Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

July 26, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

>

> How do you do, good sir?

>

> Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to hold,

'til death do you part?

>

> You do?

>

> Do you?

>

> Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the " other "

half?

>

> *You'll* never tell ;-).

>

> Cheers...

it's all lies.

including this.

what's truth?

everything ends..100% of all things end.

no big deal and certainly nothing new.

you'll never admit it.

..b b.b.

July 26, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> >

> > How do you do, good sir?

> >

> > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to hold,

'til death do you part?

> >

> > You do?

> >

> > Do you?

> >

> > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the " other "

half?

> >

> > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> >

> > Cheers...

>

> it's all lies.

>

> including this.

>

> what's truth?

>

> everything ends..100% of all things end.

>

> no big deal and certainly nothing new.

>

> you'll never admit it.

>

> .b b.b.

>

Hey Bob, I like the photo on your profile. The endless reflections in the

computer screen is awesome! So is the fact that you have no skin.

July 26, 2009

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> > >

> > > How do you do, good sir?

> > >

> > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to hold,

'til death do you part?

> > >

> > > You do?

> > >

> > > Do you?

> > >

> > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the

" other " half?

> > >

> > > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> > >

> > > Cheers...

> >

> > it's all lies.

> >

> > including this.

> >

> > what's truth?

> >

> > everything ends..100% of all things end.

> >

> > no big deal and certainly nothing new.

> >

> > you'll never admit it.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

> Hey Bob, I like the photo on your profile. The endless reflections in the

computer screen is awesome! So is the fact that you have no skin.

i'll never know for sure.

i don't even know who took that flattering photo.

:-)

..b b.b.

July 26, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Sunday, July 26, 2009 3:39 AM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Yes, I've asked myself precisely those questions.

> > > >

> > > > And I've COMPLETELY changed from believing in

> > > >

> > > > " no freedom, hence, compassion. "

> > > >

> > > > To " absolute freedom, hence no need for compassion "

> > >

> > > There is no need for anything... but compassion arises, anyway.

> > >

> > > One cannot but tend toward compassion toward another, when that other

> > > is oneself.

> > >

> >

> > Yes, AND

> >

> > There are choices made

> >

> > Decisions change things

> >

> > The will has an effect

> >

> > One can resist one's Self

> >

>

> and

>

> There is the freedom to be utterly

>

> Demonic, destructive, idiotic, trivial

>

> Negative and UNFREE for it's own sake:

That is just what someone doing this tries to tell themselves.

Actually, it is a compulsion, and is not done for its own sake.

It is done for the sake of attempting to avoid fear, and the feared reality.

> Merely to be free to be unfree

>

> and (for me, this is the BEST NEWS)

>

> One CAN

>

> Consciously and deliberately decide to willfully:

>

> Truly be blissfully happy, loving, compassionate

>

> Most Freely in the Now

>

> Most Gleefully in the Know

This still is an attempt to hold on to a feeling of volition, hence an

identity and sense of self existing.

imho,

- Dan

Because freedom, compassion, etc.., is the nature of what is when

non-fragmentation is not.

-geo-

July 26, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Sunday, July 26, 2009 3:55 AM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> skywhilds

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, July 25, 2009 12:34 PM

> Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > > > > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds "

> > > > > > > > > <skywords@>

> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds "

> > > > > > > > > > <skywords@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. "

> > > > > > > > > > > <fewtch@>

> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds "

> > > > > > > > > > > > <skywords@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I've asked myself precisely those questions.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > And I've COMPLETELY changed from believing in

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > " no freedom, hence, compassion. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > To " absolute freedom, hence no need for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > compassion "

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need for anything... but compassion

> > > > > > > > > > > > arises, anyway.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > One cannot but tend toward compassion toward

> > > > > > > > > > > > another,

> > > > > > > > > > > > when that other is oneself.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, AND

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > There are choices made

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Decisions change things

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The will has an effect

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > One can resist one's Self

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There is the freedom to be utterly

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Demonic, destructive, idiotic, trivial

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Negative and UNFREE for it's own sake:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Merely to be free to be unfree

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > and (for me, this is the BEST NEWS)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > One CAN

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Consciously and deliberately decide to willfully:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Truly be blissfully happy, loving, compassionate

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Most Freely in the Now

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Most Gleefully in the Know

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > (without ANY prerequisites, processes, etc.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > the idea of " not this without that, not that without

> > > > > > > > > > this, "

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > is pure suffering, spiritually. Science is NOT exactly

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > poetry/spirit/feeling and poetry/spirit/feeling is NOT

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > exactly science. To equate the two realms is suffering.)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > In " I AM That " Nisargadatta said, " I do not need to make

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > effort; the deed follows the thought, without delay and

> > > > > > > > > friction. I have also found that thoughts become

> > > > > > > > > self-fulfilling; things would fall into place smoothly and

> > > > > > > > > rightly. The main change was in the mind; it became

> > > > > > > > > motionless and silent, responding quickly, but not

> > > > > > > > > perpetuating the response. Spontaneity became a way of

> > > > > > > > > life,

> > > > > > > > > the real became natural and the natural became real. And

> > > > > > > > > above all, infinite affection, love, dark and quiet,

> > > > > > > > > radiating in all directions, embracing all, making all

> > > > > > > > > interesting and beautiful, significant and auspicious. "

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > BEAUTIFUL!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > smoooooooooooooooth eh pancho?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > just like you'd like it to be.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > it's not.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > it's just words on a page like words in a bible.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > the believers in both kinds of nonsense..

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > are believers because they just want to..

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > or have to....... believe.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > it's the only way they can live with themselves..

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > and their hollow lives.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > it's an " excuse " little cisco.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It boils down to whether or not you trust the words of the

> > > > > > guru -

> > > > > > the Self as manifested as Nisargadatta.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't get it, that you'd say that!

> > > > >

> > > > > Your quote is awesome but I was also assuming! that

> > > > >

> > > > > You yourself were having the same experience as Nis.

> > > > >

> > > > > For me, " it all boils down " to my own personal experience:

> > > > >

> > > > > My trusting my own experience:

> > > > >

> > > > > I would never trust another's experience, ever..

> > > > >

> > > > > Until it was also, PRIMARILY, my own.

> > > > >

> > > > > Still, I think you're probably on the

> > > > >

> > > > > " Right track, "

> > > > >

> > > > > (whatever that means...hope I don't sound too presumptuous)

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > My own experience would quite possibly never have happened had " i "

> > > > not

> > > > trusted the words of the guru is the point.

> > > >

> > >

> > > That clears up my confusion: perfect!

> > >

> >

> > Have you ever had the experience but not your own words to relate it?

> > That

> > is why I refer to the guru's words and not my own.

> >

>

> Yeah, totally, I'm with you.

>

> This is The Way

>

> This is The Tao,

>

> Right here, right now.

>

> We're in it.

>

> It also occurs to me,

>

> That it's a part (or a potentiality) of

>

> The Freedom:

>

> To " invent " the guru/parent/power/free figure,

>

> As the rep for The Highest Inner Self,

>

> So that we can " play " the disciple/child/powerless/unfree figure,

>

> And thus the SELF liberates/frees the self

>

> Through that " story/illusion/fantasy. "

>

> No problem.

>

> A Way,

>

> A Tao.

>

> I'm there, too.

>

> geo> " ..And thus the SELF liberates/frees the self.. "

> Jeez...I think it is time to have a rest,

> -ego-

Yes.

It's difficult to acknowledge that there is no Self that will free a self.

There is no self to be made free.

One is free of self.

The strivings of the self to be free, are avoidance.

The wish of the self to make itself free by believing in freedom, is

self-deceit.

Awareness, although that which never is not, comes at a price:

Everything you have believed yourself to be, know, have.

In other words, all the unreality that has been taken as real.

And the center of it.

- Dan -

Not that it is relevant - but your " definition " above as " all the unreality

that has been taken as real.

and the center of it. " is what krishnamurti calls consciousness.

-geo-

July 26, 2009

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Sunday, July 26, 2009 5:40 AM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> The wish of the self to make itself free by believing in freedom, is >

> self-deceit.

>

> Awareness, although that which never is not, comes at a price:

>

> Everything you have believed yourself to be, know, have.

>

> In other words, all the unreality that has been taken as real.

>

> And the center of it.

>

> - Dan -

It looks like a high price, from a perspective of 'attachment'.

From a perspective of non-attachment, it's laughable.

The loss of unreality, directly related to " all my problems " , being taken as

a " price? "

==

Yes...its in fact the loosing of weight one had to carry for a long

time...Or, burning the contract I thought I had signed but did not.

-geo-

July 26, 2009

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

>

> How do you do, good sir?

>

> Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to hold,

> 'til death do you part?

>

> You do?

>

> Do you?

>

> Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the

> " other " half?

>

> *You'll* never tell ;-).

>

> Cheers...

it's all lies.

including this.

what's truth?

everything ends..100% of all things end.

no big deal and certainly nothing new.

you'll never admit it.

..b b.b.

Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that does not

end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves concerning

death.

-geo-

July 26, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM

> Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> >

> > How do you do, good sir?

> >

> > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to hold,

> > 'til death do you part?

> >

> > You do?

> >

> > Do you?

> >

> > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the

> > " other " half?

> >

> > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> >

> > Cheers...

>

> it's all lies.

>

> including this.

>

> what's truth?

>

> everything ends..100% of all things end.

>

> no big deal and certainly nothing new.

>

> you'll never admit it.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that does not

> end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves concerning

> death.

> -geo-

>

Yes, what is there to be fooled about?

July 26, 2009

-

douglasmitch1963

Nisargadatta

Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM

> Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> >

> > How do you do, good sir?

> >

> > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to

> > hold,

> > 'til death do you part?

> >

> > You do?

> >

> > Do you?

> >

> > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the

> > " other " half?

> >

> > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> >

> > Cheers...

>

> it's all lies.

>

> including this.

>

> what's truth?

>

> everything ends..100% of all things end.

>

> no big deal and certainly nothing new.

>

> you'll never admit it.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that does not

> end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves concerning

> death.

> -geo-

>

Yes, what is there to be fooled about?

geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death.

July 26, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> douglasmitch1963

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM

> Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > -

> > roberibus111

> > Nisargadatta

> > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM

> > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> > >

> > > How do you do, good sir?

> > >

> > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to

> > > hold,

> > > 'til death do you part?

> > >

> > > You do?

> > >

> > > Do you?

> > >

> > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the

> > > " other " half?

> > >

> > > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> > >

> > > Cheers...

> >

> > it's all lies.

> >

> > including this.

> >

> > what's truth?

> >

> > everything ends..100% of all things end.

> >

> > no big deal and certainly nothing new.

> >

> > you'll never admit it.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that does not

> > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves concerning

> > death.

> > -geo-

> >

> Yes, what is there to be fooled about?

>

> geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death.

>

Right " there " with " you " man.

July 27, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, July 26, 2009 3:39 AM

> Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, I've asked myself precisely those questions.

> > > > >

> > > > > And I've COMPLETELY changed from believing in

> > > > >

> > > > > " no freedom, hence, compassion. "

> > > > >

> > > > > To " absolute freedom, hence no need for compassion "

> > > >

> > > > There is no need for anything... but compassion arises, anyway.

> > > >

> > > > One cannot but tend toward compassion toward another, when that other

> > > > is oneself.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Yes, AND

> > >

> > > There are choices made

> > >

> > > Decisions change things

> > >

> > > The will has an effect

> > >

> > > One can resist one's Self

> > >

> >

> > and

> >

> > There is the freedom to be utterly

> >

> > Demonic, destructive, idiotic, trivial

> >

> > Negative and UNFREE for it's own sake:

>

> That is just what someone doing this tries to tell themselves.

>

> Actually, it is a compulsion, and is not done for its own sake.

>

> It is done for the sake of attempting to avoid fear, and the feared reality.

>

> > Merely to be free to be unfree

> >

> > and (for me, this is the BEST NEWS)

> >

> > One CAN

> >

> > Consciously and deliberately decide to willfully:

> >

> > Truly be blissfully happy, loving, compassionate

> >

> > Most Freely in the Now

> >

> > Most Gleefully in the Know

>

> This still is an attempt to hold on to a feeling of volition, hence an

> identity and sense of self existing.

>

> imho,

>

> - Dan

>

> Because freedom, compassion, etc.., is the nature of what is when

> non-fragmentation is not.

> -geo-

Yes, just what is.

No one apart to invest in it, make decisions to be it, etc.

Never divided in the first place.

The attempt to be there is self-contradictory.

- D -

July 27, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> douglasmitch1963

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM

> Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > -

> > roberibus111

> > Nisargadatta

> > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM

> > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> > >

> > > How do you do, good sir?

> > >

> > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to

> > > hold,

> > > 'til death do you part?

> > >

> > > You do?

> > >

> > > Do you?

> > >

> > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the

> > > " other " half?

> > >

> > > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> > >

> > > Cheers...

> >

> > it's all lies.

> >

> > including this.

> >

> > what's truth?

> >

> > everything ends..100% of all things end.

> >

> > no big deal and certainly nothing new.

> >

> > you'll never admit it.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that does not

> > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves concerning

> > death.

> > -geo-

> >

> Yes, what is there to be fooled about?

>

> geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death.

If one took away from the human being everything that was done to avoid being

nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having wealth, not be

remembered, not having experiences, not having what you want)

and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid risks, being

noticed, experiencing)

what would be left?

just natural being

being which is not in opposition to not-being

which has no conflict with any other

and the human being would then act without acting, know without knowing, be

without existing

and life would be ...

unknown

.... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known

of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that is done to

avoid being and to avoid not being.

because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness

one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very little of an

impact

because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which avoidance of

being drops, does not involve any impact from something outside - including

words, religion, spiritual practice, etc.

there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is neither existing

nor not existing.

-- Dan --

July 27, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > -

> > douglasmitch1963

> > Nisargadatta

> > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM

> > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > -

> > > roberibus111

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM

> > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

> > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> > > >

> > > > How do you do, good sir?

> > > >

> > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to

> > > > hold,

> > > > 'til death do you part?

> > > >

> > > > You do?

> > > >

> > > > Do you?

> > > >

> > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the

> > > > " other " half?

> > > >

> > > > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> > > >

> > > > Cheers...

> > >

> > > it's all lies.

> > >

> > > including this.

> > >

> > > what's truth?

> > >

> > > everything ends..100% of all things end.

> > >

> > > no big deal and certainly nothing new.

> > >

> > > you'll never admit it.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that does not

> > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves concerning

> > > death.

> > > -geo-

> > >

> > Yes, what is there to be fooled about?

> >

> > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death.

> If one took away from the human being everything that was done to avoid being

nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having wealth, not be

remembered, not having experiences, not having what you want)

who could be " the one " to " take away.?

>

> and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid risks,

being noticed, experiencing)

>

> what would be left?

left from what?

left as what?

nothing is ever gained or lost.

>

> just natural being

>

> being which is not in opposition to not-being

>

> which has no conflict with any other

conflict is illusion.

> and the human being would then act without acting, know without knowing, be

without existing

>

> and life would be ...

>

> unknown

so says the one called danny.

and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else.

because danny is exactly the same as everyone else.

except danny wants to pontificate.

no bow.

> ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known

>

> of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that is done

to avoid being and to avoid not being.

by whom?

> because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness

regarding what?

>

> one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very little of an

impact

who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about?

>

> because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which avoidance

of being drops, does not involve any impact from something outside - including

words, religion, spiritual practice, etc.

>

> there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is neither

existing nor not existing.

>

> -- Dan --

just nonsense.

plain and simple.

it's clear to any awareness.

..b b.b.

July 27, 2009

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Monday, July 27, 2009 2:14 PM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > -

> > douglasmitch1963

> > Nisargadatta

> > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM

> > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

> > nonconceptual

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > -

> > > roberibus111

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM

> > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

> > > nonconceptual

> > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> > > >

> > > > How do you do, good sir?

> > > >

> > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to

> > > > hold,

> > > > 'til death do you part?

> > > >

> > > > You do?

> > > >

> > > > Do you?

> > > >

> > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the

> > > > " other " half?

> > > >

> > > > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> > > >

> > > > Cheers...

> > >

> > > it's all lies.

> > >

> > > including this.

> > >

> > > what's truth?

> > >

> > > everything ends..100% of all things end.

> > >

> > > no big deal and certainly nothing new.

> > >

> > > you'll never admit it.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that does

> > > not

> > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves concerning

> > > death.

> > > -geo-

> > >

> > Yes, what is there to be fooled about?

> >

> > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death.

> If one took away from the human being everything that was done to avoid

> being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having

> wealth, not be remembered, not having experiences, not having what you

> want)

who could be " the one " to " take away.?

>

> and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid risks,

> being noticed, experiencing)

>

> what would be left?

left from what?

left as what?

nothing is ever gained or lost.

>

> just natural being

>

> being which is not in opposition to not-being

>

> which has no conflict with any other

conflict is illusion.

> and the human being would then act without acting, know without knowing,

> be without existing

>

> and life would be ...

>

> unknown

so says the one called danny.

and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else.

because danny is exactly the same as everyone else.

except danny wants to pontificate.

no bow.

> ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known

>

> of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that is

> done to avoid being and to avoid not being.

by whom?

> because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness

regarding what?

>

> one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very little of

> an impact

who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about?

>

> because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which

> avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from something

> outside - including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc.

>

> there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is neither

> existing nor not existing.

>

> -- Dan --

just nonsense.

plain and simple.

it's clear to any awareness.

..b b.b.

I think he is saying that without the center-periphery-consciousness there

would not be a separate me. " Taking away " does not mean someone taking

away..it is an idiomatic expression. It is not possible to

desassemble/separte idiomatic expressions into their individual component

words - the unit looses its meaning. For example...smart-ass means one

thing, but then ass and smart another.

-geo-

July 27, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > -

> > > douglasmitch1963

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM

> > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > roberibus111

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM

> > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

> > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > How do you do, good sir?

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to

> > > > > hold,

> > > > > 'til death do you part?

> > > > >

> > > > > You do?

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you?

> > > > >

> > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the

> > > > > " other " half?

> > > > >

> > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> > > > >

> > > > > Cheers...

> > > >

> > > > it's all lies.

> > > >

> > > > including this.

> > > >

> > > > what's truth?

> > > >

> > > > everything ends..100% of all things end.

> > > >

> > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new.

> > > >

> > > > you'll never admit it.

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that does

not

> > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves concerning

> > > > death.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about?

> > >

> > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death.

>

> > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to avoid

being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having wealth, not

be remembered, not having experiences, not having what you want)

>

> who could be " the one " to " take away.?

>

> >

> > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid risks,

being noticed, experiencing)

> >

> > what would be left?

left from what?

>

> left as what?

>

> nothing is ever gained or lost.

>

> > just natural being

> >

> > being which is not in opposition to not-being

> >

> > which has no conflict with any other

>

> conflict is illusion.

>

> > and the human being would then act without acting, know without knowing, be

without existing

> >

> > and life would be ...

> >

> > unknown

>

> so says the one called danny.

>

> and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else.

>

> because danny is exactly the same as everyone else.

>

> except danny wants to pontificate.

>

> no bow.

>

> > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known

> >

> > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that is done

to avoid being and to avoid not being.

>

> by whom?

>

> > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness

>

> regarding what?

>

> >

> > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very little of an

impact

>

> who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about?

>

> >

> > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which

avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from something outside -

including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc.

> >

> > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is neither

existing nor not existing.

> >

> > -- Dan --

>

> just nonsense.

>

> plain and simple.

>

> it's clear to any awareness.

>

> .b b.b.

>

No Kidding!!

July 27, 2009

Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > douglasmitch1963

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM

> > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > roberibus111

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM

> > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > How do you do, good sir?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to

> > > > > > hold,

> > > > > > 'til death do you part?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You do?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the

> > > > > > " other " half?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Cheers...

> > > > >

> > > > > it's all lies.

> > > > >

> > > > > including this.

> > > > >

> > > > > what's truth?

> > > > >

> > > > > everything ends..100% of all things end.

> > > > >

> > > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new.

> > > > >

> > > > > you'll never admit it.

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > >

> > > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that does

not

> > > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves concerning

> > > > > death.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about?

> > > >

> > > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death.

> >

> > > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to avoid

being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having wealth, not

be remembered, not having experiences, not having what you want)

> >

> > who could be " the one " to " take away.?

> >

> > >

> > > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid risks,

being noticed, experiencing)

> > >

> > > what would be left?

> >

> > left from what?

> >

> > left as what?

> >

> > nothing is ever gained or lost.

> >

> > >

> > > just natural being

> > >

> > > being which is not in opposition to not-being

> > >

> > > which has no conflict with any other

> >

> > conflict is illusion.

> >

> > > and the human being would then act without acting, know without knowing,

be without existing

> > >

> > > and life would be ...

> > >

> > > unknown

> >

> > so says the one called danny.

> >

> > and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else.

> >

> > because danny is exactly the same as everyone else.

> >

> > except danny wants to pontificate.

> >

> > no bow.

> >

> > > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known

> > >

> > > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that is

done to avoid being and to avoid not being.

> >

> > by whom?

> >

> > > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness

> >

> > regarding what?

> >

> > >

> > > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very little of

an impact

> >

> > who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about?

> >

> > >

> > > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which

avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from something outside -

including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc.

> > >

> > > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is neither

existing nor not existing.

> > >

> > > -- Dan --

> >

> > just nonsense.

> >

> > plain and simple.

> >

> > it's clear to any awareness.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

> No Kidding!!

So much defensiveness, due to such simple posts (as Dan posts).

It's interesting.

The same thing happened here the other night -- I posted the following on

Nondualitysalon, and was met with so much distractive talk, it was ridiculous.

Folks were actually trying to change the subject multiple times over in the same

responses. One can tell a good nondual pointing by how riled up it gets folks

;-).

> > > I will try to figure out a

> > > way to send you one.

> >

> > Good luck sending 'someone else' even...

> >

> > A sight from one's own eyes,

> >

> > A sound heard in one's own ears,

> >

> > A smell in one's own nose,

> >

> > A feeling felt in one's own body,

> >

> > A thought from one's own head.

> >

> > Is there an 'other', apart from the reader's own sight, sound, smell,

feeling and/or thought of another?

> >

> > This is crucial. We assume 'others' are seeing us, and we are seeing them.

> >

> > This is literally and completely false.

July 27, 2009

The same thing happened here the other night -- I posted the following on

Nondualitysalon, and was met with so much distractive talk, it was ridiculous.

Folks were actually trying to change the subject multiple times over in the same

responses. One can tell a good nondual pointing by how riled up it gets folks

;-).

Folks?

Volks (waggon' their fingers)?

Flocks o' sheep?

Flocks o' birds

Flying in a halo

Above y/our head?

July 27, 2009

Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > douglasmitch1963

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM

> > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > roberibus111

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM

> > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > How do you do, good sir?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to

> > > > > > hold,

> > > > > > 'til death do you part?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You do?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the

> > > > > > " other " half?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Cheers...

> > > > >

> > > > > it's all lies.

> > > > >

> > > > > including this.

> > > > >

> > > > > what's truth?

> > > > >

> > > > > everything ends..100% of all things end.

> > > > >

> > > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new.

> > > > >

> > > > > you'll never admit it.

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > >

> > > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that does

not

> > > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves concerning

> > > > > death.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about?

> > > >

> > > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death.

> >

> > > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to avoid

being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having wealth, not

be remembered, not having experiences, not having what you want)

> >

> > who could be " the one " to " take away.?

> >

> > >

> > > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid risks,

being noticed, experiencing)

> > >

> > > what would be left?

> >

> > left from what?

> >

> > left as what?

> >

> > nothing is ever gained or lost.

> >

> > >

> > > just natural being

> > >

> > > being which is not in opposition to not-being

> > >

> > > which has no conflict with any other

> >

> > conflict is illusion.

> >

> > > and the human being would then act without acting, know without knowing,

be without existing

> > >

> > > and life would be ...

> > >

> > > unknown

> >

> > so says the one called danny.

> >

> > and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else.

> >

> > because danny is exactly the same as everyone else.

> >

> > except danny wants to pontificate.

> >

> > no bow.

> >

> > > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known

> > >

> > > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that is

done to avoid being and to avoid not being.

> >

> > by whom?

> >

> > > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness

> >

> > regarding what?

> >

> > >

> > > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very little of

an impact

> >

> > who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about?

> >

> > >

> > > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which

avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from something outside -

including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc.

> > >

> > > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is neither

existing nor not existing.

> > >

> > > -- Dan --

> >

> > just nonsense.

> >

> > plain and simple.

> >

> > it's clear to any awareness.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

> No Kidding!!

ROFLMAO!

behave and go back in your hole.

..b b.b.

July 27, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > douglasmitch1963

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM

> > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > roberibus111

> > > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM

> > > > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > How do you do, good sir?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and

to

> > > > > > > hold,

> > > > > > > 'til death do you part?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You do?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do you?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or

the

> > > > > > > " other " half?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Cheers...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > it's all lies.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > including this.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > what's truth?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > everything ends..100% of all things end.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > you'll never admit it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that

does not

> > > > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves

concerning

> > > > > > death.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about?

> > > > >

> > > > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death.

> > >

> > > > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to avoid

being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having wealth, not

be remembered, not having experiences, not having what you want)

> > >

> > > who could be " the one " to " take away.?

> > >

> > > >

> > > > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid

risks, being noticed, experiencing)

> > > >

> > > > what would be left?

> > >

> > > left from what?

> > >

> > > left as what?

> > >

> > > nothing is ever gained or lost.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > just natural being

> > > >

> > > > being which is not in opposition to not-being

> > > >

> > > > which has no conflict with any other

> > >

> > > conflict is illusion.

> > >

> > > > and the human being would then act without acting, know without knowing,

be without existing

> > > >

> > > > and life would be ...

> > > >

> > > > unknown

> > >

> > > so says the one called danny.

> > >

> > > and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else.

> > >

> > > because danny is exactly the same as everyone else.

> > >

> > > except danny wants to pontificate.

> > >

> > > no bow.

> > >

> > > > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known

> > > >

> > > > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that is

done to avoid being and to avoid not being.

> > >

> > > by whom?

> > >

> > > > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness

> > >

> > > regarding what?

> > >

> > > >

> > > > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very little of

an impact

> > >

> > > who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about?

> > >

> > > >

> > > > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which

avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from something outside -

including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc.

> > > >

> > > > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is neither

existing nor not existing.

> > > >

> > > > -- Dan --

> > >

> > > just nonsense.

> > >

> > > plain and simple.

> > >

> > > it's clear to any awareness.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> >

> > No Kidding!!

>

> So much defensiveness, due to such simple posts (as Dan posts).

>

> It's interesting.

>

> The same thing happened here the other night -- I posted the following on

Nondualitysalon, and was met with so much distractive talk, it was ridiculous.

Folks were actually trying to change the subject multiple times over in the same

responses. One can tell a good nondual pointing by how riled up it gets folks

;-).

" folks " ?

who you trying to kid about nonduality?

you sure as hell aren't coming from HERE and NOW.

LOL!

..b b.b.

****************same old same old below*******************************

> > > > I will try to figure out a

> > > > way to send you one.

> > >

> > > Good luck sending 'someone else' even...

> > >

> > > A sight from one's own eyes,

> > >

> > > A sound heard in one's own ears,

> > >

> > > A smell in one's own nose,

> > >

> > > A feeling felt in one's own body,

> > >

> > > A thought from one's own head.

> > >

> > > Is there an 'other', apart from the reader's own sight, sound, smell,

> feeling and/or thought of another?

> > >

> > > This is crucial. We assume 'others' are seeing us, and we are seeing them.

> > >

> > > This is literally and completely false.

>

July 27, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>>

> > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to avoid

being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having wealth, not

be remembered, not having experiences, not having what you want)

>

> who could be " the one " to " take away.?

Exactly.

> > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid risks,

being noticed, experiencing)

> >

> > what would be left?

left from what?

Exactly.

>

> left as what?

Unqualified nothing.

> nothing is ever gained or lost.

>

> > just natural being

> >

> > being which is not in opposition to not-being

> >

> > which has no conflict with any other

>

> conflict is illusion.

Opposites are not opposing.

> > and the human being would then act without acting, know without knowing, be

without existing

> >

> > and life would be ...

> >

> > unknown

>

> so says the one called danny.

>

> and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else.

>

> because danny is exactly the same as everyone else.

>

> except danny wants to pontificate.

>

> no bow.

Nothing is lacking.

No bow sought or needed.

> > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known

> >

> > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that is done

to avoid being and to avoid not being.

>

> by whom?

There is no " by. "

>

> > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness

>

> regarding what?

Regarding What.

> >

> > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very little of an

impact

>

> who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about?

The one who is blabbering back to the post with the blabber.

> > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which

avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from something outside -

including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc.

> >

> > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is neither

existing nor not existing.

> >

> > -- Dan --

>

> just nonsense.

>

> plain and simple.

>

> it's clear to any awareness.

Any old awareness will do in a pinch.

And it's a pinch.

- D -

July 27, 2009

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Monday, July 27, 2009 4:55 PM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, July 27, 2009 2:14 PM

> Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > -

> > > douglasmitch1963

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM

> > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

> > > nonconceptual

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > roberibus111

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM

> > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

> > > > nonconceptual

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > How do you do, good sir?

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and

> > > > > to

> > > > > hold,

> > > > > 'til death do you part?

> > > > >

> > > > > You do?

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you?

> > > > >

> > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or

> > > > > the

> > > > > " other " half?

> > > > >

> > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> > > > >

> > > > > Cheers...

> > > >

> > > > it's all lies.

> > > >

> > > > including this.

> > > >

> > > > what's truth?

> > > >

> > > > everything ends..100% of all things end.

> > > >

> > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new.

> > > >

> > > > you'll never admit it.

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that

> > > > does

> > > > not

> > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves

> > > > concerning

> > > > death.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about?

> > >

> > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death.

>

> > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to avoid

> > being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having

> > wealth, not be remembered, not having experiences, not having what you

> > want)

>

> who could be " the one " to " take away.?

>

> >

> > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid

> > risks,

> > being noticed, experiencing)

> >

> > what would be left?

>

> left from what?

>

> left as what?

>

> nothing is ever gained or lost.

>

> >

> > just natural being

> >

> > being which is not in opposition to not-being

> >

> > which has no conflict with any other

>

> conflict is illusion.

>

> > and the human being would then act without acting, know without knowing,

> > be without existing

> >

> > and life would be ...

> >

> > unknown

>

> so says the one called danny.

>

> and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else.

>

> because danny is exactly the same as everyone else.

>

> except danny wants to pontificate.

>

> no bow.

>

> > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known

> >

> > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that is

> > done to avoid being and to avoid not being.

>

> by whom?

>

> > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness

>

> regarding what?

>

> >

> > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very little of

> > an impact

>

> who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about?

>

> >

> > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which

> > avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from something

> > outside - including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc.

> >

> > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is neither

> > existing nor not existing.

> >

> > -- Dan --

>

> just nonsense.

>

> plain and simple.

>

> it's clear to any awareness.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> I think he is saying that without the center-periphery-consciousness there

> would not be a separate me. " Taking away " does not mean someone taking

> away..it is an idiomatic expression. It is not possible to

> desassemble/separte idiomatic expressions into their individual component

> words - the unit looses its meaning. For example...smart-ass means one

> thing, but then ass and smart another.

> -geo-

the term " idiomatic expression " ..

only has meaning to an individual or group of individuals.

whether they are smart or just plain smart asses.

-bbb-

Of course - one or many speaking the same idiom - what other alternative do

you suggest?

-geo-

there is nothing unitary.

unitary by implication suggests fragmentation.

what the hell are you talking about?

..b b.b.

The unitary is talking

-geo-

July 27, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, July 27, 2009 2:14 PM

> Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > -

> > > douglasmitch1963

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:48 AM

> > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

> > > nonconceptual

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > roberibus111

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:53 AM

> > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

> > > > nonconceptual

> > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " I do what I want, " avoiding that I do nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > How do you do, good sir?

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to

> > > > > hold,

> > > > > 'til death do you part?

> > > > >

> > > > > You do?

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you?

> > > > >

> > > > > Which 50% of all marriages end in divorce -- the " self " half, or the

> > > > > " other " half?

> > > > >

> > > > > *You'll* never tell ;-).

> > > > >

> > > > > Cheers...

> > > >

> > > > it's all lies.

> > > >

> > > > including this.

> > > >

> > > > what's truth?

> > > >

> > > > everything ends..100% of all things end.

> > > >

> > > > no big deal and certainly nothing new.

> > > >

> > > > you'll never admit it.

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > > Every thing ends indeed. Everything!!! If there is something that does

> > > > not

> > > > end you will never know about it. So lets not fool ouselves concerning

> > > > death.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > Yes, what is there to be fooled about?

> > >

> > > geo> That is obvious. The same that will end with death.

>

> > If one took away from the human being everything that was done to avoid

> > being nothing (e.g., not being known, not having status, not having

> > wealth, not be remembered, not having experiences, not having what you

> > want)

>

> who could be " the one " to " take away.?

>

> >

> > and everything that was done to avoid being (e.g., wanting to avoid risks,

> > being noticed, experiencing)

> >

> > what would be left?

>

> left from what?

>

> left as what?

>

> nothing is ever gained or lost.

>

> >

> > just natural being

> >

> > being which is not in opposition to not-being

> >

> > which has no conflict with any other

>

> conflict is illusion.

>

> > and the human being would then act without acting, know without knowing,

> > be without existing

> >

> > and life would be ...

> >

> > unknown

>

> so says the one called danny.

>

> and danny doesn't know this any more than anyone else.

>

> because danny is exactly the same as everyone else.

>

> except danny wants to pontificate.

>

> no bow.

>

> > ... rather than the attempt to have a center in the known

> >

> > of course, one cannot take away from the human being everything that is

> > done to avoid being and to avoid not being.

>

> by whom?

>

> > because this is simply a matter of clarity, of awareness

>

> regarding what?

>

> >

> > one can talk endlessly about this topic, and it will make very little of

> > an impact

>

> who the hell is this " one " you blabber on about?

>

> >

> > because transformation (which is not a change of anything) in which

> > avoidance of being drops, does not involve any impact from something

> > outside - including words, religion, spiritual practice, etc.

> >

> > there is no outside of this awareness, which is being, which is neither

> > existing nor not existing.

> >

> > -- Dan --

>

> just nonsense.

>

> plain and simple.

>

> it's clear to any awareness.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> I think he is saying that without the center-periphery-consciousness there

> would not be a separate me. " Taking away " does not mean someone taking

> away..it is an idiomatic expression. It is not possible to

> desassemble/separte idiomatic expressions into their individual component

> words - the unit looses its meaning. For example...smart-ass means one

> thing, but then ass and smart another.

> -geo-

It's fun communicating, even though words always involve dualisms, and of

course knowing that there isn't anyone to benefit (separately existing).

And yes, " taking away " is very similar to saying " the basis for fragmentation is

not. "

- Dan -

July 27, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

> So much defensiveness, due to such simple posts (as Dan posts).

>

> It's interesting.

>

> The same thing happened here the other night -- I posted the following on

Nondualitysalon, and was met with so much distractive talk, it was ridiculous.

Folks were actually trying to change the subject multiple times over in the same

responses. One can tell a good nondual pointing by how riled up it gets folks

;-).

>

> > > > I will try to figure out a

> > > > way to send you one.

> > >

> > > Good luck sending 'someone else' even...

> > >

> > > A sight from one's own eyes,

> > >

> > > A sound heard in one's own ears,

> > >

> > > A smell in one's own nose,

> > >

> > > A feeling felt in one's own body,

> > >

> > > A thought from one's own head.

> > >

> > > Is there an 'other', apart from the reader's own sight, sound, smell,

> feeling and/or thought of another?

> > >

> > > This is crucial. We assume 'others' are seeing us, and we are seeing them.

> > >

> > > This is literally and completely false.

I like this post, glad you posted it here as well.

Where all apparently disparate selves and others meet, the meeting place

involves no contact, and is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere.

Being everywhere and nowhere, with no contact ever having occurred, one is clear

that any self co-arises with its other, and vice versa - hence neither self nor

other ever has been.

- Dan -

July 27, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

>

> > So much defensiveness, due to such simple posts (as Dan posts).

> >

> > It's interesting.

> >

> > The same thing happened here the other night -- I posted the following on

Nondualitysalon, and was met with so much distractive talk, it was ridiculous.

Folks were actually trying to change the subject multiple times over in the same

responses. One can tell a good nondual pointing by how riled up it gets folks

;-).

> >

> > > > > I will try to figure out a

> > > > > way to send you one.

> > > >

> > > > Good luck sending 'someone else' even...

> > > >

> > > > A sight from one's own eyes,

> > > >

> > > > A sound heard in one's own ears,

> > > >

> > > > A smell in one's own nose,

> > > >

> > > > A feeling felt in one's own body,

> > > >

> > > > A thought from one's own head.

> > > >

> > > > Is there an 'other', apart from the reader's own sight, sound, smell,

> > feeling and/or thought of another?

> > > >

> > > > This is crucial. We assume 'others' are seeing us, and we are seeing

them.

> > > >

> > > > This is literally and completely false.

>

> I like this post, glad you posted it here as well.

>

> Where all apparently disparate selves and others meet, the meeting > place

involves no contact, and is simultaneously everywhere and

> nowhere.

What... ya mean, it ain't " somewhere out there? " ;-).

July 27, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> >

> > > So much defensiveness, due to such simple posts (as Dan posts).

> > >

> > > It's interesting.

> > >

> > > The same thing happened here the other night -- I posted the following on

Nondualitysalon, and was met with so much distractive talk, it was ridiculous.

Folks were actually trying to change the subject multiple times over in the same

responses. One can tell a good nondual pointing by how riled up it gets folks

;-).

> > >

> > > > > > I will try to figure out a

> > > > > > way to send you one.

> > > > >

> > > > > Good luck sending 'someone else' even...

> > > > >

> > > > > A sight from one's own eyes,

> > > > >

> > > > > A sound heard in one's own ears,

> > > > >

> > > > > A smell in one's own nose,

> > > > >

> > > > > A feeling felt in one's own body,

> > > > >

> > > > > A thought from one's own head.

> > > > >

> > > > > Is there an 'other', apart from the reader's own sight, sound, smell,

> > > feeling and/or thought of another?

> > > > >

> > > > > This is crucial. We assume 'others' are seeing us, and we are seeing

them.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is literally and completely false.

> >

> > I like this post, glad you posted it here as well.

> >

> > Where all apparently disparate selves and others meet, the meeting > place

involves no contact, and is simultaneously everywhere and

> > nowhere.

>

> What... ya mean, it ain't " somewhere out there? " ;-).

>

I, I, I say it IS

Somewhere out there:

Definitely!!!

(It's just that we don't know where,

And we don't know where to put it.)

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