Guest guest Report post Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:17 PM > Re: Nisargadatta > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, July 09, 2009 3:42 PM > > Re: Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Thursday, July 09, 2009 1:16 PM > > > Re: Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > duveyoung > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Thursday, July 09, 2009 12:26 PM > > > > Re: Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > too fucking wordy. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Not this time.. I liked them. After all he got what I meant and now > > > > > I > > > > > may > > > > > rest peacefully knowing I am not completely crazy...after all these > > > > > years.. > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > Geo, > > > > > > > > edg: I'm still thinking you and I have a tussle about the definition > > > > of > > > > " ego. " I'm thinking it is but one of many processes of a brain, while > > > > you > > > > seem to think the whole body/mind system is the ego. Er, yes? > > > > > > > > geo> No. It is a process in the brain. What made you think I think > > > > otherwise? > > > > The body/mind system can go along pretty well without any conceptual > > > > sense > > > > of inner separate observer or entity. It is a kind of a " special " > > > > process > > > > in > > > > the brain...not just one of many alike though... > > > > > > > > edg: Although I think he was a trickster, Carlos Castenada, presented > > > > the > > > > concept " assemblage point " that seems to somewhat resonate with > > > > Ramana's > > > > concept of " heart. " Is that what you're getting at for how you see > > > > " ego? " > > > > > > > > geo> I know nothing, haven't read a single page of Ramana, sorry. > > > > So...ego > > > > is a sense of inner fixed observer separate from some outer universe. > > > > There > > > > is no such ego, in fact, but the body/mind behaves as if it had that > > > > center. > > > > I hope we cleared the missunderstanding. > > > > > > > > Now...about Castaneda. He seems to have been a pretty controversial > > > > guy > > > > but > > > > after some reasoning I came to the conclusion that he was a prick but > > > > he > > > > did > > > > not invent DJuan. It is all true. My reasoning goes this way: reading > > > > and > > > > listening to several interveiws, and things he said and wrote " as > > > > himself " > > > > show that he was really a kind of an ignorant. He just did not know > > > > what > > > > he > > > > was talking about. BUT...when you read DJs words (of course told by > > > > castaneda) they are absolutely filled to the brim with wisdom. So.... > > > > > > > > BTW....before I read your post I was thinking about DJ and realized > > > > why > > > > those old nagualist called IT eagle. NOT because of some color, or > > > > something > > > > like that..but because of the EYES!!! The eyes!!! It is by far the > > > > best > > > > seer beast those people knew!! It is the eeing!! This came to me right > > > > now- > > > > few minutes ago. > > > > > > > > Assemblage point, yes. We are humans, we are comfortable in this > > > > world....but....but...we can eventualy visit other worlds...although > > > > it > > > > is > > > > not the most natural thing to do. > > > > > > > > Nagualism - fascinating. > > > > -geo- > > > > -geo- > > > > > > somnolent too. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Then use: death will end your somnolence soon - just wait a sec. > > > -ego- > > > > you've been smoking to much Don Juan. > > > > better settle back and just smoke some B.C. bud. > > > > it's available worldwide now. > > > > and it doesn't make you believe that Castaneda bullshit. > > > > it just makes it more fun to read. > > > > and that's the stoned cold truth. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Ahhh...I had to stop. Never thought I would - but had to. For some reason > > it > > started to give me unbeareable headakes. Started mildly....then got > > stronger..till they became so violent and scary that I just dont dare > > anymore. What can I do...... :>( > > > > Castaneda....nagualism....I like the smell of it. > > -ggg- > > if castaneda doesn't give you a headache.. > > it may be that you have no head. > > smoke the B.C. and it won't matter. > > .b b.b. > > I know BS..but what is BC? > -geg- British Columbia..or.. Best Cannabis. take yer pick. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2009 duveyoung > years.. > -ego- Geo, edg: I'm still thinking you and I have a tussle about the definition of " ego. " I'm thinking it is but one of many processes of a brain, while you seem to think the whole body/mind system is the ego. Er, yes? \Geo wrote: geo> No. It is a process in the brain. What made you think I think otherwise? The body/mind system can go along pretty well without any conceptual sense of inner separate observer or entity. It is a kind of a " special " process in the brain...not just one of many alike though... Driving one's car, the actions mostly automatic, turn signal done without a thought it seems, decisions made by the micro-moment, all correct and proper, no danger in my driving, but who's driving? Not the focusing ego who may be listening to the radio. Like this I can imagine that most of what my meat robot does is as if done mindlessly. But, even if I see clearly that the robot doesn't need a " me " that pretends to be running-the-joint, is that realization helpful in weakening the robot's assertion that the ego is a sentient being instead of a processing? Dunno. edg: Although I think he was a trickster, Carlos Castenada, presented the concept " assemblage point " that seems to somewhat resonate with Ramana's concept of " heart. " Is that what you're getting at for how you see " ego? " geo> I know nothing, haven't read a single page of Ramana, sorry. Hard to believe you haven't read Ramana. I read Nisargadatta exclusively for a couple years before I started reading Ramana. I resisted Ramana because I thought he was too religious, too Hindu, whatever, but when I finally started on his " Talks With Ramana " I found that he was never out of synch with Nisargadatta, and that I liked Ramana translator's abilities more than I did whoever was interpreting Nisargadatta's words into English. Again and again while reading Nisaragadatta, I would be shocked that the words didn't quite match what I was certain Nisargadatta was really saying. Well, after my third reading of " Talks, " BLAM suddenly the Absolute started singing in the words. Suddenly it was clear that one had to recognize a difference between amness and the Absolute, and that sometimes Ramana was talking about one and yet a reader could be forgiven if the reader was hearing the words as if Ramana was talking about the other. Then I began to read Nisargadatta with that " new " perspective and, yup, thar he be spouting the same stuff and having his words be, as if, sloppy about definitions -- impossible -- so I put it down to faulty translations not a lack of clarity of Nisargadatta. Maybe you'd get the same " hit " if you read Ramana. As a writer, I have struggled with words like John Henry pounding spikes, so when I think of the task of a translator, I'm wondering how anyone can pull off the subtlety necessary to do so. To me, the translator had better be a great writer AND have clarity about Advaita; otherwise, ever so slightly, usage can tarnish a message with nuances of incorrectitude. So...ego is a sense of inner fixed observer separate from some outer universe. There is no such ego, in fact, but the body/mind behaves as if it had that center. I hope we cleared the missunderstanding. Okay. Now...about Castaneda. He seems to have been a pretty controversial guy but after some reasoning I came to the conclusion that he was a prick but he did not invent DJuan. It is all true. My reasoning goes this way: reading and listening to several interveiws, and things he said and wrote " as himself " show that he was really a kind of an ignorant. He just did not know what he was talking about. BUT...when you read DJs words (of course told by castaneda) they are absolutely filled to the brim with wisdom. So.... I haven't read Castanda since my " intellectual awakening about Advaita mentioned above. " When I did read his stuff, I struggled to see if there were one-to-one correspondences with Hindu dogma, and often I couldn't see how to do so. Maybe if I read it all again, I'd be able to do so now -- like I do for Christ's words in the Bible -- seems he knew reality but the ensuing dogma of Christianity didn't jive with his truths. I believe it's been established that Castanada plagiarized, so that lack of integrity is very off-putting to me, and I think it sullies clarity such that his writing was fraught with attachment. BTW....before I read your post I was thinking about DJ and realized why those old nagualist called IT eagle. NOT because of some color, or something like that..but because of the EYES!!! The eyes!!! It is by far the best seer beast those people knew!! It is the eeing!! This came to me right now- few minutes ago. Assemblage point, yes. We are humans, we are comfortable in this world....but....but...we can eventualy visit other worlds...although it is not the most natural thing to do. I think I need to hear how you define " other worlds. " Nightly dreams are astral worlds? Whaaaa? Nagualism - fascinating. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2009 The Absolute cannot be caught red-handed in the act of doingness. Yet there it is with a chocolate ring around it's mouth and telling Mom that it didn't eat the fudge brownies. geo> Ah..wait... The Absolute cannot be caught red-handed in the act of doingness because there is none to catch it. The absolute telling its mom?? Dont understand. It is alone. Yeah, I was doing poetry. The relative cannot see the Absolute's chocolate ring. The image in the mirror cannot see that which it is but a reflection of, but when I pretend that it can, then I can pretend that the relative can see the Absolute and enliven the metaphor. Sigh..... Edg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2009 - Edg Nisargadatta Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:33 PM Re: Re: Nisargadatta duveyoung > years.. > -ego- Geo, edg: I'm still thinking you and I have a tussle about the definition of " ego. " I'm thinking it is but one of many processes of a brain, while you seem to think the whole body/mind system is the ego. Er, yes? \ Geo wrote: geo> No. It is a process in the brain. What made you think I think otherwise? The body/mind system can go along pretty well without any conceptual sense of inner separate observer or entity. It is a kind of a " special " process in the brain...not just one of many alike though... Driving one's car, the actions mostly automatic, turn signal done without a thought it seems, decisions made by the micro-moment, all correct and proper, no danger in my driving, but who's driving? Not the focusing ego who may be listening to the radio. Like this I can imagine that most of what my meat robot does is as if done mindlessly. But, even if I see clearly that the robot doesn't need a " me " that pretends to be running-the-joint, is that realization helpful in weakening the robot's assertion that the ego is a sentient being instead of a processing? Dunno. -edg- There is no weakening. That is just the center's effort, still wanabe. There is only one sentient - and it is not a fragment of the whole. -geo- edg: Although I think he was a trickster, Carlos Castenada, presented the concept " assemblage point " that seems to somewhat resonate with Ramana's concept of " heart. " Is that what you're getting at for how you see " ego? " geo> I know nothing, haven't read a single page of Ramana, sorry. edg: Hard to believe you haven't read Ramana. I read Nisargadatta exclusively for a couple years before I started reading Ramana. I resisted Ramana because I thought he was too religious, too Hindu, whatever, but when I finally started on his " Talks With Ramana " I found that he was never out of synch with Nisargadatta, and that I liked Ramana translator's abilities more than I did whoever was interpreting Nisargadatta's words into English. Again and again while reading Nisaragadatta, I would be shocked that the words didn't quite match what I was certain Nisargadatta was really saying. Well, after my third reading of " Talks, " BLAM suddenly the Absolute started singing in the words. Suddenly it was clear that one had to recognize a difference between amness and the Absolute, and that sometimes Ramana was talking about one and yet a reader could be forgiven if the reader was hearing the words as if Ramana was talking about the other. Then I began to read Nisargadatta with that " new " perspective and, yup, thar he be spouting the same stuff and having his words be, as if, sloppy about definitions -- impossible -- so I put it down to faulty translations not a lack of clarity of Nisargadatta. Maybe you'd get the same " hit " if you read Ramana. As a writer, I have struggled with words like John Henry pounding spikes, so when I think of the task of a translator, I'm wondering how anyone can pull off the subtlety necessary to do so. To me, the translator had better be a great writer AND have clarity about Advaita; otherwise, ever so slightly, usage can tarnish a message with nuances of incorrectitude. So...ego is a sense of inner fixed observer separate from some outer universe. There is no such ego, in fact, but the body/mind behaves as if it had that center. I hope we cleared the missunderstanding. Okay. Now...about Castaneda. He seems to have been a pretty controversial guy but after some reasoning I came to the conclusion that he was a prick but he did not invent DJuan. It is all true. My reasoning goes this way: reading and listening to several interveiws, and things he said and wrote " as himself " show that he was really a kind of an ignorant. He just did not know what he was talking about. BUT...when you read DJs words (of course told by castaneda) they are absolutely filled to the brim with wisdom. So.... I haven't read Castanda since my " intellectual awakening about Advaita mentioned above. " When I did read his stuff, I struggled to see if there were one-to-one correspondences with Hindu dogma, and often I couldn't see how to do so. Maybe if I read it all again, I'd be able to do so now -- like I do for Christ's words in the Bible -- seems he knew reality but the ensuing dogma of Christianity didn't jive with his truths. I believe it's been established that Castanada plagiarized, so that lack of integrity is very off-putting to me, and I think it sullies clarity such that his writing was fraught with attachment. BTW....before I read your post I was thinking about DJ and realized why those old nagualist called IT eagle. NOT because of some color, or something like that..but because of the EYES!!! The eyes!!! It is by far the best seer beast those people knew!! It is the eeing!! This came to me right now- few minutes ago. Assemblage point, yes. We are humans, we are comfortable in this world....but....but...we can eventualy visit other worlds...although it is not the most natural thing to do. I think I need to hear how you define " other worlds. " Nightly dreams are astral worlds? Whaaaa? geo> Other worlds are other quantum " fields " left/built by other beings - within the same universal mind. Nagualism - fascinating. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2009 - Edg Nisargadatta Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:39 PM Re: Re: Nisargadatta The Absolute cannot be caught red-handed in the act of doingness. Yet there it is with a chocolate ring around it's mouth and telling Mom that it didn't eat the fudge brownies. geo> Ah..wait... The Absolute cannot be caught red-handed in the act of doingness because there is none to catch it. The absolute telling its mom?? Dont understand. It is alone. Yeah, I was doing poetry. The relative cannot see the Absolute's chocolate ring. The image in the mirror cannot see that which it is but a reflection of, but when I pretend that it can, then I can pretend that the relative can see the Absolute and enliven the metaphor. Sigh..... Edg ....but then it is poetry good just to fill some music..to dance in some disco...not much more then that...:>) -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2009 edg: Hard to believe you haven't read Ramana. I read Nisargadatta exclusively for a couple years before I started reading Ramana. I resisted Ramana because I thought he was too religious, too Hindu, whatever, but when I finally started on his "Talks With Ramana" I found that he was never out of synch with Nisargadatta, and that I liked Ramana translator's abilities more than I did whoever was interpreting Nisargadatta's words into English. Again and again while reading Nisaragadatta, I would be shocked that the words didn't quite match what I was certain Nisargadatta was really saying. Well, after my third reading of "Talks," BLAM suddenly the Absolute started singing in the words. Suddenly it was clear that one had to recognize a difference between amness and the Absolute, and that sometimes Ramana was talking about one and yet a reader could be forgiven if the reader was hearing the words as if Ramana was talking about the other.Then I began to read Nisargadatta with that "new" perspective and, yup, thar he be spouting the same stuff and having his words be, as if, sloppy about definitions -- impossible -- so I put it down to faulty translations not a lack of clarity of Nisargadatta. Maybe you'd get the same "hit" if you read Ramana. As a writer, I have struggled with words like John Henry pounding spikes, so when I think of the task of a translator, I'm wondering how anyone can pull off the subtlety necessary to do so. To me, the translator had better be a great writer AND have clarity about Advaita; otherwise, ever so slightly, usage can tarnish a message with nuances of incorrectitude. geo> Well...in fact I stumbled across a few fragments/dialogues from ramana here and there and did not see any fundamental difference between him and Nis. But one of these days..who knows...some winter rainy afternoon...I read something from him. I will probably like it very much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
