to " keep " a center as a decision-maker. This is also true of " knowing " as well as " deciding. " So, if person A has no sense of being the knower (of anything), no attempt to keep an I-center (as knower). You may say person B is attempting an I-center, attempting and believing in his or her volitionality and existing as a knower of things, and experiencer. However, if you are person A, you will see person B as nonvolitional and not-a-knower. Regardless of whether person B is attempting an I-center. You will understand that attempt as nonvolitional and person B as a constructed object being known - not a knower. For you, as you, knowing is not located. Please follow this, now, because it ends the either/or scenario: As person A, you are neither person A nor person B. You have no center in either person A or B, you are not-a-concept. So, therefore, truly you are not in either person A or person B. For you, there is now no sense of " for me. " This is not a conceptuality, not an attempt, and is now understood as never having had anything at all to do with anything occurring inside person A or as person A or done by person A. There truly is no special identification in or as any person, or as anything else that would be something other than a person. Truly, this is timeless, nonlocal awareness. Never has been or could be a person's property or an organism's property in any way whatsoever. You may say " Dan is saying this. " But if you are person A, you are not a person, and you are not attributing anything Dan says to anything inside Dan, or any state Dan is in, or anything like that. It is highly paradoxical, that you are person A to the world, but you are not and have never been person A. I would not say " you have never been person A to yourself, " because there isn't any self involved, to have not been person A to. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > I is a conceptual observer - nonexistent in fact. There is no such thing as > > getting rid of somethng that does not exist. It is the " sense " of a spot > > inside that is able to observe and consequently not observable. When all > > there is is light no darkness is as obsrver. Either light or darkness. > > -geo- > > There is no inside of anything - except conceptually. > > Only concepts have insides and outsides. > > What is actual, is not a concept. > > Thus, it has no center. > > What is conceptual has a center. One could say that the center is everywhere, if that makes sense to someone. The " whole thing " is now the center, with nothing outside it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > But if you are person A, you are not a person, and you are not attributing anything Dan says to anything inside Dan, or any state Dan is in, or anything like that. > > It is highly paradoxical, that you are person A to the world, but you > are not and have never been person A. Highly interesting, although I wouldn't necessarily say paradoxical. " Nonperson A " is an " other " to the world of selves -- a " you " . The world has " excluded " nonperson A (and in fact, one another). Nonperson A has " included " the world. Quite a strange situation ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > But if you are person A, you are not a person, and you are not attributing anything Dan says to anything inside Dan, or any state Dan is in, or anything like that. > > > > It is highly paradoxical, that you are person A to the world, but you > are not and have never been person A. > > Highly interesting, although I wouldn't necessarily say paradoxical. > > " Nonperson A " is an " other " to the world of selves -- a " you " . > > The world has " excluded " nonperson A (and in fact, one another). > > Nonperson A has " included " the world. > > Quite a strange situation ;-). It's interesting to note that the " you " constitutes " everyone else " to everyone. A thing that is " other, to all " , isn't there. And if the " you " isn't there, neither is the " me " . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 26, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:34 PM Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > I is a conceptual observer - nonexistent in fact. There is no such thing > as > getting rid of somethng that does not exist. It is the " sense " of a spot > inside that is able to observe and consequently not observable. When all > there is is light no darkness is as obsrver. Either light or darkness. > -geo- There is no inside of anything - except conceptually. Only concepts have insides and outsides. What is actual, is not a concept. Thus, it has no center. What is conceptual has a center. If one conceptualizes self as an organism, there is an outside and inside to the organism, and some kind of assumed center of it - a coherence, if you will. If one conceptualizes self as making decisions, there is an inside and outside implied in the decision-making. The inside center for decision-making is called " I. " To understand that there is no " I " is to understand that there is no volition. So, in the sense you are talking about this as either/or, person A may have no sense of volitionality (to anything) and thus, no attempt to " keep " a center as a decision-maker. This is also true of " knowing " as well as " deciding. " So, if person A has no sense of being the knower (of anything), no attempt to keep an I-center (as knower). You may say person B is attempting an I-center, attempting and believing in his or her volitionality and existing as a knower of things, and experiencer. However, if you are person A, you will see person B as nonvolitional and not-a-knower. geo> A is subject to the laws of infinity, B is subject to the laws of animal- instinct-consciousness. Although obviously animal- instinct-consciousness is not separate from infinity A and B are subject to different laws -ultimately both have no volitionality. Regardless of whether person B is attempting an I-center. You will understand that attempt as nonvolitional and person B as a constructed object being known - not a knower. For you, as you, knowing is not located. Please follow this, now, because it ends the either/or scenario: As person A, you are neither person A nor person B. You have no center in either person A or B, you are not-a-concept. So, therefore, truly you are not in either person A or person B. For you, there is now no sense of " for me. " This is not a conceptuality, not an attempt, and is now understood as never having had anything at all to do with anything occurring inside person A or as person A or done by person A. There truly is no special identification in or as any person, or as anything else that would be something other than a person. Truly, this is timeless, nonlocal awareness. Never has been or could be a person's property or an organism's property in any way whatsoever. You may say " Dan is saying this. " But if you are person A, you are not a person, and you are not attributing anything Dan says to anything inside Dan, or any state Dan is in, or anything like that. geo> Dan may obey the laws of infinity or the laws of consciousness, and A sees that. That is all. It is highly paradoxical, that you are person A to the world, but you are not and have never been person A. I would not say " you have never been person A to yourself, " because there isn't any self involved, to have not been person A to. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 26, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:39 PM Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > I is a conceptual observer - nonexistent in fact. There is no such thing > > as > > getting rid of somethng that does not exist. It is the " sense " of a spot > > inside that is able to observe and consequently not observable. When all > > there is is light no darkness is as obsrver. Either light or darkness. > > -geo- > > There is no inside of anything - except conceptually. > > Only concepts have insides and outsides. > > What is actual, is not a concept. > > Thus, it has no center. > > What is conceptual has a center. One could say that the center is everywhere, if that makes sense to someone. The " whole thing " is now the center, with nothing outside it. -tim- I would agree to that -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > I is a conceptual observer - nonexistent in fact. There is no such thing as > > getting rid of somethng that does not exist. It is the " sense " of a spot > > inside that is able to observe and consequently not observable. When all > > there is is light no darkness is as obsrver. Either light or darkness. > > -geo- > > There is no inside of anything - except conceptually. > > Only concepts have insides and outsides. > > What is actual, is not a concept. > > Thus, it has no center. > > What is conceptual has a center. > > If one conceptualizes self as an organism, there is an outside and inside to the organism, and some kind of assumed center of it - a coherence, if you will. > > If one conceptualizes self as making decisions, there is an inside and outside implied in the decision-making. The inside center for decision-making is called " I. " > > To understand that there is no " I " is to understand that there is no volition. > > So, in the sense you are talking about this as either/or, person A may have no sense of volitionality (to anything) and thus, no attempt to " keep " a center as a decision-maker. > > This is also true of " knowing " as well as " deciding. " > > So, if person A has no sense of being the knower (of anything), no attempt to keep an I-center (as knower). > > You may say person B is attempting an I-center, attempting and believing in his or her volitionality and existing as a knower of things, and experiencer. > > However, if you are person A, you will see person B as nonvolitional and not-a-knower. > > Regardless of whether person B is attempting an I-center. > > You will understand that attempt as nonvolitional and person B as a constructed object being known - not a knower. > > For you, as you, knowing is not located. > > Please follow this, now, because it ends the either/or scenario: > > As person A, you are neither person A nor person B. > > You have no center in either person A or B, you are not-a-concept. > > So, therefore, truly you are not in either person A or person B. > > For you, there is now no sense of " for me. " > > This is not a conceptuality, not an attempt, and is now understood as never having had anything at all to do with anything occurring inside person A or as person A or done by person A. > > There truly is no special identification in or as any person, or as anything else that would be something other than a person. > > Truly, this is timeless, nonlocal awareness. > > Never has been or could be a person's property or an organism's property in any way whatsoever. > > You may say " Dan is saying this. " > > But if you are person A, you are not a person, and you are not attributing anything Dan says to anything inside Dan, or any state Dan is in, or anything like that. > > It is highly paradoxical, that you are person A to the world, but you are not and have never been person A. > > I would not say " you have never been person A to yourself, " because there isn't any self involved, to have not been person A to. > > - D - ah christ! it's almost inevitable.. while the cat's away the mouse starts playing. and here again the cat sees the bullshit mouse squeaking about... droning on with that mousy bullshit. again and again. now he wants to graph out his crapola. ROFLMAO! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:39 PM > Re: Two quotes from Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > I is a conceptual observer - nonexistent in fact. There is no such thing > > > as > > > getting rid of somethng that does not exist. It is the " sense " of a spot > > > inside that is able to observe and consequently not observable. When all > > > there is is light no darkness is as obsrver. Either light or darkness. > > > -geo- > > > > There is no inside of anything - except conceptually. > > > > Only concepts have insides and outsides. > > > > What is actual, is not a concept. > > > > Thus, it has no center. > > > > What is conceptual has a center. > > One could say that the center is everywhere, if that makes sense to someone. > > The " whole thing " is now the center, with nothing outside it. > -tim- > > I would agree to that > -geo- an Imprimatur. how immature. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
