Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

July 24, 2009

-

skywhilds

Nisargadatta

Friday, July 24, 2009 3:59 PM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

>

> I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

>

> > the power of now is powerless here.

>

> Too bad.

>

When we see all

As All One:

There is NEVER

Any disagreement,

Anywhere.

There is only ...

It's just a question

Of When does One

Allow One's Self

That Oneness

(I know you know)

geo> Hi sky. This " when " .....well is that not timeboundness? How do you fit

it?

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 24/7/2009 16:03:34

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

> Hi Dan,

>

> Us and Them...

>

> There are those who love to invalidate anyone they can only to post the same

old tired same old. And then tell you, they don't read you.

>

> It's a good thing that life is free to be whatever anyone thinks it is...

until that prevailing thought dies a timely death.

>

> ~A

Ah, yes.

To die a timely death.

There's the rub.

Because that time is never far off.

And the contents of thought are lost with the death of thought, along with us

and them.

Tears in the rain ...

From the film Blade Runner :

Roy Batty: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire

off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the

Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain...

Time to die.

- Dan

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> skywhilds

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, July 24, 2009 3:59 PM

> Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

> >

> > I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

> >

> > > the power of now is powerless here.

> >

> > Too bad.

> >

>

> When we see all

>

> As All One:

>

> There is NEVER

>

> Any disagreement,

>

> Anywhere.

>

> There is only ...

>

> It's just a question

>

> Of When does One

>

> Allow One's Self

>

> That Oneness

>

> (I know you know)

>

> geo> Hi sky. This " when " .....well is that not timeboundness? How do you fit

> it?

Hi, geo

I'm just talking about

One's conversation with oneself:

How one constructs one's universe.

If one believes in " when, "

One creates a when.

So, I'm creating a when,

Or, better, a " what to focus on in the present "

(Good point, thank you, geo, BTW!)

So, I say, " living in the eternal

Now, as I do: the 'past' is but a certain kind of

(Out of) focus on this eternal now.

To see clearly is to keep one's focus focused.

Unclear is out of focus on past as primary

In focus is to focus on present as primary

I don't know if I'm not

Raising more questions than answering.

But this is a fine moment

Isn't it?

)

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

> To see clearly is to keep one's focus focused.

>

> Unclear is out of focus on past as primary

>

> In focus is to focus on present as primary

If one loses interest in the past,

There's no need to 'focus' on the present.

Focus is necessary when one is 'trying' to 'be here now'.

Which is impossible, as the trying is itself 'the past' asserting. One has to

continually remember to 'be here now', and so one ends up not being here now,

but only remembering that one was going to do so.

So, losing interest is really the only option. The past as a focus of interest,

dissolves. And then, only the present is.

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Dan,

> >

> > Us and Them...

>

> As in, " Anna and Dan " vs. " Edg? " ;-)

>

> Ya see, Anna, what we post really has to do with 'here and now', which we are

most of the time unaware of.

>

> Not even, generally speaking, the content of the message we believe to be

replying to, which is 'the past'.

>

> Our thoughts, now.

>

> > There are those who love to invalidate anyone they can only to post

> > the same old tired same old. And then tell you, they don't read you.

>

> There isn't a " them " . There never was. Only here and now.

>

> Peace...

Hey Tim -

Yes.

And ...

If there never was a them, then you are addressing you which is I, even while

you seem to be talking to Anna as a you.

Anna is also addressing I even when she seems to be talking to you or me.

As Edg is addressing I when he seems to be talking to someone else.

Dan is addressing I when he appears to be addressing you, Anna, or Edg.

The names given by the various posters all refer to " I. "

" I " refers to a reference point of awareness.

Awareness is addressing awareness, regardless of the names being attached as

reference points for " where thoughts are coming from. "

Where are these thoughts coming from?

To whence do they return?

Who am I, as this thought and its contents dissolve (die)?

- Dan

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi Dan,

> > >

> > > Us and Them...

> >

> > As in, " Anna and Dan " vs. " Edg? " ;-)

> >

> > Ya see, Anna, what we post really has to do with 'here and now', which we

are most of the time unaware of.

> >

> > Not even, generally speaking, the content of the message we believe to be

replying to, which is 'the past'.

> >

> > Our thoughts, now.

> >

> > > There are those who love to invalidate anyone they can only to post

> > > the same old tired same old. And then tell you, they don't read you.

> >

> > There isn't a " them " . There never was. Only here and now.

> >

> > Peace...

>

> Hey Tim -

>

> Yes.

>

> And ...

>

> If there never was a them, then you are addressing you which is I, even while

you seem to be talking to Anna as a you.

>

> Anna is also addressing I even when she seems to be talking to you or me.

>

> As Edg is addressing I when he seems to be talking to someone else.

>

> Dan is addressing I when he appears to be addressing you, Anna, or Edg.

>

> The names given by the various posters all refer to " I. "

>

> " I " refers to a reference point of awareness.

Yes... Ramana Maharshi spoke of " the I-I " , which I take to mean what you're

saying above.

" There is only I " , inclusively. All are I.

This I have called " The Self " , although it seems like something of an

objectionable term to some, and so I've tended away from it as of late.

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi Dan,

> > >

> > > Us and Them...

> >

> > As in, " Anna and Dan " vs. " Edg? " ;-)

> >

> > Ya see, Anna, what we post really has to do with 'here and now', which we

are most of the time unaware of.

> >

> > Not even, generally speaking, the content of the message we believe to be

replying to, which is 'the past'.

> >

> > Our thoughts, now.

> >

> > > There are those who love to invalidate anyone they can only to post

> > > the same old tired same old. And then tell you, they don't read you.

> >

> > There isn't a " them " . There never was. Only here and now.

> >

> > Peace...

> >

>

> Tim.... let's get this straight once and for all.... Only in the here and now

can a division occur in which we can experience *Self* and *Other*. If this

were not so, you wouldn't have anyone to speak to- to question or answer.

>

> All the rest is bs.

>

> Sorry.

>

> ~A

Anna -

Has any actual division taken place?

I know that in terms of bodies, each one of these typing bodies is situated in a

different location at a different computer.

If one body stubs its toe, that toe is where the pain is felt to be.

We can attribute authorship to these apparently separable bodies as they type.

But is this an actual division occurring that separates being into a real self

and other?

Or is it language and thought that form the apparent content that separates self

from other?

To me (the body-mind typing at this location), this is the crux of the matter of

nonduality (in the conceptuality of this body-mind).

Along with this " crux, " is the apparent division into an observer of things, and

the things that exist apart from the observer.

After all, if you (the body-mind typing there) put an apple on the table and

leave the room, and someone else then enters the room and eats half of the

apple, when you return to the room there will be half an apple left where you

placed a whole apple. So, that means the observer (you) who left the apple is

separate from the apple, which exists separately from both observers, and that

the observer (the other) who ate the half of the apple is separate from you who

left the apple.

This again, is the crux of the matter of nonduality, from my perspective.

How actual is the division of observer from observer, and observer from apple

and table?

When you leave the room where you placed the apple, have you left the room?

What is really separating observers from each other, and from things?

I know we can experience self and other as distinct, as you say, at different

locations speaking to each other.

How real, how actual is that experience of separated observers who conceptualize

and speak differently, from different points of view?

Or, is the separation an inference, based on the assumptions made about bodies

that eat, sleep, and type in locations that can be known, and that are in

different places?

Although I want to express this in words, it never comes out right (just like

that guy Amit who wanted to write a Sanskrit dictionary).

Smiles,

Dan

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Dan,

> >

> > Us and Them...

>

> As in, " Anna and Dan " vs. " Edg? " ;-)

.... or as in Tim vs. Anna, as Tim educates Anna (below)?

.... or as Dan vs. Tim, perhaps, as Tim conceives of motives for Dan in posting

this message, or vice versa, as Dan conceives of Tim's motives ...

?

>

> Ya see, Anna, what we post really has to do with 'here and now', which we are

most of the time unaware of.

>

> Not even, generally speaking, the content of the message we believe to be

replying to, which is 'the past'.

>

> Our thoughts, now.

>

> > There are those who love to invalidate anyone they can only to post

> > the same old tired same old. And then tell you, they don't read you.

>

> There isn't a " them " . There never was. Only here and now.

>

> Peace...

>

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Although I want to express this in words, it never comes out right

> (just like that guy Amit who wanted to write a Sanskrit dictionary).

It really isn't expressible. As you've noted, one must divest investment in the

self-image, nonvolitionally. Any volitional attempt to divest investment is to

maintain the self-image.

Speaking for myself, I feel that 'seeds can be planted' with words.

Of course, they have to land on fertile ground.

July 24, 2009

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Friday, July 24, 2009 4:39 PM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

> To see clearly is to keep one's focus focused.

>

> Unclear is out of focus on past as primary

>

> In focus is to focus on present as primary

If one loses interest in the past,

There's no need to 'focus' on the present.

Focus is necessary when one is 'trying' to 'be here now'.

Which is impossible, as the trying is itself 'the past' asserting. One has

to continually remember to 'be here now', and so one ends up not being here

now, but only remembering that one was going to do so.

So, losing interest is really the only option. The past as a focus of

interest, dissolves. And then, only the present is.

-tim-

I would rather say that there should be an unbending and intense interest in

undrestanding and seeing time...to not be in it.

To loose interest in what is not?

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 24/7/2009 16:49:55

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> I would rather say that there should be an unbending and intense interest in

> undrestanding and seeing time...to not be in it.

> To loose interest in what is not?

> -geo-

Exactly. To lose interest in what is not.

What remains is 'what is'.

July 24, 2009

Edg -

Yes it's all about you vs. me and me vs. you.

The heart of nonduality.

Thanks,

-- Dan

Geo,

Since the site is unmoderated, Dan's welcome to post anything he wants, but my

decision to categorize his posts as trollish is to -- adult-to-adult -- notify

Dan that I will no longer attempt a meaningful interaction with someone who, at

a site dedicated to Nisargadatta, tosses Nisargadatta's statements into the

trash " out of hand. " Why come here with that point of view? -- it can only be

to provoke and irritate by ignoring all dialog and simply snickering like a

bully on a playground at " the little kids. " It's trollish at a site that has

the name " Nisargadatta. " Troll means " being a brutish putz under a bridge that

prongs passersby for no reason other than to gain attention illicitly. " Dan

took offense at the categorization -- that's a tell right there that he's as

invested in his ego as am I.

I'm not saying that Dan has nothing to say or that he hasn't earned some tee

shirts or that I won't read his statements. All I'm saying is " I give up on

hoping this dude will get real with me instead of spewing non-duality slogans at

me. " If I engage him again, shame on me, says me. Insanity is expecting the

same operation to yield differing results, right? I think Dan has made it clear

that no words of mine can have any merit in his nervous system, but, hey, is it

just me or does everyone get that Dan loves his own words despite his snarling

at anyone else's words?

You, Geo, on the other hand do try to get into harmony with me at least some of

the time, so I'm sharing time with you. Big of me, eh? Hee hee.

Your below kibitzing is not unlike Dan's kind of abuse here, so watch it bub --

just watch it. You don't want to see me angry. I'll , I'll, I'll, I'll find

more words -- yeah I see you trembling now -- you just watch -- boy will you be

in a world of hurt. Where's my thesaurus? Got it....now I'm ready for ya.

Hee hee.

Edg

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

> >

> > I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

> >

> > > the power of now is powerless here.

> >

> > Too bad.

> >

>

> When we see all

>

> As All One:

>

> There is NEVER

>

> Any disagreement,

>

> Anywhere.

>

> There is only ...

>

> It's just a question

>

> Of When does One

>

> Allow One's Self

>

> That Oneness

>

> (I know you know)

And is one clear that it is not even in one's power to disallow?

There is no negation.

There is no other option.

-- Dan

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

> > >

> > > I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

> > >

> > > > the power of now is powerless here.

> > >

> > > Too bad.

> > >

> >

> > When we see all

> >

> > As All One:

> >

> > There is NEVER

> >

> > Any disagreement,

> >

> > Anywhere.

>

> There are lots of folks disagreeing with themselves (projected as 'other').

>

> There are not two people disagreeing with each other, no. It's actually quite

impossible, although it may seem just the opposite.

>

> Nobody is in contact with any 'other', only with their own interpretations...

which is, to say, themselves. Or not.

Well said.

I hear you (me).

- Dan

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> >

> > To see clearly is to keep one's focus focused.

> >

> > Unclear is out of focus on past as primary

> >

> > In focus is to focus on present as primary

>

> If one loses interest in the past,

>

> There's no need to 'focus' on the present.

>

> Focus is necessary when one is 'trying' to 'be here now'.

>

> Which is impossible, as the trying is itself 'the past' asserting. One has to

continually remember to 'be here now', and so one ends up not being here now,

but only remembering that one was going to do so.

>

> So, losing interest is really the only option. The past as a focus of

interest, dissolves. And then, only the present is.

>

My experience is that I

Do have a choice, the freedom

To live the Now fully,

Or to obsess on the past, in unfreedom

I do find that what I

Tell myself, my Self

WAY MATTERS.

This idea of dissolving

Beyond beyond,

I find to be just a

Romantic Notion

(Albeit a practicable one!

Hence, yes, livable:

Still, it IS STILL

Something I/you tell oneself...

Although I see the paradox

And I'm sure it can best be understood

As a process.

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

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

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

> > > >

> > > > I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

> > > >

> > > > > the power of now is powerless here.

> > > >

> > > > Too bad.

> > >

> > > How's about a bit of Nisargadatta, tho --

> > >

> > > Questioner: Are you not immersed timelessly in an abstraction?

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta: Abstraction is mental and verbal and disappears in sleep, or

swoon; it reappears in time; I am in my own state (swarupa) timelessly in the

now. Past and future are in mind only -- I am *now*.

> > >

> >

> > When?

> >

> > " Yes, I accept myself " :

> >

> > Now.

> >

> > Not Now?

> >

> > No:

> >

> > " I reject my

> >

> > Self "

> >

> > Now

> >

> > There is only

> >

> > The NO

> >

> > And the

> >

> > NOW

> >

> > With Infinite Freedom

> >

> > To choose one or the other:

> >

> > If one says one is bound:

> >

> > One is bound.

> >

> > If one says one is free

> >

> > One is free.

>

> One is free.

>

> All that can be bound, involves a concept which has contents about being

bound.

>

> And that concept arises and dissolves in freedom.

>

> -- Dan --

>

Exactly!

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> > >

> > > To see clearly is to keep one's focus focused.

> > >

> > > Unclear is out of focus on past as primary

> > >

> > > In focus is to focus on present as primary

> >

> > If one loses interest in the past,

> >

> > There's no need to 'focus' on the present.

> >

> > Focus is necessary when one is 'trying' to 'be here now'.

> >

> > Which is impossible, as the trying is itself 'the past' asserting. One has

to continually remember to 'be here now', and so one ends up not being here now,

but only remembering that one was going to do so.

> >

> > So, losing interest is really the only option. The past as a focus of

interest, dissolves. And then, only the present is.

> >

>

> My experience is that I

>

> Do have a choice, the freedom

>

> To live the Now fully,

>

> Or to obsess on the past, in unfreedom

I am not here, to have a choice.

I, myself, am a thought, arising now.

All arises now, choicelessly.

Nobody is running the show.

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

> > >

> > > I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

> > >

> > > > the power of now is powerless here.

> > >

> > > Too bad.

> > >

> >

> > When we see all

> >

> > As All One:

> >

> > There is NEVER

> >

> > Any disagreement,

> >

> > Anywhere.

> >

> > There is only ...

> >

> > It's just a question

> >

> > Of When does One

> >

> > Allow One's Self

> >

> > That Oneness

> >

> > (I know you know)

>

> And is one clear that it is not even in one's power to disallow?

>

> There is no negation.

>

> There is no other option.

>

> -- Dan

>

Yes, on the deepest level:

Absolutely.

But, a measure of that very freedom

IS that one CAN convince oneself of

Experience (almost) completely

Unfreedom, enslavement, bondage:

Suffering.

Suffering proves that we are free

To convince ourselves that we are not free.

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

>

> I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

>

> > the power of now is powerless here.

>

> Too bad.

Eckarte Tolle and you are ONE..

HERE and NOW..

why do you separate?

too good for yourself?

LOL!

..b b.b.

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > Although I want to express this in words, it never comes out right

> > > (just like that guy Amit who wanted to write a Sanskrit dictionary).

> >

> > It really isn't expressible. As you've noted, one must divest investment in

the self-image, nonvolitionally. Any volitional attempt to divest investment is

to maintain the self-image.

> >

> > Speaking for myself, I feel that 'seeds can be planted' with words.

> >

> > Of course, they have to land on fertile ground.

>

> Yeah, we can't shut up about what we can't say.

LOL :-).

Hey, all in good fun.

Some folks like talking about stamp collecting, or high-end headphones, or

whatever.

> And if the ground is fertile, what will not be speaking the truth

> directly to it?

Very true. At minimum, though, honest/direct words don't hurt any.

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

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

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

> > > >

> > > > I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

> > > >

> > > > > the power of now is powerless here.

> > > >

> > > > Too bad.

> > > >

> > >

> > > When we see all

> > >

> > > As All One:

> > >

> > > There is NEVER

> > >

> > > Any disagreement,

> > >

> > > Anywhere.

> > >

> > > There is only ...

> > >

> > > It's just a question

> > >

> > > Of When does One

> > >

> > > Allow One's Self

> > >

> > > That Oneness

> > >

> > > (I know you know)

> >

> > And is one clear that it is not even in one's power to disallow?

> >

> > There is no negation.

> >

> > There is no other option.

> >

> > -- Dan

> >

>

> Yes, on the deepest level:

>

> Absolutely.

>

> But, a measure of that very freedom

>

> IS that one CAN convince oneself of

>

> Experience (almost) completely

>

> Unfreedom, enslavement, bondage:

>

> Suffering.

>

> Suffering proves that we are free

>

> To convince ourselves that we are not free.

True.

As long as it lasts.

And how long is it lasting?

- Dan

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > To see clearly is to keep one's focus focused.

> > > >

> > > > Unclear is out of focus on past as primary

> > > >

> > > > In focus is to focus on present as primary

> > >

> > > If one loses interest in the past,

> > >

> > > There's no need to 'focus' on the present.

> > >

> > > Focus is necessary when one is 'trying' to 'be here now'.

> > >

> > > Which is impossible, as the trying is itself 'the past' asserting. One

has to continually remember to 'be here now', and so one ends up not being here

now, but only remembering that one was going to do so.

> > >

> > > So, losing interest is really the only option. The past as a focus of

interest, dissolves. And then, only the present is.

> > >

> >

> > My experience is that I

> >

> > Do have a choice, the freedom

> >

> > To live the Now fully,

> >

> > Or to obsess on the past, in unfreedom

>

> I am not here, to have a choice.

>

> I, myself, am a thought, arising now.

>

> All arises now, choicelessly.

>

> Nobody is running the show.

>

That's beautiful, too.

Seriously.

But I call that " freedom "

Precisely, exactly what you just said, above:

I call THAT " FREEDOM "

It's not a semantic issue, question.

It's a complex personal/poetic/philosophical/spiritual issue.

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

> >

> > I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

> >

> > > the power of now is powerless here.

> >

> > Too bad.

> >

>

> When we see all

>

> As All One:

>

> There is NEVER

>

> Any disagreement,

>

> Anywhere.

>

> There is only ...

>

> It's just a question

>

> Of When does One

>

> Allow One's Self

>

> That Oneness

>

> (I know you know)

oh Gawd!

what crap.

..b b.b.

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Although I want to express this in words, it never comes out right

> > > > (just like that guy Amit who wanted to write a Sanskrit dictionary).

> > >

> > > It really isn't expressible. As you've noted, one must divest investment

in the self-image, nonvolitionally. Any volitional attempt to divest investment

is to maintain the self-image.

> > >

> > > Speaking for myself, I feel that 'seeds can be planted' with words.

> > >

> > > Of course, they have to land on fertile ground.

> >

> > Yeah, we can't shut up about what we can't say.

>

> LOL :-).

>

> Hey, all in good fun.

>

> Some folks like talking about stamp collecting, or high-end headphones, or

whatever.

>

> > And if the ground is fertile, what will not be speaking the truth

> > directly to it?

>

> Very true. At minimum, though, honest/direct words don't hurt any.

Agreed.

And as Skye suggested, self-deception is as real as you are able to make it,

while it seems real to you.

So, untruth comes in when self-deceptive communicating is maintained as reality,

and truth is treated as unreal.

And this has reality to the extent of the ability to believe in it, internalize

it, employ ignore-ance, and maintain it as if truth.

And direct, honest words, as you say, certainly can't hurt in that situation.

-- Dan

July 24, 2009

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

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

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

> > > > >

> > > > > I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

> > > > >

> > > > > > the power of now is powerless here.

> > > > >

> > > > > Too bad.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > When we see all

> > > >

> > > > As All One:

> > > >

> > > > There is NEVER

> > > >

> > > > Any disagreement,

> > > >

> > > > Anywhere.

> > >

> > > There are lots of folks disagreeing with themselves (projected as

'other').

> > >

> > > There are not two people disagreeing with each other, no. It's actually

quite impossible, although it may seem just the opposite.

> > >

> > > Nobody is in contact with any 'other', only with their own

interpretations... which is, to say, themselves. Or not.

> > >

> >

> > Precisely!

> >

> PS: Except for those pesky viruses. These words, here, the Now ones, they

immunize against such infections as, " I/you/she/it/they are not free. "

and let the un-free losers feel free to write postscripts.

thus spake the Lord:

..b b.b.

Sign In

Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest