Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, August 03, 2009 8:47 PM Re: And then what.......? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Monday, August 03, 2009 3:20 PM > Re: And then what.......? > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > The observation that " nothing ever happened, " said from awareness, is > > not > > intended, at least from my perspective, as a negation of anything except > > ignore-ance. > > > > It is similar to saying this: > > > > " all perceptions are transitory. > > > > awareness understands the extent of the transitory nature of perception. > > > > there is no time for an observer to separate from the observed. > > > > with no time involved, one cannot have anything as existing or as not > > existing. > > > > anything perceived as happening requires a kind of ignore-ance. > > > > one must ignore the extent of the transitoriness of phenomena in order > > to > > have any experience. " > > > > so, saying, " nothing happened, " or " nothing is, " is, at least for me, a > > kind of short-hand way of saying the above. > > > > thus " being is " or " all is " is the affirmative side of " nothing ever > > happened. " > > > > and one can participate in the daily common-sense consensus of an > > existing > > world with no problem. > > > > one is aware of the trance involved. > > > > the trance involves a suspension of being fully aware. > > > > yet, there is an amazement in the participation. > > > > the world of things, qualities, people, language - it's a remarkable > > " act " > > of awareness. > > > > it's the creativity of " as if " -- as if something could be located, as > > if > > something could have a quality, as if people could exist and interact. > > > > amazing in that no time is actually involved, and yet time " appears, " > > beings " appear " - which is the same thing, actually. > > > > I once read some teachings about this by Dogen; he called it > > " being-time. " > > > > - Dan - > > It seems like it shouldn't be possible. > > " Moving without moving? " > > As though 'physical life' itself were a trance, a certain degree of > unawareness. > > P.S. if Dogen is a dog, is Dzogchen a dzog?;-). > -tim- > > Funny I dont see it the way both of you do. I dont think there is need of > any degree of unawareness to the seeing of the world. In fact sounds like > an > absurdity to say that I must be unaware in order to live. I think you are > " stamping " some prerrogatives, some thought-out qualities in order to some > " objectivated awareness " be. I dont think that perception needs darkness > or > any degree of shadowing in awareness. The ultimate is always > unconditionaly > without qualities. The perception of qualities, time, space, or any event > of > any kind... of illusion as such, thoughts, imagination, the false, does > not > fragment the wholeness of what is. > -geo- There is no impedence to awareness. Where was it said that there must be darkness or shadowing? Where was it said you must be unaware to see the world? -dan- Here (tims words): " As though 'physical life' itself were a trance, a certain degree of unawareness. " -geo- How is it that a " reader " states his own concepts about darkness, shadowing, and how you must be unaware - as if someone else presented those concepts as something right, then contests those concepts as wrong -- those very concepts that he projected into the situation through his " interpretation " ? -dan- Tims words up there. The reader red those words and understood them to mean " a certain degree of unawareness " . -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, August 03, 2009 8:51 PM Re: And then what.......? Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Actualy there is no life without perception of at least some kind, so this > would lead one to say that there is no realization of the ultimate, of > awareness, while there is life. I dont think this is a valid statement or > fact. > -geo- There is no such thing as realization of the ultimate. Who would be realizing it? There just is what is. -dan- That is what realization or any other word in place means: no entity. I know there are no words identical to it. It seems that you prefer " there-just-is-what-is " as the symbolizing expression identical to IT. -geo- Where and how would realizing it come in, without bringing in time? -dan- No time. Just as " there-just-is-what-is " . -geo- I do think that the common-sense interpretation of what it means to physically be alive, based on language, a memory-chain and survival instincts, distorts the understanding of what life is (what the daily living, breathing, perceiving is). Simply being aware involves no distortion, no belief, and no reliance on conceptuality. -- Dan -- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 3/8/2009 21:07:15 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Actualy there is no life without perception of at least some kind, so this > > > would lead one to say that there is no realization of the ultimate, of > > > awareness, while there is life. I dont think this is a valid statement or > > > fact. > > > -geo- > > > > > > There is no such thing as realization of the ultimate. > > > > Who would be realizing it? > > > > There just is what is. > > > > Where and how would realizing it come in, without bringing in time? > > > > I do think that the common-sense interpretation of what it means to > physically be alive, based on language, a memory-chain and survival > instincts, distorts the understanding of what life is (what the > > daily living, breathing, perceiving is). > > The 'survival instincts' are the survival instincts of thought, quite frankly. Sure. And thought isn't an isolated phenomenon. There is no isolated phenomenon. All phenomena co-arising. So, body-mind-memory-thought-instinct-survival is not separated, nor is it separately existing from environment/other organisms. > The " struggle to survive " , apparently seen everywhere, is the struggle of the thought-entity to survive. Thought, regarded as a separable event, is a metaphor for an entire organization of events. There is no thought entity existing separately; there is an apparent contesting for survival that occurs as if between organisms with " their " own intents, goals, needs. > Beyond this, no struggle is seen anywhere. All appears at peace, as it is, which is as it 'should be'. Beyond what? A concept? What is a concept? What is no struggle other than the negation of a concept of struggle? They are both concepts, " no struggle " and " struggle. " Each has meaning in comparison with other concepts. If you see struggle, you see struggle. If you see no struggle, you see no struggle. Either way, is a concept. What isn't conceptual isn't struggle, nor is it lack of a struggle. No one has yet said what is nonconceptual. All hail No One - who has said what is nonconceptual. ;-) > > Simply being aware involves no distortion, no belief, and no > > reliance on conceptuality. > > Yup. > > Perhaps no fun to talk about on a mailing list, or just doesn't add enough support for the imaginary entity. I'm having fun. Hope you are, too. Awareness isn't static. It doesn't reach a conclusion. Nor is it going anywhere. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > I agree with something you said in another post: that unawareness is a kind > of focusing that the brain (thought) does. The brain is a perceptual object, cognized. Other than thought, where is there any do-er of anything? Is thought a do-er, or does thought really contain a do-er? No. Thought is co-arising with all other perceived/sensed phenomena. So, there is no do-er of anything, no maker of anything, no source of anything. There is no such thing as unawareness, except in terms of words. But the actuality, which is nonconceptual, has no opposite. So it seems to me that the > problem is not perceptions but perceiving as a fucusing act with the aparent > exclusion of parts of the total field. Yes. Good point. It is inclusion/exclusion that is the distortion. Awareness is not distorted. But the attempt to include awareness as a part of the perceptual field (in a human being, as a particular human being viewing particular existing things) is the distortion. Perception is distorted into separation, thought attempts bifurcation, emotion attempts to preserve someone's reality ... The perception of a physical chair in > the world, in the adimensional spaceless timeless field is a total, whole. There is no located chair actually in a space separate from awareness. The boundary forming " chair " or " chairness " is imagined. The boundary involved in locating anything in space, is imagined. > Isolating the chair from totality, living in parts, is what fragmentation > is, is it not? Yes. And including anything in totality is also a division. And dividing division from nondivision is also artificial. Divisions are undivided. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > Beyond this, no struggle is seen anywhere. All appears at peace, as it is, which is as it 'should be'. > > Beyond what? A concept? What is a concept? Beyond 'the seeing of struggle'. > What is no struggle other than the negation of a concept of > struggle? > > They are both concepts, " no struggle " and " struggle. " Nobody said otherwise. And clearly, two people are not talking to each other here ;-). > > Yup. > > > > Perhaps no fun to talk about on a mailing list, or just doesn't add enough support for the imaginary entity. > > I'm having fun. Hope you are, too. Do you really hope that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, August 03, 2009 8:47 PM > Re: And then what.......? > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, August 03, 2009 3:20 PM > > Re: And then what.......? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The observation that " nothing ever happened, " said from awareness, is > > > not > > > intended, at least from my perspective, as a negation of anything except > > > ignore-ance. > > > > > > It is similar to saying this: > > > > > > " all perceptions are transitory. > > > > > > awareness understands the extent of the transitory nature of perception. > > > > > > there is no time for an observer to separate from the observed. > > > > > > with no time involved, one cannot have anything as existing or as not > > > existing. > > > > > > anything perceived as happening requires a kind of ignore-ance. > > > > > > one must ignore the extent of the transitoriness of phenomena in order > > > to > > > have any experience. " > > > > > > so, saying, " nothing happened, " or " nothing is, " is, at least for me, a > > > kind of short-hand way of saying the above. > > > > > > thus " being is " or " all is " is the affirmative side of " nothing ever > > > happened. " > > > > > > and one can participate in the daily common-sense consensus of an > > > existing > > > world with no problem. > > > > > > one is aware of the trance involved. > > > > > > the trance involves a suspension of being fully aware. > > > > > > yet, there is an amazement in the participation. > > > > > > the world of things, qualities, people, language - it's a remarkable > > > " act " > > > of awareness. > > > > > > it's the creativity of " as if " -- as if something could be located, as > > > if > > > something could have a quality, as if people could exist and interact. > > > > > > amazing in that no time is actually involved, and yet time " appears, " > > > beings " appear " - which is the same thing, actually. > > > > > > I once read some teachings about this by Dogen; he called it > > > " being-time. " > > > > > > - Dan - > > > > It seems like it shouldn't be possible. > > > > " Moving without moving? " > > > > As though 'physical life' itself were a trance, a certain degree of > > unawareness. > > > > P.S. if Dogen is a dog, is Dzogchen a dzog?;-). > > -tim- > > > > Funny I dont see it the way both of you do. I dont think there is need of > > any degree of unawareness to the seeing of the world. In fact sounds like > > an > > absurdity to say that I must be unaware in order to live. I think you are > > " stamping " some prerrogatives, some thought-out qualities in order to some > > " objectivated awareness " be. I dont think that perception needs darkness > > or > > any degree of shadowing in awareness. The ultimate is always > > unconditionaly > > without qualities. The perception of qualities, time, space, or any event > > of > > any kind... of illusion as such, thoughts, imagination, the false, does > > not > > fragment the wholeness of what is. > > -geo- > > There is no impedence to awareness. > Where was it said that there must be darkness or shadowing? > Where was it said you must be unaware to see the world? > -dan- > > Here (tims words): > " As though 'physical life' itself were a trance, a certain degree of > unawareness. " > -geo- Yes, that's a good point. There is no unawareness in terms of actuality. There is only the assumption that awareness can be located - which isn't truly unawareness, but a distortion of perception by assuming a location for awareness in a portion of the perceptual field. > How is it that a " reader " states his own concepts about darkness, shadowing, > and how you must be unaware - as if someone else presented those concepts as > something right, then contests those concepts as wrong -- those very > concepts that he projected into the situation through his " interpretation " ? > -dan- > > Tims words up there. The reader red those words and understood them to mean > " a certain degree of unawareness " . > -geo- Yes, that makes sense, agreed. Still, the question remains about " the reader. " True of words being read anywhere - so not aimed at any particular reader, like a " Geo " reader opposed to a " Tim " reader or a " Dan " reader - but any reader ... any time a response is formulated to what is read, as if a reader were responding ... what is this reader? is it one making sense of the words separate from the words as they appear? is it one who interprets the meaning of the words and through this interpretation has a reaction and response that then is offered as words? but there is no separable reader from the act of the reading or the apparent object being read ... is there? -- Dan -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, August 03, 2009 8:51 PM > Re: And then what.......? > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > Actualy there is no life without perception of at least some kind, so this > > would lead one to say that there is no realization of the ultimate, of > > awareness, while there is life. I dont think this is a valid statement or > > fact. > > -geo- > > There is no such thing as realization of the ultimate. > Who would be realizing it? > There just is what is. > -dan- > > That is what realization or any other word in place means: no entity. I know > there are no words identical to it. It seems that you prefer > " there-just-is-what-is " as the symbolizing expression identical to IT. > -geo- > > Where and how would realizing it come in, without bringing in time? > -dan- > > No time. Just as " there-just-is-what-is " . > -geo- Yes. Just is what is. No time to realize it. No realizer of it (the realizer, like the reader, is an apparent separation brought in when time is brought in ... time brought in " before " and " after " realization ... or time brought in as the " processing " of the words read) -- Dan -- > I do think that the common-sense interpretation of what it means to > physically be alive, based on language, a memory-chain and survival > instincts, distorts the understanding of what life is (what the daily > living, breathing, perceiving is). > > Simply being aware involves no distortion, no belief, and no reliance on > conceptuality. > > -- Dan -- > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 > Tested on: 3/8/2009 21:07:15 > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Here (tims words): > > " As though 'physical life' itself were a trance, a certain degree of > > unawareness. " > > -geo- > > Yes, that's a good point. > > There is no unawareness in terms of actuality. It's a good point, too, that " Tim " said " as though " , above. > There is only the assumption that awareness can be located - which > isn't truly unawareness, but a distortion of perception by assuming > a location for awareness in a portion of the perceptual field. That's a good point, too. If one considers 'points' to be good, anyway ;-). I've heard of good points, and good questions, but never of a bad point, or a bad question. Interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > Beyond this, no struggle is seen anywhere. All appears at peace, as it is, which is as it 'should be'. > > > > Beyond what? A concept? What is a concept? > > Beyond 'the seeing of struggle'. > > > What is no struggle other than the negation of a concept of > > struggle? > > > > They are both concepts, " no struggle " and " struggle. " > > Nobody said otherwise. > > And clearly, two people are not talking to each other here ;-). > > > > Yup. > > > > > > Perhaps no fun to talk about on a mailing list, or just doesn't add enough support for the imaginary entity. > > > > I'm having fun. Hope you are, too. > > Do you really hope that? Any word involves an imagined division. Divisions aren't divided. I have no problem with hoping that you're having fun. If you're not having fun, I hope you do something about that. Does that mean I believe there is a real do-er of anything? Is there an I to believe? Is there any real question? But questions seem so real. I mean, they get answered. Getting the right answers brings rewards. Getting the wrong answers brings trouble. So, there must really be a question somewhere or other? -- Dan -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > Beyond this, no struggle is seen anywhere. All appears at peace, as it is, which is as it 'should be'. > > > > > > Beyond what? A concept? What is a concept? > > > > Beyond 'the seeing of struggle'. > > > > > What is no struggle other than the negation of a concept of > > > struggle? > > > > > > They are both concepts, " no struggle " and " struggle. " > > > > Nobody said otherwise. > > > > And clearly, two people are not talking to each other here ;-). > > > > > > Yup. > > > > > > > > Perhaps no fun to talk about on a mailing list, or just doesn't add enough support for the imaginary entity. > > > > > > I'm having fun. Hope you are, too. > > > > Do you really hope that? > > Any word involves an imagined division. > > Divisions aren't divided. > > I have no problem with hoping that you're having fun. > > If you're not having fun, I hope you do something about that. I'm having fun, if I'm having fun. I'm not assumed to be with the reader or writer, in particular. In fact, I'm just the word " I " appearing in/as thought. > Does that mean I believe there is a real do-er of anything? > > Is there an I to believe? Exactly. > Is there any real question? > > But questions seem so real. > > I mean, they get answered. > > Getting the right answers brings rewards. > > Getting the wrong answers brings trouble. > > So, there must really be a question somewhere or other? " I dunno " ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Here (tims words): > > > " As though 'physical life' itself were a trance, a certain degree of > > > unawareness. " > > > -geo- > > > > Yes, that's a good point. > > > > There is no unawareness in terms of actuality. > > It's a good point, too, that " Tim " said " as though " , above. LOL. Yes, that's an excellent point. I would like to point out that Tim made a good point about the words " as though " being used. As if words were being used. To converse. As if conversing occurs between conversers. > > There is only the assumption that awareness can be located - which > isn't truly unawareness, but a distortion of perception by assuming > a location for awareness in a portion of the perceptual field. > > That's a good point, too. > > If one considers 'points' to be good, anyway ;-). A good point is better than a bad point. Otherwise, why would we have the words " good, " " bad, " and " better. " Are you a bettor? I bet I'm a better bettor than Betty Grable. Mainly, because she's dead. Is she really dead? Was she really alive? Is there any question? > I've heard of good points, and good questions, but never of a bad point, or a bad question. Interesting. Well, a bad point can be labeled as a lie, a distortion, a manipulation, misinformation, disinformation, cheating. Those are all bad. They all have opposites that are good and better. You bet. A bad question might be silly, idiotic, wrong, stupid, dumb ... all of those have opposites that are ... well, you know. But, is there a you to know? Is there knowing? Is there a question? There is no answer for what is not a question. Is there? - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > But, is there a you to know? > > Is there knowing? > > Is there a question? > > There is no answer for what is not a question. > > Is there? > > - D - There is no " there " there to any of it ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > But, is there a you to know? > > > > Is there knowing? > > > > Is there a question? > > > > There is no answer for what is not a question. > > > > Is there? > > > > - D - > > There is no " there " there to any of it ;-). There, there, now. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > But, is there a you to know? > > > > > > Is there knowing? > > > > > > Is there a question? > > > > > > There is no answer for what is not a question. > > > > > > Is there? > > > > > > - D - > > > > There is no " there " there to any of it ;-). > > > There, there, now. > > -- Dan Ahh, thanks. I feel much better now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Here (tims words): > > > " As though 'physical life' itself were a trance, a certain degree of > > > unawareness. " > > > -geo- > > > > Yes, that's a good point. > > > > There is no unawareness in terms of actuality. > > It's a good point, too, that " Tim " said " as though " , above. > > > There is only the assumption that awareness can be located - which > isn't truly unawareness, but a distortion of perception by assuming > a location for awareness in a portion of the perceptual field. > > That's a good point, too. > > If one considers 'points' to be good, anyway ;-). > > I've heard of good points, and good questions, but never of a bad point, or a bad question. Interesting. > In modern physics no result is a result in order to 'understand', as much as a bad question leads to the right question in order to 'understand'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Here (tims words): > > > > " As though 'physical life' itself were a trance, a certain degree of > > > > unawareness. " > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Yes, that's a good point. > > > > > > There is no unawareness in terms of actuality. > > > > It's a good point, too, that " Tim " said " as though " , above. > > > > > There is only the assumption that awareness can be located - which > isn't truly unawareness, but a distortion of perception by assuming > a location for awareness in a portion of the perceptual field. > > > > That's a good point, too. > > > > If one considers 'points' to be good, anyway ;-). > > > > I've heard of good points, and good questions, but never of a bad point, or a bad question. Interesting. > > > > In modern physics no result is a result in order to 'understand', as much as a bad question leads to the right question in order to 'understand'. P: How you old all doing in this post Roberibus Era? Getting too dull around here? Not that I can take Bob's place, but let me tell you reading this thread is like watching mud dry. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here (tims words): > > > > > " As though 'physical life' itself were a trance, a certain degree of > > > > > unawareness. " > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a good point. > > > > > > > > There is no unawareness in terms of actuality. > > > > > > It's a good point, too, that " Tim " said " as though " , above. > > > > > > > There is only the assumption that awareness can be located - which > isn't truly unawareness, but a distortion of perception by assuming > a location for awareness in a portion of the perceptual field. > > > > > > That's a good point, too. > > > > > > If one considers 'points' to be good, anyway ;-). > > > > > > I've heard of good points, and good questions, but never of a bad point, or a bad question. Interesting. > > > > > > > In modern physics no result is a result in order to 'understand', as much as a bad question leads to the right question in order to 'understand'. > > P: How you old all doing in this post Roberibus Era? > Getting too dull around here? Not that I can take > Bob's place, but let me tell you reading this thread > is like watching mud dry. > > > Pete, I am afraid you really believed that Bob was a challenge and was keeping peeople here awake ? Ha ! What a misunderstanding ... If you happened to suffer from diarrhea and just were shitting into your pans when visiting a party or driving in a bus surrouned by lots of people will have the same effect. Therefore lets call that effect you seemed to miss 'Bob in one's pans'. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here (tims words): > > > > > > " As though 'physical life' itself were a trance, a certain degree of > > > > > > unawareness. " > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a good point. > > > > > > > > > > There is no unawareness in terms of actuality. > > > > > > > > It's a good point, too, that " Tim " said " as though " , above. > > > > > > > > > There is only the assumption that awareness can be located - which > isn't truly unawareness, but a distortion of perception by assuming > a location for awareness in a portion of the perceptual field. > > > > > > > > That's a good point, too. > > > > > > > > If one considers 'points' to be good, anyway ;-). > > > > > > > > I've heard of good points, and good questions, but never of a bad point, or a bad question. Interesting. > > > > > > > > > > In modern physics no result is a result in order to 'understand', as much as a bad question leads to the right question in order to 'understand'. > > > > P: How you old all doing in this post Roberibus Era? > > Getting too dull around here? Not that I can take > > Bob's place, but let me tell you reading this thread > > is like watching mud dry. > > > > > > > > Pete, I am afraid you really believed that Bob was a challenge and was keeping peeople here awake ? > > Ha ! What a misunderstanding ... > > If you happened to suffer from diarrhea and just were shitting into your pans when visiting a party or driving in a bus surrouned by lots of people will have the same effect. > > Therefore lets call that effect you seemed to miss 'Bob in one's pans'. > > Werner > Werner, baby, you miss him too!!!!!!!!!!!! ROFL...with shitty (pans') Hugs, Anna Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here (tims words): > > > > > > > " As though 'physical life' itself were a trance, a certain degree of > > > > > > > unawareness. " > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a good point. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no unawareness in terms of actuality. > > > > > > > > > > It's a good point, too, that " Tim " said " as though " , above. > > > > > > > > > > > There is only the assumption that awareness can be located - which > isn't truly unawareness, but a distortion of perception by assuming > a location for awareness in a portion of the perceptual field. > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point, too. > > > > > > > > > > If one considers 'points' to be good, anyway ;-). > > > > > > > > > > I've heard of good points, and good questions, but never of a bad point, or a bad question. Interesting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In modern physics no result is a result in order to 'understand', as much as a bad question leads to the right question in order to 'understand'. > > > > > > P: How you old all doing in this post Roberibus Era? > > > Getting too dull around here? Not that I can take > > > Bob's place, but let me tell you reading this thread > > > is like watching mud dry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete, I am afraid you really believed that Bob was a challenge and was keeping peeople here awake ? > > > > Ha ! What a misunderstanding ... > > > > If you happened to suffer from diarrhea and just were shitting into your pans when visiting a party or driving in a bus surrouned by lots of people will have the same effect. > > > > Therefore lets call that effect you seemed to miss 'Bob in one's pans'. > > > > Werner > > > > > > Werner, baby, you miss him too!!!!!!!!!!!! > > ROFL...with shitty (pans') > > Hugs, > Anna > Nice and pleased to see you, Anna, Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here (tims words): > > > > > " As though 'physical life' itself were a trance, a certain degree of > > > > > unawareness. " > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a good point. > > > > > > > > There is no unawareness in terms of actuality. > > > > > > It's a good point, too, that " Tim " said " as though " , above. > > > > > > > There is only the assumption that awareness can be located - which > isn't truly unawareness, but a distortion of perception by assuming > a location for awareness in a portion of the perceptual field. > > > > > > That's a good point, too. > > > > > > If one considers 'points' to be good, anyway ;-). > > > > > > I've heard of good points, and good questions, but never of a bad point, or a bad question. Interesting. > > > > > > > In modern physics no result is a result in order to 'understand', as much as a bad question leads to the right question in order to 'understand'. > > P: How you old all doing in this post Roberibus Era? > Getting too dull around here? Not that I can take > Bob's place, but let me tell you reading this thread > is like watching mud dry. > > > With a bit of luck his sister Bodill will take his place... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here (tims words): > > > > > > " As though 'physical life' itself were a trance, a certain degree of > > > > > > unawareness. " > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a good point. > > > > > > > > > > There is no unawareness in terms of actuality. > > > > > > > > It's a good point, too, that " Tim " said " as though " , above. > > > > > > > > > There is only the assumption that awareness can be located - which > isn't truly unawareness, but a distortion of perception by assuming > a location for awareness in a portion of the perceptual field. > > > > > > > > That's a good point, too. > > > > > > > > If one considers 'points' to be good, anyway ;-). > > > > > > > > I've heard of good points, and good questions, but never of a bad point, or a bad question. Interesting. > > > > > > > > > > In modern physics no result is a result in order to 'understand', as much as a bad question leads to the right question in order to 'understand'. > > > > P: How you old all doing in this post Roberibus Era? > > Getting too dull around here? Not that I can take > > Bob's place, but let me tell you reading this thread > > is like watching mud dry. > > > > > > > With a bit of luck his sister Bodill will take his place... > THAT was NOT funny!!! rofl... ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
