Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > Werner Woehr > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is > > > > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, > > > > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is > > > > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have > > > > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing as > > > > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > How can somebody be a word? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, if he is stupid enough, he can. 'At the beginning there was the WORD'. > > > > > > Btw, the I-structure is not words but memories, conditioned > > > reflexes and responses amd manifests in reactions and emotions. But > when this I-structure is expressing itself and communicating with > > > other I-structures it is using words. And some very stupid people > > > who had put there noses a bit into Advaita books eventually will > > > state such a nonsense like 'how can somebody be a word ?. > > > > No need for insults, Word-ner ;-). No need to put folks down in order to talk with them. > > > > In fact, as far as 'normal conversing' (very far from what typically happens on this list) goes, calling someone " stupid " will end the conversation immediately. But, of course, one knows this already, and is taking advantage of the mailing list format in order to be purposely separative. > > > > That's OK... it's understood here that Word-ner feels a very strong need to separate himself from 'others' -- to say " I am ME, and you are YOU " . " I am smart and YOU are stupid " . Etc. > > > > It's all good. > > > > > Yes, Tim, no need for insults. > > And I regard your take that someone is stupid enough to believe he is a word as an insult - an insult you started with your reply. > > Your reminder that one is not a word was absolutely unneccessary. > > I already have read much better stuff from you. > > It's all good. Calm down Tim. > > Werner SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!... you arrogant loser!.. or i may have to email the moderator of this list. just like some other gutless whiner i know did recently. ROFLMAO! love and kisses wernie... ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Ah, ok Tim, > > In that remark I just saw a naughty reply, an insult. > > Werner Could it be that we see what we, ourselves, are interested in or oriented toward? What if everything I see, is me? That would neatly eliminate any " you " , thus... Any periphery, from which to conclude an imaginary center. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Werner Woehr > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which > > > is > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the > > > Absolute, > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness > > > appeared. " > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing as > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > Werner > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > -geo- > > How can somebody be a word? > -tim- > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited framework > the absolute is nonexitent. > -geo- maybe the better question would be: how can " someone " " be " ? why try and qualify the fundamental mystery with comparisons... or try and make the inexplicable a defined " thing " ? what is unknown is..has always been..will always be.. UNKNOWN. it's not within the realm of discussion. that's silly boys. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 It can't be done.The very speaking to (what one perceives to be) 'another' is 'proof' that there are 'others', thus that there's a center 'here'.One divests one's own investment in the self-image.One loses interest.This is something that one has to do by oneself.No help is possible. Just the way things are.-tim- Yes, folks are too busy with 'other things'.With others, in general.With separating themselves as firmly as possible, so as to imagine oneself as an individual "me".It's an incredibly flimsy non-foundation for living an imaginary life in a dream world.And folks are doing it all the time.-tim- So what you said about "folks" above, is issuing from a center? PS - please dont snip this thread. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Werner Woehr > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which > > > > is > > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the > > > > Absolute, > > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is > > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have > > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness > > > > appeared. " > > > > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing as > > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > > -geo- > > > > How can somebody be a word? > > -tim- > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > framework > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > -geo- > > Yes, folks are too busy with 'other things'. > > With others, in general. > > With separating themselves as firmly as possible, so as to imagine oneself as an individual " me " . > > It's an incredibly flimsy non-foundation for living an imaginary life in a dream world. > > And folks are doing it all the time. " folks " ? timmy.. listen kid.. you are not outside the phantom herd son. get over yourself. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:35 AM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Werner Woehr > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body > > > which > > > is > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the > > > Absolute, > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it > > > is > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not > > > have > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness > > > appeared. " > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing > > as > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > Werner > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > -geo- > > How can somebody be a word? > -tim- > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > framework > the absolute is nonexitent. > -geo- maybe the better question would be: how can " someone " " be " ? geo> Well...there is being as a person and there is just being per-se why try and qualify the fundamental mystery with comparisons... or try and make the inexplicable a defined " thing " ? what is unknown is..has always been..will always be.. UNKNOWN. it's not within the realm of discussion. that's silly boys. ..b b.b. geo> The " person " feels he knows who he is as the observer, limiting itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > How would you " show " another that the center is an illusion? > > -geo- > > It can't be done. > > The very speaking to (what one perceives to be) 'another' is 'proof' that there are 'others', thus that there's a center 'here'. > > One divests one's own investment in the self-image. > > One loses interest. > > This is something that one has to do by oneself. > > No help is possible. Just the way things are. you sure as hell haven't lost interest. you write incessantly about how you have. methinks thou protests more than a wee bit too friggin' much timmy. suck it up and get real kiddo. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, Tim, no need for insults. > > > > > > And I regard your take that someone is stupid enough to believe he is > a word as an insult - an insult you started with your reply. > > > > Tim never said that Werner was stupid enough to believe he is a word. > > > > Werner accused *Tim* of being stupid enough to read advaita books and state that someone is a word. > > > > Is Werner confused? > > > > Mixing up those " me's " and " you's " again, eh? > > > > It must feel twisted. Sort of anxious, almost panicky, to mix things up this way. > > > > > Your reminder that one is not a word was absolutely unneccessary. > > > > > > I already have read much better stuff from you. > > > > > > It's all good. Calm down Tim. > > > > Is Tim upset? > > > > That would come as a surprise to the author of this message. > > > > > Ok, because you are calm, Tim, please calmly explain what you meant meant with your reply to Geo 'How can somebody be a word?' ? > > With my best will I cannot see any reason why you were replying this to Geo. > > Werner well wernie.. with your very best.. (best of or best at anything).. you couldn't open a can. don't sweat the important stuff. you'll never " get it " . ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:21 AM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > A question. Would you say Nis. had the illusion of a center when he > addressed people in the room, telling one or another tha the was > identified > with his body? > -geo- Based on impressions here from his words, there's no impression that there was any illusion of a center. But he had to talk this way... how else can folks talk to each other? One speaks as though through a " lens " or " telescope " , knowing that this is what most folks are limited to... there's no other way to talk. Nor is there really any point at all to the talking... which Nisargadatta knew as well, saying it was all " mental entertainment to pass the time " , or something like that. -tim- Sorry, no...the question I am raising is: did Nis recognized/saw those in the room who where identified with the body? Not asking about the " motives/reasons " of his taliking to them or not. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Ah, ok Tim, > > > > In that remark I just saw a naughty reply, an insult. > > > > Werner > > Could it be that we see what we, ourselves, are interested in or oriented toward? > > What if everything I see, is me? > > That would neatly eliminate any " you " , thus... > > Any periphery, from which to conclude an imaginary center. what if maybe you see a shrink? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Sorry, no...the question I am raising is: did Nis recognized/saw > those in > the room who where identified with the body? Not asking about the > " motives/reasons " of his taliking to them or not. > -geo- Sorry, I can't speak for Nis., nor can he any more speak for 'himself'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:21 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > A question. Would you say Nis. had the illusion of a center when he > > addressed people in the room, telling one or another tha the was > > identified > > with his body? > > -geo- > > Based on impressions here from his words, there's no impression that there > was any illusion of a center. But he had to talk this way... how else can > folks talk to each other? One speaks as though through a " lens " or > " telescope " , knowing that this is what most folks are limited to... there's > no other way to talk. > > Nor is there really any point at all to the talking... which Nisargadatta > knew as well, saying it was all " mental entertainment to pass the time " , or > something like that. > -tim- > > Sorry, no...the question I am raising is: did Nis recognized/saw those in > the room who where identified with the body? Not asking about the > " motives/reasons " of his taliking to them or not. > -geo- well tim should know.. he says he is you and you is me and we is he and he is Nisargadatta. go timmy go! keep us in the know.. about what you know and we don't.. even though us is you. hey!.. " Us R YOU " .. a new playground for children and their childish thoughts! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:35 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Werner Woehr > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body > > > > which > > > > is > > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the > > > > Absolute, > > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it > > > > is > > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not > > > > have > > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness > > > > appeared. " > > > > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing > > > as > > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > > -geo- > > > > How can somebody be a word? > > -tim- > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > framework > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > -geo- > > maybe the better question would be: > > how can " someone " " be " ? > > geo> Well...there is being as a person and there is just being per-se > > why try and qualify the fundamental mystery with comparisons... > > or try and make the inexplicable a defined " thing " ? > > what is unknown is..has always been..will always be.. > > UNKNOWN. > > it's not within the realm of discussion. > > that's silly boys. > > .b b.b. > > geo> The " person " feels he knows who he is as the observer, limiting itself. " person " ? oh c'mon now. by the way.. what does " feels " mean? does the foot feel the ground or does it feel itself? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:35 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Werner Woehr > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body > > > > > which > > > > > is > > > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the > > > > > Absolute, > > > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it > > > > > is > > > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not > > > > > have > > > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness > > > > > appeared. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing > > > > as > > > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > How can somebody be a word? > > > -tim- > > > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > > framework > > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > > -geo- > > > > maybe the better question would be: > > > > how can " someone " " be " ? > > > > geo> Well...there is being as a person and there is just being per-se > > > > why try and qualify the fundamental mystery with comparisons... > > > > or try and make the inexplicable a defined " thing " ? > > > > what is unknown is..has always been..will always be.. > > > > UNKNOWN. > > > > it's not within the realm of discussion. > > > > that's silly boys. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > geo> The " person " feels he knows who he is as the observer, limiting itself. > > > " person " ? > > oh c'mon now. > > by the way.. > > what does " feels " mean? > > does the foot feel the ground or does it feel itself? > > .b b.b. oh.. and what does either " mean " ? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:27 AM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Is there a center there? > > -geo- > > There's no center there with you. > > Or here with me, for that matter. > > The center is imagined, projected, based on " I and thou " . > > And the illusion maintains itself on a daily basis, reincarnates itself, > one might say. > > Not that anyone is having an illusion. > > " Reality " has the illusion of someone impressed upon it. > > It dissolves, or not. P.S. the reason for the question is 'known' here. No food for thought will be provided ;-). Geo can draw his own conclusions. -tim- What you sense is that conflict is getting near. Contradiction. But you are too sure of yourself to admit it - so lets blame geo. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > What you sense is that conflict is getting near. Contradiction. But > you are > too sure of yourself to admit it - so lets blame geo. > -geo- OK, fine, I'll say it again. There's no center " here " , and there's no center " there " . Yes, it's possible that a center is actively generated through imagination in one place, and not actively generated through imagination in another. I don't know where those places might be. Nor do I care. Since Geo apparently cares, he can dream up what he wants. Or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:52 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Sorry, no...the question I am raising is: did Nis recognized/saw > > those in > > the room who where identified with the body? Not asking about the > > " motives/reasons " of his taliking to them or not. > > -geo- > > Sorry, I can't speak for Nis., nor can he any more speak for 'himself'. > -tim- > > C'mon tim. He would ask a few questions and immediatly know wether > the > person was or not idetified with his body. He knew it, because he knew 'himself'. What he was, and what he wasn't. Thus, when the words appeared, he knew whether they were imaginary or not, Based on himself, not on an imaginary 'other'. By 'himself', I mean 'himself' as being without a center. Being all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:00 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:35 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Werner Woehr > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body > > > > which > > > > is > > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the > > > > Absolute, > > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it > > > > is > > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not > > > > have > > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness > > > > appeared. " > > > > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing > > > as > > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > > -geo- > > > > How can somebody be a word? > > -tim- > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > framework > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > -geo- > > maybe the better question would be: > > how can " someone " " be " ? > > geo> Well...there is being as a person and there is just being per-se > > why try and qualify the fundamental mystery with comparisons... > > or try and make the inexplicable a defined " thing " ? > > what is unknown is..has always been..will always be.. > > UNKNOWN. > > it's not within the realm of discussion. > > that's silly boys. > > .b b.b. > > geo> The " person " feels he knows who he is as the observer, limiting > itself. -geo- " person " ? oh c'mon now. -bbb- Of course. As long as he thinks he is a center observing he is a person. -geo- by the way.. what does " feels " mean? does the foot feel the ground or does it feel itself? ..b b.b. " Feels " in the context above means thinks as if. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:07 PM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > What you sense is that conflict is getting near. Contradiction. But > you are > too sure of yourself to admit it - so lets blame geo. > -geo- OK, fine, I'll say it again. There's no center " here " , and there's no center " there " . Yes, it's possible that a center is actively generated through imagination in one place, and not actively generated through imagination in another. I don't know where those places might be. Nor do I care. Since Geo apparently cares, he can dream up what he wants. Or not. -tim- Agreed that there is no center anywhere. But one person acts and feels and lives as if he had it and the other understood the illusion and lives differently. The one that understood sees the others confusion and may help him - just like your guru did to you. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Agreed that there is no center anywhere. But one person acts and feels and > lives as if he had it and the other understood the illusion and lives > differently. > The one that understood sees the others confusion and may help him - just > like your guru did to you. > -geo- He didn't really do that. I say so because folks like to hear that kind of stuff, because they are then willing to give a little attention instead of arguing and fighting. What happened here was that I was dying of substance abuse. I was spending 24-hour stretches in front of the computer, using stimulants and doing the same meaningless, repeated activities. My personal horizons dissolved, disappeared. I didn't care about anything anymore, not even the drug. And everything got very simple, very easy somehow. The drugs were given up in mid 2008. They had served their purpose. They killed me. Is Geo happy now? ;-). peace... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Yes...nis is all and the man in front of him thinks he is limited to a body > and nis speaks about the confusion. But you say nis needs the illusion of a > center himself in order to recognise a man in front of him as having such > illusion. Makes sense? > -geo- Nis. didn't see a man in front of him. He saw himself in front of him, and himself behind him, and himself within him. The other was himself, the words heard from the other were himself, and the words uttered in response were himself. With only 'himself', no periphery, thus no center. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:52 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry, no...the question I am raising is: did Nis recognized/saw > > > those in > > > the room who where identified with the body? Not asking about the > > > " motives/reasons " of his taliking to them or not. > > > -geo- > > > > Sorry, I can't speak for Nis., nor can he any more speak for 'himself'. > > -tim- > > > > C'mon tim. He would ask a few questions and immediatly know wether > the > > person was or not idetified with his body. > > He knew it, because he knew 'himself'. > > What he was, and what he wasn't. > > Thus, when the words appeared, he knew whether they were imaginary or not, > > Based on himself, > > not on an imaginary 'other'. > > By 'himself', I mean 'himself' as being without a center. Being all. Be All. Be all " you " can Be! nobody could have said it better. except maybe the U.S.Army.. in it's enlistment commercials: ROFLMAO! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:00 PM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > roberibus111 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:35 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Werner Woehr > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body > > > > > which > > > > > is > > > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the > > > > > Absolute, > > > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it > > > > > is > > > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not > > > > > have > > > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness > > > > > appeared. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing > > > > as > > > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > How can somebody be a word? > > > -tim- > > > > > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > > > framework > > > the absolute is nonexitent. > > > -geo- > > > > maybe the better question would be: > > > > how can " someone " " be " ? > > > > geo> Well...there is being as a person and there is just being per-se > > > > why try and qualify the fundamental mystery with comparisons... > > > > or try and make the inexplicable a defined " thing " ? > > > > what is unknown is..has always been..will always be.. > > > > UNKNOWN. > > > > it's not within the realm of discussion. > > > > that's silly boys. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > geo> The " person " feels he knows who he is as the observer, limiting > > itself. > -geo- > > " person " ? > > oh c'mon now. > -bbb- > > Of course. As long as he thinks he is a center observing he is a person. > -geo- > > by the way.. > > what does " feels " mean? > > does the foot feel the ground or does it feel itself? > > .b b.b. > > " Feels " in the context above means thinks as if. > -geo- " who " thinks.. or " who " is thought.. and if " who " is thought.. thought by " whom " ? i dunno.. what you said just doesn't " feel " right. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Agreed that there is no center anywhere. But one person acts and feels and > > lives as if he had it and the other understood the illusion and lives > > differently. > > The one that understood sees the others confusion and may help him - just > > like your guru did to you. > > -geo- > > He didn't really do that. I say so because folks like to hear that kind of stuff, because they are then willing to give a little attention instead of arguing and fighting. > > What happened here was that I was dying of substance abuse. I was spending 24-hour stretches in front of the computer, using stimulants and doing the same meaningless, repeated activities. > > My personal horizons dissolved, disappeared. I didn't care about anything anymore, not even the drug. > > And everything got very simple, very easy somehow. > > The drugs were given up in mid 2008. They had served their purpose. They killed me. > > Is Geo happy now? ;-). > > peace... so the cheap 9% solution is a better way to go huh? or were you lying about that. or are you lying now? do you know which is the case? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Yes...nis is all and the man in front of him thinks he is limited to a body > > and nis speaks about the confusion. But you say nis needs the illusion of a > > center himself in order to recognise a man in front of him as having such > > illusion. Makes sense? > > -geo- > > Nis. didn't see a man in front of him. > > He saw himself in front of him, and himself behind him, and himself within him. > > The other was himself, the words heard from the other were himself, and the words uttered in response were himself. > > With only 'himself', no periphery, thus no center. tim.. you cannot know this. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
