Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:57 PM Re: Truth Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:20 PM > Re: Truth > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:10 PM > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " michelleedge20 " > > > <michelleedge20@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word communication has its root in the Latin 'communicare' > > > > > > > which > means 'to care together'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we caring together like humans or are we just like > > > > > > > computers > > > > > > > responding in a very limited way ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Both, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > To care about others (not-care about oneself) is mechanical. To > > > > > > reject others (care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > What isn't mechanical, need not and cannot be commented on. No > > > > > > self > > > > > > or others are involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mechanical topic is quite interesting, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > Is there an opposite to acting mechanical which is not mechanical > > > > > ? > > > > > What about intelligence ? Is intelligence mechanical or is it > > > > > independent and free ? > > > > > > > > > > But to call a human action as mechanical also implies that there > > > > > must > > > > > exist something which is not mechanical, else that word > > > > > 'mechanical' > > > > > would not exist. What about Love (with a capital 'L') ? > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > sounds as if we function according to our programming .if we are > > > > hard > > > > wired for happiness ,it s desire that may cause a malfunction. > > > > michellle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ARE the programming. > > > We are not programmed for happiness.....we are programmed to search > > > for > > > happiness. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > According to you, you would say whatever you are programmed to say. > > > > If you were programmed to say, " God exists, and Christians like me know > > it, " > > then that is what you would say. > > > > Anything said by anyone is equal, as it is all equally the result of > > programming, whatever that is supposed to mean. > > > > And who cares what it means? > > > > A programmed machine doesn't care about what the programming means. > > > > - d - > > > > A programmed machine cares about what the programming is programed for. > > He > > cares for some things couldnt care less for others. > > -geo- > > all you are saying is what you are programmed to say, according to you. > > i guess you are programmed to type on the internet. > > i guess you have a programmed response to whatever you see posted there. > > - d - > > Dont you see it?? It is so!!! We do nothing. If you decide it has been > decided,.... if you choose, it has been chosen... I thought this was clear > to you. > -ego- how can I see anything when according to you I am mechanical programming? you contradict yourself. there is nothing to be seen. there is no one to make it clear to. - d - No contradiction, no other to contradict or be contradicted. The seeing of the false is truth. Seeing the totality of the program is the no-program. Clearly. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:59 PM Re: Truth Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:17 PM > Re: Truth > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:14 PM > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > toombaru2006 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:47 PM > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " michelleedge20 " > > > <michelleedge20@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word communication has its root in the Latin 'communicare' > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > means 'to care together'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we caring together like humans or are we just like > > > > > > > computers > > > > > > > responding in a very limited way ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Both, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > To care about others (not-care about oneself) is mechanical. To > > > > > > reject > > > > > > others (care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > What isn't mechanical, need not and cannot be commented on. No > > > > > > self > > > > > > or > > > > > > others are involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mechanical topic is quite interesting, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > Is there an opposite to acting mechanical which is not mechanical > > > > > ? > > > > > What > > > > > about intelligence ? Is intelligence mechanical or is it > > > > > independent > > > > > and > > > > > free ? > > > > > > > > > > But to call a human action as mechanical also implies that there > > > > > must > > > > > exist something which is not mechanical, else that word > > > > > 'mechanical' > > > > > would not exist. What about Love (with a capital 'L') ? > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > sounds as if we function according to our programming .if we are > > > > hard > > > > wired for happiness ,it s desire that may cause a malfunction. > > > > michellle > > > > > > > > > > We ARE the programming. > > > We are not programmed for happiness.....we are programmed to search > > > for > > > happiness. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > First, we are the programing, then....we are programed....so there are > > > two > > > wes. I think I am a bit dizzy today... > > > -geo- > > > > Good. > > > > Because the programming metaphor breaks down. > > > > It is useless, in fact. > > > > It's one of those things - a metaphor that is only good up to a point. > > > > Then it dissolves. > > > > It dissolves as one understands that knowledge of things doesn't apply. > > > > - d - > > > > When you avoid being hit by a car, what is the you and wha tis the car? > > -geo- > > you don't need to ask this. > > - d - > > I dont understand...why? Because a car is one thing and your organism is > another and that contradicts what you where saying? > There is multiplicity as " this " . There is distinction as " this " . There is > a > whole human world as " this " . Trying to deny it is doubting the solidity of > the dreamed solid. Dont doubt. It can dream lots of things and no-things > and > all-things.... including suns and black wholes and.... > -geo- why? because it is a lot of extraneous thought, and putting energy into it makes little sense. if a car misses hitting me, i walk on. i'm not dwelling on what is me and what is the car, etc. no one is denying anything. perhaps you would like to believe so, so you can contend against another point of view. there aren't any points of view here to contend with, against, or for. - d - So there are no things but there are cars and Is that walk on... So your problem is with the sound of the word " thing " ? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:13 PM Re: Re: Truth - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:59 PM Re: Truth Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:17 PM > Re: Truth > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:14 PM > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > toombaru2006 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:47 PM > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " michelleedge20 " > > > <michelleedge20@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word communication has its root in the Latin 'communicare' > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > means 'to care together'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we caring together like humans or are we just like > > > > > > > computers > > > > > > > responding in a very limited way ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Both, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > To care about others (not-care about oneself) is mechanical. To > > > > > > reject > > > > > > others (care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > What isn't mechanical, need not and cannot be commented on. No > > > > > > self > > > > > > or > > > > > > others are involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mechanical topic is quite interesting, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > Is there an opposite to acting mechanical which is not mechanical > > > > > ? > > > > > What > > > > > about intelligence ? Is intelligence mechanical or is it > > > > > independent > > > > > and > > > > > free ? > > > > > > > > > > But to call a human action as mechanical also implies that there > > > > > must > > > > > exist something which is not mechanical, else that word > > > > > 'mechanical' > > > > > would not exist. What about Love (with a capital 'L') ? > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > sounds as if we function according to our programming .if we are > > > > hard > > > > wired for happiness ,it s desire that may cause a malfunction. > > > > michellle > > > > > > > > > > We ARE the programming. > > > We are not programmed for happiness.....we are programmed to search > > > for > > > happiness. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > First, we are the programing, then....we are programed....so there are > > > two > > > wes. I think I am a bit dizzy today... > > > -geo- > > > > Good. > > > > Because the programming metaphor breaks down. > > > > It is useless, in fact. > > > > It's one of those things - a metaphor that is only good up to a point. > > > > Then it dissolves. > > > > It dissolves as one understands that knowledge of things doesn't apply. > > > > - d - > > > > When you avoid being hit by a car, what is the you and wha tis the car? > > -geo- > > you don't need to ask this. > > - d - > > I dont understand...why? Because a car is one thing and your organism is > another and that contradicts what you where saying? > There is multiplicity as " this " . There is distinction as " this " . There is > a > whole human world as " this " . Trying to deny it is doubting the solidity of > the dreamed solid. Dont doubt. It can dream lots of things and no-things > and > all-things.... including suns and black wholes and.... > -geo- why? because it is a lot of extraneous thought, and putting energy into it makes little sense. if a car misses hitting me, i walk on. i'm not dwelling on what is me and what is the car, etc. no one is denying anything. perhaps you would like to believe so, so you can contend against another point of view. there aren't any points of view here to contend with, against, or for. - d - So there are no things but there are cars and Is that walk on... So your problem is with the sound of the word " thing " ? You are trying to conceive a kind of gaseus world, without objects, without things, without materiality... Instead... see the solidity, materiality, spaceousness, time-ness, of this world...then the seeing is it-ing. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 30, 2009 The seeing of the timebound, limited...is the timeless, unlimited. -egg- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:18 PM > Re: Truth > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:06 PM > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:23 PM > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:31 PM > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " michelleedge20 " > > > > > <michelleedge20@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word communication has its root in the Latin > > > > > > > > > 'communicare' > > > > > > > > > which > means 'to care together'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we caring together like humans or are we just like > > > > > > > > > computers > > > > > > > > > responding in a very limited way ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To care about others (not-care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > reject others (care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What isn't mechanical, need not and cannot be commented on. No > > > > > > > > self > > > > > > > > or others are involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mechanical topic is quite interesting, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there an opposite to acting mechanical which is not > > > > > > > mechanical > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > What about intelligence ? Is intelligence mechanical or is it > > > > > > > independent and free ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But to call a human action as mechanical also implies that there > > > > > > > must > > > > > > > exist something which is not mechanical, else that word > > > > > > > 'mechanical' > > > > > > > would not exist. What about Love (with a capital 'L') ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds as if we function according to our programming .if we are > > > > > > hard > > > > > > wired for happiness ,it s desire that may cause a malfunction. > > > > > > michellle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Michelle, > > > > > > > > > > this seems the most plausible. > > > > > > > > > > The whole Universe just a huge machine following eternal laws which > > > > > cannot > > > > > and never will change. > > > > > > > > > > All this talk about liberation and freedom just an escape. But > > > > > somehow > > > > > odd > > > > > that a mechanical creature wants to get free and liberated, isn't > > > > > that > > > > > strange ? > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Saying there is a mechanical creature is a pretense of knowledge. > > > > > > > > There is nothing to know. > > > > > > > > You can't step out of the present to know anything about it as an > > > > object. > > > > > > > > The past is not, and can't be known. > > > > > > > > The future is not, and can't be known. > > > > > > > > The knower is a fictional stringing together of memory images, > > > > imagined > > > > as > > > > forms being retained, as if forms could be retained, as if something > > > > of > > > > the > > > > past remained. > > > > > > > > The self or knower is just the imagined retention of what isn't held. > > > > > > > > No knower, nothing known, nothing to be known, no lack of knowledge. > > > > > > > > That's all. > > > > > > > > No mechanical creature, no authoritative stance to be taken. > > > > > > > > -- D -- > > > > > > > > The human animal is a mechanical criature. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Funny, but I don't see any things. > > > - d - > > > > > > What things that you dont see? > > > -geo- > > > > The ones you're referring to as mechanical creatures. > > - d - > > > > How can you understand anybody " referr " to things if there are no things? > > To > > what no-thing are they referring to? > > -geo- > > to a misunderstanding, in which a conceptual separation is treated as if > actual. > > - d - > > No separation at all. Empty patterning as things. > -geo- Not even. Just the words " empty patterning, " referring to nothing. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:43 PM > Re: Re: Truth - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:18 PM > Re: Truth > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:06 PM > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:23 PM > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:31 PM > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " michelleedge20 " > > > > > <michelleedge20@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word communication has its root in the Latin > > > > > > > > > 'communicare' > > > > > > > > > which > means 'to care together'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we caring together like humans or are we just like > > > > > > > > > computers > > > > > > > > > responding in a very limited way ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To care about others (not-care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > reject others (care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What isn't mechanical, need not and cannot be commented on. No > > > > > > > > self > > > > > > > > or others are involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mechanical topic is quite interesting, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there an opposite to acting mechanical which is not > > > > > > > mechanical > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > What about intelligence ? Is intelligence mechanical or is it > > > > > > > independent and free ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But to call a human action as mechanical also implies that there > > > > > > > must > > > > > > > exist something which is not mechanical, else that word > > > > > > > 'mechanical' > > > > > > > would not exist. What about Love (with a capital 'L') ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds as if we function according to our programming .if we are > > > > > > hard > > > > > > wired for happiness ,it s desire that may cause a malfunction. > > > > > > michellle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Michelle, > > > > > > > > > > this seems the most plausible. > > > > > > > > > > The whole Universe just a huge machine following eternal laws which > > > > > cannot > > > > > and never will change. > > > > > > > > > > All this talk about liberation and freedom just an escape. But > > > > > somehow > > > > > odd > > > > > that a mechanical creature wants to get free and liberated, isn't > > > > > that > > > > > strange ? > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Saying there is a mechanical creature is a pretense of knowledge. > > > > > > > > There is nothing to know. > > > > > > > > You can't step out of the present to know anything about it as an > > > > object. > > > > > > > > The past is not, and can't be known. > > > > > > > > The future is not, and can't be known. > > > > > > > > The knower is a fictional stringing together of memory images, > > > > imagined > > > > as > > > > forms being retained, as if forms could be retained, as if something > > > > of > > > > the > > > > past remained. > > > > > > > > The self or knower is just the imagined retention of what isn't held. > > > > > > > > No knower, nothing known, nothing to be known, no lack of knowledge. > > > > > > > > That's all. > > > > > > > > No mechanical creature, no authoritative stance to be taken. > > > > > > > > -- D -- > > > > > > > > The human animal is a mechanical criature. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Funny, but I don't see any things. > > > - d - > > > > > > What things that you dont see? > > > -geo- > > > > The ones you're referring to as mechanical creatures. > > - d - > > > > How can you understand anybody " referr " to things if there are no things? > > To > > what no-thing are they referring to? > > -geo- > > to a misunderstanding, in which a conceptual separation is treated as if > actual. > > - d - > > No separation at all. Empty patterning as things. > Empty patterning as the most solid steel > Empty patterning as watery water > Empty patterning as gaseous gas > Empty patterning as living organsims > Empty patterning as life and death. > -geo- The words " empty patterning " don't add anything. Neither do any of these words. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:55 PM > Re: Truth > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > geo> Not only organisms but the whole consciousness is a mechanical > > sphere. > > No doer, no seer....just a chain of reactions. Mechanical. A mechanical > > suit > > is being weared. > > == > > You must separate yourself from what you are observing to make this comment, > if it is to have any meaning. > > It is assumed that the speaker of the comment is not speaking mechanically, > and is able to observe a mechanical sphere that operates differently than > the observer of it, who is commenting about it. > > This division of the commentator from the commented upon, of the observer > from the observed, is a conceptual division that is not actual. > > No point in putting energy into it as if it were actual. > > Indeed, according to you, words offered by an organism such as geo are > mechanical, and therefore any comments you offer about it are mechanical. > > Thus, the commentary has no meaning to anyone, as there are just a bunch of > mechanically operating machines functioning, according to you, who also are > a machine, and whose speech is just programming like all the other machines, > according to your model. > > This model is a metaphor that has no use once one is at the point of > no-division awareness. > > - d - > > No model, no metaphor...no need for that nonesense. The seeing of the > machanicalness of the world, is nonmechanicalness. > -ego- undivided seeing doesn't require " mechanicalness " and " nonmechanicalness. " No complications, no " this " and " not-this. " Very simple. Too simple for words and ideas, in fact. And this is just an opinion. And so dissolves, unimportantly, ignominiously, with no tombstone to lay it to rest. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:57 PM > Re: Truth > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:20 PM > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:10 PM > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " michelleedge20 " > > > > <michelleedge20@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word communication has its root in the Latin 'communicare' > > > > > > > > which > means 'to care together'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we caring together like humans or are we just like > > > > > > > > computers > > > > > > > > responding in a very limited way ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To care about others (not-care about oneself) is mechanical. To > > > > > > > reject others (care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What isn't mechanical, need not and cannot be commented on. No > > > > > > > self > > > > > > > or others are involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mechanical topic is quite interesting, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there an opposite to acting mechanical which is not mechanical > > > > > > ? > > > > > > What about intelligence ? Is intelligence mechanical or is it > > > > > > independent and free ? > > > > > > > > > > > > But to call a human action as mechanical also implies that there > > > > > > must > > > > > > exist something which is not mechanical, else that word > > > > > > 'mechanical' > > > > > > would not exist. What about Love (with a capital 'L') ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > sounds as if we function according to our programming .if we are > > > > > hard > > > > > wired for happiness ,it s desire that may cause a malfunction. > > > > > michellle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ARE the programming. > > > > We are not programmed for happiness.....we are programmed to search > > > > for > > > > happiness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > According to you, you would say whatever you are programmed to say. > > > > > > If you were programmed to say, " God exists, and Christians like me know > > > it, " > > > then that is what you would say. > > > > > > Anything said by anyone is equal, as it is all equally the result of > > > programming, whatever that is supposed to mean. > > > > > > And who cares what it means? > > > > > > A programmed machine doesn't care about what the programming means. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > A programmed machine cares about what the programming is programed for. > > > He > > > cares for some things couldnt care less for others. > > > -geo- > > > > all you are saying is what you are programmed to say, according to you. > > > > i guess you are programmed to type on the internet. > > > > i guess you have a programmed response to whatever you see posted there. > > > > - d - > > > > Dont you see it?? It is so!!! We do nothing. If you decide it has been > > decided,.... if you choose, it has been chosen... I thought this was clear > > to you. > > -ego- > > how can I see anything when according to you I am mechanical programming? > > you contradict yourself. > > there is nothing to be seen. > > there is no one to make it clear to. > > - d - > > No contradiction, no other to contradict or be contradicted. The seeing of > the false is truth. Seeing the totality of the program is the no-program. > Clearly. > -geo- funny, but i don't see anything that needs to be seen. as there is no other, there is no " program " that needs to be understood. there is no outside place for a program to exist. there aren't any conceptualities needing energy, including the conceptuality of a " totality of the program. " let the dead bury their dead. seeing of the false is simply understanding that what isn't here, isn't here. there isn't anything more to it. it's truly undivided. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:59 PM > Re: Truth > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:17 PM > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:14 PM > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:47 PM > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " michelleedge20 " > > > > <michelleedge20@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word communication has its root in the Latin 'communicare' > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > means 'to care together'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we caring together like humans or are we just like > > > > > > > > computers > > > > > > > > responding in a very limited way ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To care about others (not-care about oneself) is mechanical. To > > > > > > > reject > > > > > > > others (care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What isn't mechanical, need not and cannot be commented on. No > > > > > > > self > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > others are involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mechanical topic is quite interesting, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there an opposite to acting mechanical which is not mechanical > > > > > > ? > > > > > > What > > > > > > about intelligence ? Is intelligence mechanical or is it > > > > > > independent > > > > > > and > > > > > > free ? > > > > > > > > > > > > But to call a human action as mechanical also implies that there > > > > > > must > > > > > > exist something which is not mechanical, else that word > > > > > > 'mechanical' > > > > > > would not exist. What about Love (with a capital 'L') ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > sounds as if we function according to our programming .if we are > > > > > hard > > > > > wired for happiness ,it s desire that may cause a malfunction. > > > > > michellle > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ARE the programming. > > > > We are not programmed for happiness.....we are programmed to search > > > > for > > > > happiness. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > First, we are the programing, then....we are programed....so there are > > > > two > > > > wes. I think I am a bit dizzy today... > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Good. > > > > > > Because the programming metaphor breaks down. > > > > > > It is useless, in fact. > > > > > > It's one of those things - a metaphor that is only good up to a point. > > > > > > Then it dissolves. > > > > > > It dissolves as one understands that knowledge of things doesn't apply. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > When you avoid being hit by a car, what is the you and wha tis the car? > > > -geo- > > > > you don't need to ask this. > > > > - d - > > > > I dont understand...why? Because a car is one thing and your organism is > > another and that contradicts what you where saying? > > There is multiplicity as " this " . There is distinction as " this " . There is > > a > > whole human world as " this " . Trying to deny it is doubting the solidity of > > the dreamed solid. Dont doubt. It can dream lots of things and no-things > > and > > all-things.... including suns and black wholes and.... > > -geo- > > why? because it is a lot of extraneous thought, and putting energy into it > makes little sense. > > if a car misses hitting me, i walk on. > > i'm not dwelling on what is me and what is the car, etc. > > no one is denying anything. > > perhaps you would like to believe so, so you can contend against another > point of view. > > there aren't any points of view here to contend with, against, or for. > > - d - > So there are no things but there are cars and Is that walk on... So your > problem is with the sound of the word " thing " ? > -geo- i don't have a problem. you previously said there isn't any me separately existing from you. are you trying to get someone who isn't you, to see something as a problem? you say there is no other separated from you. so, where is this " problem " supposed to reside? - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:22 PM Re: Truth Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:59 PM > Re: Truth > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:17 PM > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:14 PM > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:47 PM > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " michelleedge20 " > > > > <michelleedge20@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word communication has its root in the Latin > > > > > > > > 'communicare' > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > means 'to care together'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we caring together like humans or are we just like > > > > > > > > computers > > > > > > > > responding in a very limited way ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To care about others (not-care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > reject > > > > > > > others (care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What isn't mechanical, need not and cannot be commented on. No > > > > > > > self > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > others are involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mechanical topic is quite interesting, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there an opposite to acting mechanical which is not > > > > > > mechanical > > > > > > ? > > > > > > What > > > > > > about intelligence ? Is intelligence mechanical or is it > > > > > > independent > > > > > > and > > > > > > free ? > > > > > > > > > > > > But to call a human action as mechanical also implies that there > > > > > > must > > > > > > exist something which is not mechanical, else that word > > > > > > 'mechanical' > > > > > > would not exist. What about Love (with a capital 'L') ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > sounds as if we function according to our programming .if we are > > > > > hard > > > > > wired for happiness ,it s desire that may cause a malfunction. > > > > > michellle > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ARE the programming. > > > > We are not programmed for happiness.....we are programmed to search > > > > for > > > > happiness. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > First, we are the programing, then....we are programed....so there > > > > are > > > > two > > > > wes. I think I am a bit dizzy today... > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Good. > > > > > > Because the programming metaphor breaks down. > > > > > > It is useless, in fact. > > > > > > It's one of those things - a metaphor that is only good up to a point. > > > > > > Then it dissolves. > > > > > > It dissolves as one understands that knowledge of things doesn't > > > apply. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > When you avoid being hit by a car, what is the you and wha tis the > > > car? > > > -geo- > > > > you don't need to ask this. > > > > - d - > > > > I dont understand...why? Because a car is one thing and your organism is > > another and that contradicts what you where saying? > > There is multiplicity as " this " . There is distinction as " this " . There > > is > > a > > whole human world as " this " . Trying to deny it is doubting the solidity > > of > > the dreamed solid. Dont doubt. It can dream lots of things and no-things > > and > > all-things.... including suns and black wholes and.... > > -geo- > > why? because it is a lot of extraneous thought, and putting energy into it > makes little sense. > > if a car misses hitting me, i walk on. > > i'm not dwelling on what is me and what is the car, etc. > > no one is denying anything. > > perhaps you would like to believe so, so you can contend against another > point of view. > > there aren't any points of view here to contend with, against, or for. > > - d - > So there are no things but there are cars and Is that walk on... So your > problem is with the sound of the word " thing " ? > -geo- i don't have a problem. you previously said there isn't any me separately existing from you. are you trying to get someone who isn't you, to see something as a problem? you say there is no other separated from you. so, where is this " problem " supposed to reside? - d - OK, forget the problem, no problem. So there are no things but there are cars and Is that walk on? -ego- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:13 PM > Re: Re: Truth - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:59 PM > Re: Truth > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:17 PM > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:14 PM > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:47 PM > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " michelleedge20 " > > > > <michelleedge20@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word communication has its root in the Latin 'communicare' > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > means 'to care together'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we caring together like humans or are we just like > > > > > > > > computers > > > > > > > > responding in a very limited way ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To care about others (not-care about oneself) is mechanical. To > > > > > > > reject > > > > > > > others (care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What isn't mechanical, need not and cannot be commented on. No > > > > > > > self > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > others are involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mechanical topic is quite interesting, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there an opposite to acting mechanical which is not mechanical > > > > > > ? > > > > > > What > > > > > > about intelligence ? Is intelligence mechanical or is it > > > > > > independent > > > > > > and > > > > > > free ? > > > > > > > > > > > > But to call a human action as mechanical also implies that there > > > > > > must > > > > > > exist something which is not mechanical, else that word > > > > > > 'mechanical' > > > > > > would not exist. What about Love (with a capital 'L') ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > sounds as if we function according to our programming .if we are > > > > > hard > > > > > wired for happiness ,it s desire that may cause a malfunction. > > > > > michellle > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ARE the programming. > > > > We are not programmed for happiness.....we are programmed to search > > > > for > > > > happiness. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > First, we are the programing, then....we are programed....so there are > > > > two > > > > wes. I think I am a bit dizzy today... > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Good. > > > > > > Because the programming metaphor breaks down. > > > > > > It is useless, in fact. > > > > > > It's one of those things - a metaphor that is only good up to a point. > > > > > > Then it dissolves. > > > > > > It dissolves as one understands that knowledge of things doesn't apply. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > When you avoid being hit by a car, what is the you and wha tis the car? > > > -geo- > > > > you don't need to ask this. > > > > - d - > > > > I dont understand...why? Because a car is one thing and your organism is > > another and that contradicts what you where saying? > > There is multiplicity as " this " . There is distinction as " this " . There is > > a > > whole human world as " this " . Trying to deny it is doubting the solidity of > > the dreamed solid. Dont doubt. It can dream lots of things and no-things > > and > > all-things.... including suns and black wholes and.... > > -geo- > > why? because it is a lot of extraneous thought, and putting energy into it > makes little sense. > > if a car misses hitting me, i walk on. > > i'm not dwelling on what is me and what is the car, etc. > > no one is denying anything. > > perhaps you would like to believe so, so you can contend against another > point of view. > > there aren't any points of view here to contend with, against, or for. > > - d - > So there are no things but there are cars and Is that walk on... So your > problem is with the sound of the word " thing " ? > > You are trying to conceive a kind of gaseus world, without objects, without > things, without materiality... Instead... see the solidity, materiality, > spaceousness, time-ness, of this world...then the seeing is it-ing. > -geo- no, there's no attempt to conceive of anything. nor is any of the diversity of stimuli arising any problem. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > The seeing of the timebound, limited...is the timeless, unlimited. > -egg- yes, there aren't two. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:22 PM > Re: Truth > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:59 PM > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:17 PM > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:14 PM > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:47 PM > > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " michelleedge20 " > > > > > <michelleedge20@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word communication has its root in the Latin > > > > > > > > > 'communicare' > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > means 'to care together'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we caring together like humans or are we just like > > > > > > > > > computers > > > > > > > > > responding in a very limited way ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To care about others (not-care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > reject > > > > > > > > others (care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What isn't mechanical, need not and cannot be commented on. No > > > > > > > > self > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > others are involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mechanical topic is quite interesting, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there an opposite to acting mechanical which is not > > > > > > > mechanical > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > What > > > > > > > about intelligence ? Is intelligence mechanical or is it > > > > > > > independent > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > free ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But to call a human action as mechanical also implies that there > > > > > > > must > > > > > > > exist something which is not mechanical, else that word > > > > > > > 'mechanical' > > > > > > > would not exist. What about Love (with a capital 'L') ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds as if we function according to our programming .if we are > > > > > > hard > > > > > > wired for happiness ,it s desire that may cause a malfunction. > > > > > > michellle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ARE the programming. > > > > > We are not programmed for happiness.....we are programmed to search > > > > > for > > > > > happiness. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > First, we are the programing, then....we are programed....so there > > > > > are > > > > > two > > > > > wes. I think I am a bit dizzy today... > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Good. > > > > > > > > Because the programming metaphor breaks down. > > > > > > > > It is useless, in fact. > > > > > > > > It's one of those things - a metaphor that is only good up to a point. > > > > > > > > Then it dissolves. > > > > > > > > It dissolves as one understands that knowledge of things doesn't > > > > apply. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > When you avoid being hit by a car, what is the you and wha tis the > > > > car? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > you don't need to ask this. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > I dont understand...why? Because a car is one thing and your organism is > > > another and that contradicts what you where saying? > > > There is multiplicity as " this " . There is distinction as " this " . There > > > is > > > a > > > whole human world as " this " . Trying to deny it is doubting the solidity > > > of > > > the dreamed solid. Dont doubt. It can dream lots of things and no-things > > > and > > > all-things.... including suns and black wholes and.... > > > -geo- > > > > why? because it is a lot of extraneous thought, and putting energy into it > > makes little sense. > > > > if a car misses hitting me, i walk on. > > > > i'm not dwelling on what is me and what is the car, etc. > > > > no one is denying anything. > > > > perhaps you would like to believe so, so you can contend against another > > point of view. > > > > there aren't any points of view here to contend with, against, or for. > > > > - d - > > So there are no things but there are cars and Is that walk on... So your > > problem is with the sound of the word " thing " ? > > -geo- > > i don't have a problem. > > you previously said there isn't any me separately existing from you. > > are you trying to get someone who isn't you, to see something as a problem? > > you say there is no other separated from you. > > so, where is this " problem " supposed to reside? > > - d - > > OK, forget the problem, no problem. > So there are no things but there are cars and Is that walk on? > -ego- Ok, so there is no problem. So, why keep coming back to this deal about the " no things ... but there are cars, " etc. Is there something to be right or wrong about? Is there a point that needs to be made? For whom? For what benefit? - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:13 PM > > Re: Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:59 PM > > Re: Truth > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:17 PM > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:14 PM > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:47 PM > > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " michelleedge20 " > > > > > <michelleedge20@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word communication has its root in the Latin 'communicare' > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > means 'to care together'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we caring together like humans or are we just like > > > > > > > > > computers > > > > > > > > > responding in a very limited way ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To care about others (not-care about oneself) is mechanical. To > > > > > > > > reject > > > > > > > > others (care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What isn't mechanical, need not and cannot be commented on. No > > > > > > > > self > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > others are involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mechanical topic is quite interesting, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there an opposite to acting mechanical which is not mechanical > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > What > > > > > > > about intelligence ? Is intelligence mechanical or is it > > > > > > > independent > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > free ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But to call a human action as mechanical also implies that there > > > > > > > must > > > > > > > exist something which is not mechanical, else that word > > > > > > > 'mechanical' > > > > > > > would not exist. What about Love (with a capital 'L') ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds as if we function according to our programming .if we are > > > > > > hard > > > > > > wired for happiness ,it s desire that may cause a malfunction. > > > > > > michellle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ARE the programming. > > > > > We are not programmed for happiness.....we are programmed to search > > > > > for > > > > > happiness. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > First, we are the programing, then....we are programed....so there are > > > > > two > > > > > wes. I think I am a bit dizzy today... > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Good. > > > > > > > > Because the programming metaphor breaks down. > > > > > > > > It is useless, in fact. > > > > > > > > It's one of those things - a metaphor that is only good up to a point. > > > > > > > > Then it dissolves. > > > > > > > > It dissolves as one understands that knowledge of things doesn't apply. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > When you avoid being hit by a car, what is the you and wha tis the car? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > you don't need to ask this. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > I dont understand...why? Because a car is one thing and your organism is > > > another and that contradicts what you where saying? > > > There is multiplicity as " this " . There is distinction as " this " . There is > > > a > > > whole human world as " this " . Trying to deny it is doubting the solidity of > > > the dreamed solid. Dont doubt. It can dream lots of things and no-things > > > and > > > all-things.... including suns and black wholes and.... > > > -geo- > > > > why? because it is a lot of extraneous thought, and putting energy into it > > makes little sense. > > > > if a car misses hitting me, i walk on. > > > > i'm not dwelling on what is me and what is the car, etc. > > > > no one is denying anything. > > > > perhaps you would like to believe so, so you can contend against another > > point of view. > > > > there aren't any points of view here to contend with, against, or for. > > > > - d - > > So there are no things but there are cars and Is that walk on... So your > > problem is with the sound of the word " thing " ? > > > > You are trying to conceive a kind of gaseus world, without objects, without > > things, without materiality... Instead... see the solidity, materiality, > > spaceousness, time-ness, of this world...then the seeing is it-ing. > > -geo- > > no, there's no attempt to conceive of anything. > > nor is any of the diversity of stimuli arising any problem. > > > - d - The " problem " is that not attempting to conceive of anything is inconceivable. Not attempting to comprehend anything is incomprehensible. People are trying to figure things out. To fix things. To be a self in control of a personal world. The inconceivable, incomprehensible, unknowable isn't interesting to thought. If it can't be conceived of, it doesn't exist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:36 PM Re: Truth Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:22 PM > Re: Truth > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:59 PM > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:17 PM > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:14 PM > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:47 PM > > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " michelleedge20 " > > > > > <michelleedge20@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > > > > > > <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word communication has its root in the Latin > > > > > > > > > 'communicare' > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > means 'to care together'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we caring together like humans or are we just like > > > > > > > > > computers > > > > > > > > > responding in a very limited way ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To care about others (not-care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > reject > > > > > > > > others (care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What isn't mechanical, need not and cannot be commented on. > > > > > > > > No > > > > > > > > self > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > others are involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mechanical topic is quite interesting, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there an opposite to acting mechanical which is not > > > > > > > mechanical > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > What > > > > > > > about intelligence ? Is intelligence mechanical or is it > > > > > > > independent > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > free ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But to call a human action as mechanical also implies that > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > must > > > > > > > exist something which is not mechanical, else that word > > > > > > > 'mechanical' > > > > > > > would not exist. What about Love (with a capital 'L') ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds as if we function according to our programming .if we are > > > > > > hard > > > > > > wired for happiness ,it s desire that may cause a malfunction. > > > > > > michellle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ARE the programming. > > > > > We are not programmed for happiness.....we are programmed to > > > > > search > > > > > for > > > > > happiness. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > First, we are the programing, then....we are programed....so there > > > > > are > > > > > two > > > > > wes. I think I am a bit dizzy today... > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Good. > > > > > > > > Because the programming metaphor breaks down. > > > > > > > > It is useless, in fact. > > > > > > > > It's one of those things - a metaphor that is only good up to a > > > > point. > > > > > > > > Then it dissolves. > > > > > > > > It dissolves as one understands that knowledge of things doesn't > > > > apply. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > When you avoid being hit by a car, what is the you and wha tis the > > > > car? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > you don't need to ask this. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > I dont understand...why? Because a car is one thing and your organism > > > is > > > another and that contradicts what you where saying? > > > There is multiplicity as " this " . There is distinction as " this " . There > > > is > > > a > > > whole human world as " this " . Trying to deny it is doubting the > > > solidity > > > of > > > the dreamed solid. Dont doubt. It can dream lots of things and > > > no-things > > > and > > > all-things.... including suns and black wholes and.... > > > -geo- > > > > why? because it is a lot of extraneous thought, and putting energy into > > it > > makes little sense. > > > > if a car misses hitting me, i walk on. > > > > i'm not dwelling on what is me and what is the car, etc. > > > > no one is denying anything. > > > > perhaps you would like to believe so, so you can contend against another > > point of view. > > > > there aren't any points of view here to contend with, against, or for. > > > > - d - > > So there are no things but there are cars and Is that walk on... So your > > problem is with the sound of the word " thing " ? > > -geo- > > i don't have a problem. > > you previously said there isn't any me separately existing from you. > > are you trying to get someone who isn't you, to see something as a > problem? > > you say there is no other separated from you. > > so, where is this " problem " supposed to reside? > > - d - > > OK, forget the problem, no problem. > So there are no things but there are cars and Is that walk on? > -ego- Ok, so there is no problem. So, why keep coming back to this deal about the " no things ... but there are cars, " etc. Is there something to be right or wrong about? Is there a point that needs to be made? For whom? For what benefit? - d - .....no things but there are cars and Is that walk on? -egg- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > > The " problem " is that not attempting to conceive of anything is inconceivable. > > Not attempting to comprehend anything is incomprehensible. > > People are trying to figure things out. To fix things. To be a self in control of a personal world. > > The inconceivable, incomprehensible, unknowable isn't interesting to > thought. If it can't be conceived of, it doesn't exist. Nisargadatta: " My stand I take where nothing (paramakash) is; words do not reach there, nor thoughts. To the mind it is all darkness and silence. Then consciousness begins to stir and wakes up the mind (chidakash), which projects the world (mahadakash), built of memory and imagination. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:13 PM > > > Re: Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:59 PM > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:17 PM > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:14 PM > > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:47 PM > > > > > > Re: Truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " michelleedge20 " > > > > > > <michelleedge20@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word communication has its root in the Latin 'communicare' > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > means 'to care together'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we caring together like humans or are we just like > > > > > > > > > > computers > > > > > > > > > > responding in a very limited way ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To care about others (not-care about oneself) is mechanical. To > > > > > > > > > reject > > > > > > > > > others (care about oneself) is mechanical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What isn't mechanical, need not and cannot be commented on. No > > > > > > > > > self > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > others are involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mechanical topic is quite interesting, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there an opposite to acting mechanical which is not mechanical > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > What > > > > > > > > about intelligence ? Is intelligence mechanical or is it > > > > > > > > independent > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > free ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But to call a human action as mechanical also implies that there > > > > > > > > must > > > > > > > > exist something which is not mechanical, else that word > > > > > > > > 'mechanical' > > > > > > > > would not exist. What about Love (with a capital 'L') ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds as if we function according to our programming .if we are > > > > > > > hard > > > > > > > wired for happiness ,it s desire that may cause a malfunction. > > > > > > > michellle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ARE the programming. > > > > > > We are not programmed for happiness.....we are programmed to search > > > > > > for > > > > > > happiness. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > First, we are the programing, then....we are programed....so there are > > > > > > two > > > > > > wes. I think I am a bit dizzy today... > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Good. > > > > > > > > > > Because the programming metaphor breaks down. > > > > > > > > > > It is useless, in fact. > > > > > > > > > > It's one of those things - a metaphor that is only good up to a point. > > > > > > > > > > Then it dissolves. > > > > > > > > > > It dissolves as one understands that knowledge of things doesn't apply. > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > When you avoid being hit by a car, what is the you and wha tis the car? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > you don't need to ask this. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > I dont understand...why? Because a car is one thing and your organism is > > > > another and that contradicts what you where saying? > > > > There is multiplicity as " this " . There is distinction as " this " . There is > > > > a > > > > whole human world as " this " . Trying to deny it is doubting the solidity of > > > > the dreamed solid. Dont doubt. It can dream lots of things and no-things > > > > and > > > > all-things.... including suns and black wholes and.... > > > > -geo- > > > > > > why? because it is a lot of extraneous thought, and putting energy into it > > > makes little sense. > > > > > > if a car misses hitting me, i walk on. > > > > > > i'm not dwelling on what is me and what is the car, etc. > > > > > > no one is denying anything. > > > > > > perhaps you would like to believe so, so you can contend against another > > > point of view. > > > > > > there aren't any points of view here to contend with, against, or for. > > > > > > - d - > > > So there are no things but there are cars and Is that walk on... So your > > > problem is with the sound of the word " thing " ? > > > > > > You are trying to conceive a kind of gaseus world, without objects, without > > > things, without materiality... Instead... see the solidity, materiality, > > > spaceousness, time-ness, of this world...then the seeing is it-ing. > > > -geo- > > > > no, there's no attempt to conceive of anything. > > > > nor is any of the diversity of stimuli arising any problem. > > > > > > - d - > > The " problem " is that not attempting to conceive of anything is inconceivable. > > Not attempting to comprehend anything is incomprehensible. > > People are trying to figure things out. To fix things. To be a self in control of a personal world. > > The inconceivable, incomprehensible, unknowable isn't interesting to thought. If it can't be conceived of, it doesn't exist. Yes. Has never been conceived of, won't be conceived, doesn't need to be. Hasn't been discussed or even realized. All those books by realizers ... a hill of beans. Not-a-realization to be had. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > The " problem " is that not attempting to conceive of anything is inconceivable. > > > > Not attempting to comprehend anything is incomprehensible. > > > > People are trying to figure things out. To fix things. To be a self in control of a personal world. > > > > The inconceivable, incomprehensible, unknowable isn't interesting to > thought. If it can't be conceived of, it doesn't exist. > > Nisargadatta: " My stand I take where nothing (paramakash) is; words do not reach there, nor thoughts. To the mind it is all darkness and silence. Then consciousness begins to stir and wakes up the mind (chidakash), which projects the world (mahadakash), built of memory and imagination. " yes. smiling ... so, now that my mind is going and a world is projected, i have an important point to make! and here it is: .. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > > The inconceivable, incomprehensible, unknowable isn't interesting to thought. If it can't be conceived of, it doesn't exist. > > Yes. > > Has never been conceived of, won't be conceived, doesn't need to be. > > Hasn't been discussed or even realized. > > All those books by realizers ... a hill of beans. Indeed so. Not one word of 'truth' ever communicated. Mostly 'self-importance' communicated, and if not that, words that confuddle and confound thought, at best. Tips to 'turn to oneself, not others', communicated by supposed others. Words saying " I do not exist " , spoken by that well-dressed fellow on the cover. Laughter echoing... ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The " problem " is that not attempting to conceive of anything is inconceivable. > > > > > > Not attempting to comprehend anything is incomprehensible. > > > > > > People are trying to figure things out. To fix things. To be a self in control of a personal world. > > > > > > The inconceivable, incomprehensible, unknowable isn't interesting to > thought. If it can't be conceived of, it doesn't exist. > > > > Nisargadatta: " My stand I take where nothing (paramakash) is; words do not reach there, nor thoughts. To the mind it is all darkness and silence. Then consciousness begins to stir and wakes up the mind (chidakash), which projects the world (mahadakash), built of memory and imagination. " > > yes. > > smiling ... > > so, now that my mind is going and a world is projected, i have an important point to make! > > and here it is: > > . > > - d - *Gasp*... ya don't say!?!?! ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta: " My stand I take where nothing (paramakash) is; words do not reach there, nor thoughts. To the mind it is all darkness and silence. Then consciousness begins to stir and wakes up the mind (chidakash), which projects the world (mahadakash), built of memory and imagination. " geo>...and the world of things and organisms and time and space is born...till the body kicks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Nisargadatta: " My stand I take where nothing (paramakash) is; words do not > reach there, nor thoughts. To the mind it is all darkness and silence. Then > consciousness begins to stir and wakes up the mind (chidakash), which > projects the world (mahadakash), built of memory and imagination. " > > geo>...and the world of things and organisms and time and space is > born...till the body kicks. If that's the way Geo wants it, to keep a continuous world of things and time and space in mind all the time. That's Geo's world. That's Geo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:21 PM Re: Truth Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Nisargadatta: " My stand I take where nothing (paramakash) is; words do not > reach there, nor thoughts. To the mind it is all darkness and silence. > Then > consciousness begins to stir and wakes up the mind (chidakash), which > projects the world (mahadakash), built of memory and imagination. " > > geo>...and the world of things and organisms and time and space is > born...till the body kicks. If that's the way Geo wants it, to keep a continuous world of things and time and space in mind all the time. That's Geo's world. That's Geo. geo> By " all the time " you mean what? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > That's Geo's world. That's Geo. > > geo> By " all the time " you mean what? Continuity. The assumption that " I am " , and " the world is " . This requires attempted maintenance, a re-visiting and re-visiting and re-visiting of this mental world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 1, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:38 PM Re: Truth Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > That's Geo's world. That's Geo. > > geo> By " all the time " you mean what? Continuity. The assumption that " I am " , and " the world is " . This requires attempted maintenance, a re-visiting and re-visiting and re-visiting of this mental world. geo> LOL...but this " all the time " is from a timebound stand. If you where non-fragmented, seeing-being-what-is, you would never ever say that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
