Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > What is the nature of the entity through whom the " ground' is > experienced? The 'ground' is not experienced, it is the ground of experience. This is the essential difference between being and imagination. Being is. Imagination is 'experienced'. The imaginary experiencer 'has' a thought. Being *is* the thought, with no imaginary separation between thinker and thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 What is the nature of the entity through whom the " ground' is experienced? toombaru To ask this question is the same, exactly the same, as asking what is the nature of the ground? " Being is its nature " - is not correct, cos it is objectivating it. " The potentiality of being " - seems to ephemeral. " The potentiality of anything " ...seems to theoretical so... The ground can not be experienced because it would imply two: the ground and some experiencer. The ground is-being-this. .....and I am aware it all sounds stupid...to try to " describe " the most obvious is-nes-here(there) -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > The ground can not be experienced because it would imply two: the ground and > some experiencer. > The ground is-being-this. > > ....and I am aware it all sounds stupid...to try to " describe " the most > obvious is-nes-here(there) > -geo- How is Geo aware of how what he says sounds to 'someone else'? This is not awareness -- it's surmisal, assumption, postulation, imagination. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > The ground can not be experienced because it would imply two: the ground and > > some experiencer. > > The ground is-being-this. > > > > ....and I am aware it all sounds stupid...to try to " describe " the most > > obvious is-nes-here(there) > > -geo- > > How is Geo aware of how what he says sounds to 'someone else'? > > This is not awareness -- it's surmisal, assumption, postulation, imagination. > Geo is right. Everything said about this matter sounds stupid. LOL toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > The ground can not be experienced because it would imply two: the ground and > > > some experiencer. > > > The ground is-being-this. > > > > > > ....and I am aware it all sounds stupid...to try to " describe " the most > > > obvious is-nes-here(there) > > > -geo- > > > > How is Geo aware of how what he says sounds to 'someone else'? > > > > This is not awareness -- it's surmisal, assumption, postulation, imagination. > > > > > Geo is right. > > Everything said about this matter sounds stupid. > > > > LOL > > > > toombaru One imaginary being supporting another. That's how it works. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It's a business relationship. " We are creatures and creators of one another, causing and bearing each other's burdens " -- Nisargadatta Reality is complete, undivided, unrelated, 'independent' of both self and other. Fantasy is in codependency with itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:35 PM Re: More inconsistencies Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > The ground can not be experienced because it would imply two: the ground > and > some experiencer. > The ground is-being-this. > > ....and I am aware it all sounds stupid...to try to " describe " the most > obvious is-nes-here(there) > -geo- How is Geo aware of how what he says sounds to 'someone else'? This is not awareness -- it's surmisal, assumption, postulation, imagination. -tim- Just a guess. Way of speaking. Humor. Not relevant. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 6/8/2009 21:37:10 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:35 PM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > The ground can not be experienced because it would imply two: the ground > > and > > some experiencer. > > The ground is-being-this. > > > > ....and I am aware it all sounds stupid...to try to " describe " the most > > obvious is-nes-here(there) > > -geo- > > How is Geo aware of how what he says sounds to 'someone else'? > > This is not awareness -- it's surmisal, assumption, postulation, > imagination. > -tim- > > Just a guess. Way of speaking. Humor. Not relevant. > -geo- It seems here that the assumed " self and other " relationship is very relevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Thursday, August 06, 2009 10:08 PM Re: More inconsistencies Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:35 PM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > The ground can not be experienced because it would imply two: the ground > > and > > some experiencer. > > The ground is-being-this. > > > > ....and I am aware it all sounds stupid...to try to " describe " the most > > obvious is-nes-here(there) > > -geo- > > How is Geo aware of how what he says sounds to 'someone else'? > > This is not awareness -- it's surmisal, assumption, postulation, > imagination. > -tim- > > Just a guess. Way of speaking. Humor. Not relevant. > -geo- It seems here that the assumed " self and other " relationship is very relevant. -tim- Anyway..I am able to know it sounds stupid because it sounds stupid to me. What others? -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 6/8/2009 22:09:57 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Anyway..I am able to know it sounds stupid because it sounds stupid > to me. > What others? > -geo- " me " and " you " co-arise in the same location... if something sounds stupid 'to me', it's through the filter of a projected other (e.g. the self image). Otherwise, what/how to compare to what, to know whether something sounds stupid or not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Anyway..I am able to know it sounds stupid because it sounds stupid > > to me. > > What others? > > -geo- > > " me " and " you " co-arise in the same location... if something sounds stupid 'to me', it's through the filter of a projected other (e.g. the self image). > This is only partly true, Tim, The 'other' is as a real tangible living object. And through his way of living and acting he is transporting a very personal character independent of your projections. But your projections are limiting what you can see of the other. And therefore it is justified to say you are the other. But this works only one way: The other is NOT you. The me is just a psychological structure, a reactive and limited conditioned memory stored in your brain. This memory structure called 'me' can grow by adding new data about the 'other' by learning. But undeniable, Tim, and here I am with you one can only see in the other what one's own structure allows to see. If you are blind you won't see anything. Werner > Otherwise, what/how to compare to what, to know whether something sounds stupid or not? > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Anyway..I am able to know it sounds stupid because it sounds stupid > > > to me. > > > What others? > > > -geo- > > > > " me " and " you " co-arise in the same location... if something sounds stupid 'to me', it's through the filter of a projected other (e.g. the self image). > > > > > This is only partly true, Tim, > > The 'other' is as a real tangible living object. The 'other' is a body appearing in awareness, 'subjectively', which is to say that all appears in awareness, 'subjectively' -- which is to say that objectivity is an illusion, appearing 'subjectively'. It's really too obvious, and you keep missing it, Werner, despite the 'consciousness is all' spoutings, which are obviously from reading books and reciting like a parrot. Squawk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Anyway..I am able to know it sounds stupid because it sounds stupid > > > > to me. > > > > What others? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > " me " and " you " co-arise in the same location... if something sounds stupid 'to me', it's through the filter of a projected other (e.g. the self image). > > > > > > > > > This is only partly true, Tim, > > > > The 'other' is as a real tangible living object. > > The 'other' is a body appearing in awareness, 'subjectively', which is to say that all appears in awareness, 'subjectively' -- which is to say that objectivity is an illusion, appearing 'subjectively'. > > It's really too obvious, and you keep missing it, Werner, despite the 'consciousness is all' spoutings, which are obviously from reading books and reciting like a parrot. Squawk. > Surprise Tim ! Suddenly you are presenting yourself as a spitting and shrieking lady. Hahaha ... Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 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: > > > > > > > > > > Anyway..I am able to know it sounds stupid because it sounds stupid > > > > > to me. > > > > > What others? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > " me " and " you " co-arise in the same location... if something sounds stupid 'to me', it's through the filter of a projected other (e.g. the self image). > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is only partly true, Tim, > > > > > > The 'other' is as a real tangible living object. > > > > The 'other' is a body appearing in awareness, 'subjectively', which is to say that all appears in awareness, 'subjectively' -- which is to say that objectivity is an illusion, appearing 'subjectively'. > > > > It's really too obvious, and you keep missing it, Werner, despite the 'consciousness is all' spoutings, which are obviously from reading books and reciting like a parrot. Squawk. > > > > > Surprise Tim ! > > Suddenly you are presenting yourself as a spitting and shrieking > lady. > > Hahaha ... Werner Ahh well, Werner, it should look familiar to ya ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway..I am able to know it sounds stupid because it sounds stupid > > > > > > to me. > > > > > > What others? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > " me " and " you " co-arise in the same location... if something sounds stupid 'to me', it's through the filter of a projected other (e.g. the self image). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is only partly true, Tim, > > > > > > > > The 'other' is as a real tangible living object. > > > > > > The 'other' is a body appearing in awareness, 'subjectively', which is to say that all appears in awareness, 'subjectively' -- which is to say that objectivity is an illusion, appearing 'subjectively'. > > > > > > It's really too obvious, and you keep missing it, Werner, despite the 'consciousness is all' spoutings, which are obviously from reading books and reciting like a parrot. Squawk. > > > > > > > > > Surprise Tim ! > > > > Suddenly you are presenting yourself as a spitting and shrieking > > lady. > > > > Hahaha ... Werner > > Ahh well, Werner, it should look familiar to ya ;-). > Yes, it does, Tim. In the course of learning from life, that type of person you were presenting chrystallized as 'shrieking and spitting lady'. ROFBIMOATSL (Rolling On Floor Biting In My Own Ass To Stop Laughing) Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Thursday, August 06, 2009 10:30 PM Re: More inconsistencies Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Anyway..I am able to know it sounds stupid because it sounds stupid > to me. > What others? > -geo- " me " and " you " co-arise in the same location... geo> Yes...in the same location. There is no other location...there is no other avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 7/8/2009 06:38:16 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:38 PM Re: More inconsistencies Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > The ground can not be experienced because it would imply two: the ground > > and > > some experiencer. > > The ground is-being-this. > > > > ....and I am aware it all sounds stupid...to try to " describe " the most > > obvious is-nes-here(there) > > -geo- > > How is Geo aware of how what he says sounds to 'someone else'? > > This is not awareness -- it's surmisal, assumption, postulation, > imagination. > Geo is right. Everything said about this matter sounds stupid. LOL toombaru Yes, maybe...but in your case is not just what is said about it. To you the very it is stupid. That is different. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 6/8/2009 21:39:11 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:47 AM > > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > > > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > > > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I am > > > > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the > > > > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of > > > > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to > > > > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very > > > > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of > > > > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds here > > > > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or > > > > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas - > > > > > > > > One can only guess. > > > > > > > > If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask him > > > > about it. > > > > > > > > He is dead, one has read his words translated from another language. > > > > > > > > One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and > > > > transcribed, how it was translated. > > > > > > > > One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he spoke, or > > > > what experience he was addressing through his words. > > > > > > > > What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is for you. > > > > > > > > You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with > > > > something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not identified? > > > > > > > > Experientially what is the difference for you? > > > > > > > > What is it not to be identified with experience? > > > > > > > > Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. > > > > > > > > Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your readers, > > > > what you meant. > > > > > > > > Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask you about > > > > it as you were still alive. > > > > > > > > We would still be guessing. > > > > > > > > And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be guessing > > > > about what language to apply to the experience and understanding you were > > > > having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to others. " > > > > > > > > And those others would just be whatever they were, in your experience and > > > > understanding. > > > > > > > > Is it possible not to guess? > > > > > > > > To know directly? > > > > > > > > What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > >Dan, > > > >The referenced quote makes me think that Nisargadatta and I are alike in > > > >our sentiments about living with a terminal illness. I have AIDS and feel > > > >at times the way that Nisargadatta did about this supposed life. But there > > > >is a part of me that feels that the body is the " temple " of consciousness, > > > >and hence Awareness. The body should perhaps be something for which one is > > > >very grateful and blessed to have as a vehicle for the consciousness and > > > >Awareness. There is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by > > > >Nisargadatta that I find hard to accept. I know that I am not just this > > > >body, but I don't dismiss it outright. It has helped me via the mind to > > > >transcend and realize that the Awareness/Absolute would have no other way > > > >to know itself it were not for the body and mind. That is where i take my > > > >stand. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my inquiries, Dan. You have > > > >been the most helpful to me on this site. > > > -Doug > > > > > > I think there is a bit of exageration when you say " there is so much > > > negativity pronounced upon the body by Nisargadatta... " . If you go through > > > other dialogues you will find that most of the time it is quite the other > > > way around: everything is just perfect, with his body and averting else. > > > That quote is probably from a period where he was going through much pain > > > and physical suffering in the end of his life. > > > > > > The right time to go is when the time is right...isn't it? > > > -geo- > > > > > >Geo, > > >Who knows, but maybe you're right about the context in which the quote was made. But I still get a lot of negativity about the body from Nis and many other teachers. The body and mind are glorious to behold in my opinion. Thanks for responding, though. -Doug > > > > Doug, > > Good luck on your health challenge. > > I don't think Nisargadatta was invested in the body's reality enough to be negative towards it. I think he thought of the body as you or I might think of a irksome pest in a Hollywood film. One can criticize that fictional character's " personality " and be 100% correctly reporting " truth " about that character, yet, why bother dissing a fiction? That's the story as I see it: the body is a bother like an adorable toddler that tugs constantly at Mom's hem -- you love the kid, but geeze . . . > > The purpose of creation is the expansion of happiness. > > BAM -- there's the main reason for having a body/mind -- a place that doesn't exist is yet no challenge to the Absolute when it comes to infinitizing. Even where it cannot be, it IS, and the body/mind is the stage upon which that BEING coming into NONBEING is enacted. > > And, hey, let's get down to one basic fact: this so-called reality is here and now, and no matter why it is here, we can be assured that " the Absolute had its reasons. " I mean, come on, what's so bad about God glancing into a mirror? > > All of creation is but the act of God manifesting every quality in a space/time matrix. Because of time, the perfecting of non-ness cannot instantly BE, but instead, handcuffed by time and forced into being logically causal, it is as if God were doing an autopsy on Himself....all His glory on a dissection table. Gory metaphor, eh? > > So the very fact that there are facts means that whatever formed the facts thought they were worth the creative effort. You, for instance. > > And, in the end, the body/mind, yes, must be seen as an automaton that is a wooden dummy for a divine Ventriloquist, but, hey, better to be a dummy on God's lap, eh? > > Edg > ..Thanks for your concern -Doug Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:38 PM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > The ground can not be experienced because it would imply two: the ground > > > and > > > some experiencer. > > > The ground is-being-this. > > > > > > ....and I am aware it all sounds stupid...to try to " describe " the most > > > obvious is-nes-here(there) > > > -geo- > > > > How is Geo aware of how what he says sounds to 'someone else'? > > > > This is not awareness -- it's surmisal, assumption, postulation, > > imagination. > > > > Geo is right. > > Everything said about this matter sounds stupid. > > LOL > > toombaru > > Yes, maybe...but in your case is not just what is said about it. To you the > very it is stupid. That is different. > -geo- > > > > Anything that the self says about the self......sounds stupid....for one very good reason. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > toombaru2006 > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:38 PM > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The ground can not be experienced because it would imply two: the ground > > > > and > > > > some experiencer. > > > > The ground is-being-this. > > > > > > > > ....and I am aware it all sounds stupid...to try to " describe " the most > > > > obvious is-nes-here(there) > > > > -geo- > > > > > > How is Geo aware of how what he says sounds to 'someone else'? > > > > > > This is not awareness -- it's surmisal, assumption, postulation, > > > imagination. > > > > > > > Geo is right. > > > > Everything said about this matter sounds stupid. > > > > LOL > > > > toombaru > > > > Yes, maybe...but in your case is not just what is said about it. To you the > > very it is stupid. That is different. > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > Anything that the self says about the self......sounds stupid....for one very good reason. > > > > > toombaru > Yes? ;-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Friday, August 07, 2009 12:06 PM Re: More inconsistencies Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:38 PM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > The ground can not be experienced because it would imply two: the > > > ground > > > and > > > some experiencer. > > > The ground is-being-this. > > > > > > ....and I am aware it all sounds stupid...to try to " describe " the > > > most > > > obvious is-nes-here(there) > > > -geo- > > > > How is Geo aware of how what he says sounds to 'someone else'? > > > > This is not awareness -- it's surmisal, assumption, postulation, > > imagination. > > > > Geo is right. > > Everything said about this matter sounds stupid. > > LOL > > toombaru > > Yes, maybe...but in your case is not just what is said about it. To you > the > very it is stupid. That is different. > -geo- > > > > Anything that the self says about the self......sounds stupid....for one very good reason. toombaru Norational meaning. First there is no self that could speak. Second there was nothing said about some self. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
