Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:30 AM > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > what's truth? > > > > or " true knowledge " ? > > > > indeed.. > > > > what can be " false " ? > > The content of thought, as it refers solely to a nonexistent past and/or > future. > -tim- > > That is a fact, truth, as memory contents, movement of electrons in a brain. > -geo- Once again, thought is real (i.e. its presence or absence), but its content is not. If I think about a tree, the only true thing about it is that a thought arose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > who is this " I " that is " aware " of this " state of affairs " ? > > > > .b b.b. > > Asking " somebody else " this question is the very height of silliness. telling " somebody else " this answer then.. is a very low sort of silliness then. you give new meaning to the word " brainless " . ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > what's truth? > > > > or " true knowledge " ? > > > > indeed.. > > > > what can be " false " ? > > The content of thought, as it refers solely to a nonexistent past and/or future. thought is a container? you're being supercilious as well as silly. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > and who knows that? > > what is an organism? > > the words and meanings are on a par with the grunts of pigs? Of course not. Words can certainly be useful at times. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, July 13, 2009 10:39 AM Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:30 AM > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > what's truth? > > > > or " true knowledge " ? > > > > indeed.. > > > > what can be " false " ? > > The content of thought, as it refers solely to a nonexistent past and/or > future. > -tim- > > That is a fact, truth, as memory contents, movement of electrons in a > brain. > -geo- Once again, thought is real (i.e. its presence or absence), but its content is not. If I think about a tree, the only true thing about it is that a thought arose. -tim- More speciphicly: a thought of a tree arose. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Monday, July 13, 2009 10:43 AM Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > what's truth? > > > > or " true knowledge " ? > > > > indeed.. > > > > what can be " false " ? > > The content of thought, as it refers solely to a nonexistent past and/or > future. thought is a container? you're being supercilious as well as silly. ..b b.b. Conteiner? Hmmm..good question. There seems toa be a difference between the sensing of hte energy of thought, the waves, and the eventual meaning of them. Are they different? The same?..... -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:26 AM > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:00 AM > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 9:45 AM > > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we are one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's not to hear. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we're one, my good fella, there's not-two to communicate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Whoops! ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, bro... > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're a phony. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hear that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > > Love u 2 ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > Hugs... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we are one. > > > > > > > > > > what's to hug? > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't that be self abuse? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Bodies can still hug bodies, of course, silly. > > > > > > oh i see.. > > > > > > all is one except there are lots of " bodies " . > > > -bbb- > > > > > > That is the way it is. My body is felt here...yours there > > > -geo- > > > > who's feeling either one? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > I only know the feeling here. Dont know about that body there. This > > diversity of things is part of the one consciousness there is. > > -geo- > > who is this " I " that is " aware " of this " state of affairs " ? > > .b b.b. > > Yes but that doesnt mean that there is no diversity...including different > bodies in consciousness. > -geo- like variations on a theme. ok. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > who is this " I " that is " aware " of this " state of affairs " ? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Asking " somebody else " this question is the very height of silliness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > telling " somebody else " this answer then.. > > > > is a very low sort of silliness then. > > > > you give new meaning to the word " brainless " . > > <Ghasso>... deep bow. To know nothing is to know everything ;-). not if you " think " so. that's just misplaced conceit. and sort of dumb too. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > and who knows that? > > > > what is an organism? > > > > the words and meanings are on a par with the grunts of pigs? > > Of course not. Words can certainly be useful at times. if all is one.. to what use are the words? you're sucking and blowing again. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:39 AM > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:30 AM > > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > what's truth? > > > > > > > > or " true knowledge " ? > > > > > > > > indeed.. > > > > > > > > what can be " false " ? > > > > > > The content of thought, as it refers solely to a nonexistent past and/or > > > future. > > > -tim- > > > > > > That is a fact, truth, as memory contents, movement of electrons in a > > > brain. > > > -geo- > > > > Once again, thought is real (i.e. its presence or absence), but its content > > is not. If I think about a tree, the only true thing about it is that a > > thought arose. > > -tim- > > > > More speciphicly: a thought of a tree arose. > > -geo- > > The point being that the " tree " is imaginary. The actuality of " having a thought " is real. what does " real " mean? how 'bout " actuality " ? don't think abstractly. you're imagining things. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Monday, July 13, 2009 10:53 AM Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:26 AM > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:00 AM > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 9:45 AM > > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we are one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's not to hear. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we're one, my good fella, there's not-two to communicate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Whoops! ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, bro... > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're a phony. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hear that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > > Love u 2 ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > Hugs... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we are one. > > > > > > > > > > what's to hug? > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't that be self abuse? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Bodies can still hug bodies, of course, silly. > > > > > > oh i see.. > > > > > > all is one except there are lots of " bodies " . > > > -bbb- > > > > > > That is the way it is. My body is felt here...yours there > > > -geo- > > > > who's feeling either one? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > I only know the feeling here. Dont know about that body there. This > > diversity of things is part of the one consciousness there is. > > -geo- > > who is this " I " that is " aware " of this " state of affairs " ? > > .b b.b. > > Yes but that doesnt mean that there is no diversity...including different > bodies in consciousness. > -geo- like variations on a theme. ok. ..b b.b. I think it is even more fundamental then just variations on a theme because the whole universe is " known " through only " this " body. When this body kicks consciousness, the world, the universe...all gone. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, July 13, 2009 10:56 AM Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Conteiner? Hmmm..good question. There seems toa be a difference between > the > sensing of hte energy of thought, the waves, and the eventual meaning of > them. Are they different? The same?..... > -geo- The " meaning " is imaginary, of course. It refers to a situation that no longer exists, or does not exist yet. For example, say one thinks of a tree they've seen. The tree no longer is in the same lighting, one cannot align to the same angle to see it again, the bark on it is different, the wind is different outside, some leaves have fallen off, etc. etc. The past is imaginary. It doesn't exist anymore. And all thoughts are of the past, or a future that does not exist either. -tim- The meaning, the imagination, is the image of a tree. One is a tree organism, the other is a tree imagination. They are not the same but both are facts. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:53 AM > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:26 AM > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:00 AM > > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > roberibus111 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 9:45 AM > > > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we are one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's not to hear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we're one, my good fella, there's not-two to communicate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whoops! ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, bro... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're a phony. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hear that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love u 2 ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hugs... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we are one. > > > > > > > > > > > > what's to hug? > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't that be self abuse? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Bodies can still hug bodies, of course, silly. > > > > > > > > oh i see.. > > > > > > > > all is one except there are lots of " bodies " . > > > > -bbb- > > > > > > > > That is the way it is. My body is felt here...yours there > > > > -geo- > > > > > > who's feeling either one? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > I only know the feeling here. Dont know about that body there. This > > > diversity of things is part of the one consciousness there is. > > > -geo- > > > > who is this " I " that is " aware " of this " state of affairs " ? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Yes but that doesnt mean that there is no diversity...including different > > bodies in consciousness. > > -geo- > > like variations on a theme. > > ok. > > .b b.b. > > I think it is even more fundamental then just variations on a theme because > the whole universe is " known " through only " this " body. When this body kicks > consciousness, the world, the universe...all gone. > -geo- i don't know what fundamental means. what are the " overlays " to this " fundamental " stuff? the world rests on a turtle's back.. which sits atop another turtle's back.. and it goes " all the way down " .. but essentially.. it's all the same turtle's back or horse's ass. i ought to know. but i don't. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > The past is imaginary. It doesn't exist anymore. And all thoughts are of the > past, or a future that does not exist either. > -tim- > > The meaning, the imagination, is the image of a tree. One is a tree > organism, the other is a tree imagination. They are not the same but both > are facts. > -geo- If ya say so. From here, imagination is imagination (doh). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Monday, July 13, 2009 11:07 AM Re: Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, July 13, 2009 10:56 AM Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Conteiner? Hmmm..good question. There seems toa be a difference between > the > sensing of hte energy of thought, the waves, and the eventual meaning of > them. Are they different? The same?..... > -geo- The " meaning " is imaginary, of course. It refers to a situation that no longer exists, or does not exist yet. For example, say one thinks of a tree they've seen. The tree no longer is in the same lighting, one cannot align to the same angle to see it again, the bark on it is different, the wind is different outside, some leaves have fallen off, etc. etc. The past is imaginary. It doesn't exist anymore. And all thoughts are of the past, or a future that does not exist either. -tim- The meaning, the imagination, is the image of a tree. One is a tree organism, the other is a tree imagination. They are not the same but both are facts. Is this not being awake? Perception of the real nature of things? Thoughts are fucking real - as thoughts! Loosing sight of this fundamental fact is to be involved in the thought movement. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Monday, July 13, 2009 11:09 AM Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:53 AM > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:26 AM > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:00 AM > > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > roberibus111 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 9:45 AM > > > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we are one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's not to hear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we're one, my good fella, there's not-two to communicate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whoops! ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, bro... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're a phony. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hear that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love u 2 ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hugs... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we are one. > > > > > > > > > > > > what's to hug? > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't that be self abuse? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Bodies can still hug bodies, of course, silly. > > > > > > > > oh i see.. > > > > > > > > all is one except there are lots of " bodies " . > > > > -bbb- > > > > > > > > That is the way it is. My body is felt here...yours there > > > > -geo- > > > > > > who's feeling either one? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > I only know the feeling here. Dont know about that body there. This > > > diversity of things is part of the one consciousness there is. > > > -geo- > > > > who is this " I " that is " aware " of this " state of affairs " ? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Yes but that doesnt mean that there is no diversity...including > > different > > bodies in consciousness. > > -geo- > > like variations on a theme. > > ok. > > .b b.b. > > I think it is even more fundamental then just variations on a theme > because > the whole universe is " known " through only " this " body. When this body > kicks > consciousness, the world, the universe...all gone. > -geo- i don't know what fundamental means. what are the " overlays " to this " fundamental " stuff? the world rests on a turtle's back.. which sits atop another turtle's back.. and it goes " all the way down " .. but essentially.. it's all the same turtle's back or horse's ass. i ought to know. but i don't. ..b b.b. Uffa...glad that I just sold my Petrobrás a few minutes ago. Its all sinking now... -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Is this not being awake? Perception of the real nature of things? Thoughts > are fucking real - as thoughts! Yet again -- the fact of thought is real, their content is not. > Loosing sight of this fundamental fact is to > be involved in the thought movement. > -geo- Sorry, I don't get ya... but never mind. Seems like a good place to end the dialogue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Is this not being awake? Perception of the real nature of things? Thoughts > > are fucking real - as thoughts! > > Yet again -- the fact of thought is real, their content is not. P.S. maybe Nisargadatta could explain the " fact vs. contents " thing better... Nisargadatta: " Imagine a thick jungle full of heavy timber. A plank is shaped out of the timber and a small pencil to write on it. The witness reads the writing and knows that while the pencil and the plank are distantly related to the jungle, the writing has nothing to do with it. It is totally super-imposed and its disappearance just does not matter. The dissolution of personality is followed always by a sense of great relief, as if a heavy burden has fallen off. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, July 13, 2009 11:18 AM Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Is this not being awake? Perception of the real nature of things? Thoughts > are fucking real - as thoughts! Yet again -- the fact of thought is real, their content is not. -tim- The content is real otherwise you would not know what you are thinking. When I think there is some inner fixed observer - that is the content: the thought of some inner fixed entity. -geo- > Loosing sight of this fundamental fact is to > be involved in the thought movement. > -geo- Sorry, I don't get ya... but never mind. Seems like a good place to end the dialogue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, July 13, 2009 11:23 AM Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Is this not being awake? Perception of the real nature of things? > > Thoughts > > are fucking real - as thoughts! > > Yet again -- the fact of thought is real, their content is not. P.S. maybe Nisargadatta could explain the " fact vs. contents " thing better... Nisargadatta: " Imagine a thick jungle full of heavy timber. A plank is shaped out of the timber and a small pencil to write on it. The witness reads the writing and knows that while the pencil and the plank are distantly related to the jungle, the writing has nothing to do with it. It is totally super-imposed and its disappearance just does not matter. The dissolution of personality is followed always by a sense of great relief, as if a heavy burden has fallen off. " == There is the thought of separation. That is the nature of the thought then. Then there is no more that thought of separation. So what? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, July 13, 2009 11:28 AM Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Yet again -- the fact of thought is real, their content is not. > -tim- > > The content is real otherwise you would not know what you are > thinking. Real imagination, sure ;-). Cheers... -tim- Yes! You got it. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > There is the thought of separation. That is the nature of the thought > then. > Then there is no more that thought of separation. So what? > -geo- If that's the case, sure. If one is attached, thinking the picture refers to something " real " or " existent " (like one's past history) then it becomes a matter of delusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Monday, July 13, 2009 11:09 AM > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:53 AM > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > roberibus111 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:26 AM > > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > roberibus111 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:00 AM > > > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > roberibus111 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 9:45 AM > > > > > Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we are one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's not to hear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we're one, my good fella, there's not-two to communicate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whoops! ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, bro... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're a phony. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hear that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love u 2 ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hugs... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we are one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's to hug? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't that be self abuse? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bodies can still hug bodies, of course, silly. > > > > > > > > > > oh i see.. > > > > > > > > > > all is one except there are lots of " bodies " . > > > > > -bbb- > > > > > > > > > > That is the way it is. My body is felt here...yours there > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > who's feeling either one? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > I only know the feeling here. Dont know about that body there. This > > > > diversity of things is part of the one consciousness there is. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > who is this " I " that is " aware " of this " state of affairs " ? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Yes but that doesnt mean that there is no diversity...including > > > different > > > bodies in consciousness. > > > -geo- > > > > like variations on a theme. > > > > ok. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > I think it is even more fundamental then just variations on a theme > > because > > the whole universe is " known " through only " this " body. When this body > > kicks > > consciousness, the world, the universe...all gone. > > -geo- > > i don't know what fundamental means. > > what are the " overlays " to this " fundamental " stuff? > > the world rests on a turtle's back.. > > which sits atop another turtle's back.. > > and it goes " all the way down " .. > > but essentially.. > > it's all the same turtle's back or horse's ass. > > i ought to know. > > but i don't. > > .b b.b. > > Uffa...glad that I just sold my Petrobrás a few minutes ago. Its all sinking > now... > -geo- yeah commodities can suck these days. in Canada we've seen the same decline in their worth. it's actually fucking up our economy more than automotive. i wish the Exchange sold shares in useless promises. with our government here and in the U.S. we could all make fortunes. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, July 13, 2009 11:37 AM Re: Fwd: Why self-enquiry? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > There is the thought of separation. That is the nature of the thought > > then. > Then there is no more that thought of separation. So what? > -geo- If that's the case, sure. If one is attached, thinking the picture refers to something " real " or " existent " (like one's past history) then it becomes a matter of delusion. -tim- Yes. When the tought is thnking that its past history is fixed and defines some inner fixed entity - that is conflict, because it can not sustain itself. Then the nature of the thought is a kind of wavering conflicting uncertainty called normalacy. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > There is the thought of separation. That is the nature of the thought > then. > > Then there is no more that thought of separation. So what? > > -geo- > > If that's the case, sure. If one is attached, thinking the picture refers to something " real " or " existent " (like one's past history) then it becomes a matter of delusion. thinking that could also be delusion. if it was.. you'd never know. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
