Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 " I think therefore I am. " That statement is probably one of the most famous quotes of human civilization, and rightly so since it posits axioms that either must be accepted or rejected -- no gray areas allowed -- because how YOU affirm or deny that statement is critical to ANYONE's philosophy. If you have merely the least inkling of a philosophy, you must have clarity about whether the statement is true or not -- it is that basic, that fundamental, that critical. Now, despite the catcalls that many of you will be certain to rasp out at the statement -- even an insane dog can bark at anything -- I'd like to challenge this group to show their credentials by handling this statement in a scholarly fashion. Doing so would be intellectually edifying for anyone here, and I do mean anyone -- me of course, but everyone else too -- even God would be edified taking a stand for or against that statement. I present this challenge, because I'm calling out certain posters here on their shit. If you don't know who I might be referring to, then that probably means it's you. This locker-room mentality here besmirches the knowledge that Nisargadatta championed. Can you imagine how tawdry and embarrassing it would be for some of the posters here to be standing before Nisargadatta and ask him questions with the adoring crowd onlooking in the upstairs room? Can you see the EGOS here smugly challenging Nisargadatta whenever he used the words, " I, you, they? " Can you see them brazenly high hatting Nisargadatta with " GOTCHA SUCKER " and " Gang, look who thinks he's a me, " and " All your words are nonsense about nonsense. Get out of your head you old geezer " and " I kill you smug false Buddha? " So, all you snide bastards running this empty trip of devaluation of all created things, who delight in spitting on anyone for any reason, let's see you present a cogent argument in support or against the statement in such a way that Nisargadatta would be pleased, or defend your anti-Advaitanism. A simple denial or affirmation will not do. We don't take opinions as proofs; we gotta have logical syllogisms, and failing that, your right to post here about Advaita should be self-curtailed from there on out if you have the least intellectual honesty. Or, admit you're a troll shouting jargon words with only a vile obfuscation as your intent. In case, you don't get it, I'm saying that the most frequent posters here are writing as if they are authoritative, enlightened, tee-shirted, and yet obviously they are FLAT OUT WRONG -- not necessarily because the word-constructs wouldn't be supported by Nisargadatta -- but because the words are merely being parroted without any clarity about them, and fucking wrong, because snapping word-towels at someone's philosophical butt isn't funny, isn't clever, isn't cute, isn't entertaining, but instead is childish, sick, twisted, and DAMNABLE. Where's kindness seen here? Where's karuna mandala karum? Where's simple humility and gentle discourse? Okay, show your true colors -- step up to the plate, hit a home run, or shut the fuck up cuz you're a fool wasting everyone's time. Are you for or against the statement, and why? Edg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > " I think therefore I am. " > > That statement is probably one of the most famous quotes of human civilization, and rightly so since it posits axioms that either must be accepted or rejected -- no gray areas allowed -- because how YOU affirm or deny that statement is critical to ANYONE's philosophy. If you have merely the least inkling of a philosophy, you must have clarity about whether the statement is true or not -- it is that basic, that fundamental, that critical. > > Now, despite the catcalls that many of you will be certain to rasp out at the statement -- even an insane dog can bark at anything -- I'd like to challenge this group to show their credentials by handling this statement in a scholarly fashion. Doing so would be intellectually edifying for anyone here, and I do mean anyone -- me of course, but everyone else too -- even God would be edified taking a stand for or against that statement. > > I present this challenge, because I'm calling out certain posters here on their shit. If you don't know who I might be referring to, then that probably means it's you. > > This locker-room mentality here besmirches the knowledge that Nisargadatta championed. > > Can you imagine how tawdry and embarrassing it would be for some of the posters here to be standing before Nisargadatta and ask him questions with the adoring crowd onlooking in the upstairs room? > > Can you see the EGOS here smugly challenging Nisargadatta whenever he used the words, " I, you, they? " Can you see them brazenly high hatting Nisargadatta with " GOTCHA SUCKER " and " Gang, look who thinks he's a me, " and " All your words are nonsense about nonsense. Get out of your head you old geezer " and " I kill you smug false Buddha? " > > So, all you snide bastards running this empty trip of devaluation of all created things, who delight in spitting on anyone for any reason, let's see you present a cogent argument in support or against the statement in such a way that Nisargadatta would be pleased, or defend your anti-Advaitanism. > > A simple denial or affirmation will not do. We don't take opinions as proofs; we gotta have logical syllogisms, and failing that, your right to post here about Advaita should be self-curtailed from there on out if you have the least intellectual honesty. Or, admit you're a troll shouting jargon words with only a vile obfuscation as your intent. > > In case, you don't get it, I'm saying that the most frequent posters here are writing as if they are authoritative, enlightened, tee-shirted, and yet obviously they are FLAT OUT WRONG -- not necessarily because the word-constructs wouldn't be supported by Nisargadatta -- but because the words are merely being parroted without any clarity about them, and fucking wrong, because snapping word-towels at someone's philosophical butt isn't funny, isn't clever, isn't cute, isn't entertaining, but instead is childish, sick, twisted, and DAMNABLE. > > Where's kindness seen here? Where's karuna mandala karum? > > Where's simple humility and gentle discourse? > > Okay, show your true colors -- step up to the plate, hit a home run, or shut the fuck up cuz you're a fool wasting everyone's time. > > Are you for or against the statement, and why? > > Edg > >As I understand Nisargadatta, " I am therefore I think " would be more correct. " I am " is the primordial feeling of presence of all sentient beings which later in humans becomes the thought/words " I am " . Kant had it backwards me thinks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 As I understand Nisargadatta, "I am therefore I think" would be more correct. "I am" is the primordial feeling of presence of all sentient beings which later in humans becomes the thought/words "I am". Kant had it backwards me thinks. -doug- IMO if thinking is a movement from -off an imagined inner observer, thinking is perpetuating that imagined inner observer as ME. In the other hand, there may be a thinking that is just an instrument of unlimitedness - and ME is not, has never been. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > " I think therefore I am. " > > That statement is probably one of the most famous quotes of human civilization, and rightly so since it posits axioms that either must be accepted or rejected -- no gray areas allowed -- because how YOU affirm or deny that statement is critical to ANYONE's philosophy. If you have merely the least inkling of a philosophy, you must have clarity about whether the statement is true or not -- it is that basic, that fundamental, that critical. > > Now, despite the catcalls that many of you will be certain to rasp out at the statement -- even an insane dog can bark at anything -- I'd like to challenge this group to show their credentials by handling this statement in a scholarly fashion. Doing so would be intellectually edifying for anyone here, and I do mean anyone -- me of course, but everyone else too -- even God would be edified taking a stand for or against that statement. > > I present this challenge, because I'm calling out certain posters here on their shit. If you don't know who I might be referring to, then that probably means it's you. > > This locker-room mentality here besmirches the knowledge that Nisargadatta championed. > > Can you imagine how tawdry and embarrassing it would be for some of the posters here to be standing before Nisargadatta and ask him questions with the adoring crowd onlooking in the upstairs room? > > Can you see the EGOS here smugly challenging Nisargadatta whenever he used the words, " I, you, they? " Can you see them brazenly high hatting Nisargadatta with " GOTCHA SUCKER " and " Gang, look who thinks he's a me, " and " All your words are nonsense about nonsense. Get out of your head you old geezer " and " I kill you smug false Buddha? " > > So, all you snide bastards running this empty trip of devaluation of all created things, who delight in spitting on anyone for any reason, let's see you present a cogent argument in support or against the statement in such a way that Nisargadatta would be pleased, or defend your anti-Advaitanism. > > A simple denial or affirmation will not do. We don't take opinions as proofs; we gotta have logical syllogisms, and failing that, your right to post here about Advaita should be self-curtailed from there on out if you have the least intellectual honesty. Or, admit you're a troll shouting jargon words with only a vile obfuscation as your intent. > > In case, you don't get it, I'm saying that the most frequent posters here are writing as if they are authoritative, enlightened, tee-shirted, and yet obviously they are FLAT OUT WRONG -- not necessarily because the word-constructs wouldn't be supported by Nisargadatta -- but because the words are merely being parroted without any clarity about them, and fucking wrong, because snapping word-towels at someone's philosophical butt isn't funny, isn't clever, isn't cute, isn't entertaining, but instead is childish, sick, twisted, and DAMNABLE. > > Where's kindness seen here? Where's karuna mandala karum? > > Where's simple humility and gentle discourse? > > Okay, show your true colors -- step up to the plate, hit a home run, or shut the fuck up cuz you're a fool wasting everyone's time. > > Are you for or against the statement, and why? > > Edg > Namaste, 'I think' therefore the mind 'I Am'.........Tony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > " I think therefore I am. " > > That statement is probably one of the most famous quotes of human civilization, and rightly so since it posits axioms that either must be accepted or rejected -- no gray areas allowed -- because how YOU affirm or deny that statement is critical to ANYONE's philosophy. If you have merely the least inkling of a philosophy, you must have clarity about whether the statement is true or not -- it is that basic, that fundamental, that critical. > > Now, despite the catcalls that many of you will be certain to rasp out at the statement -- even an insane dog can bark at anything -- I'd like to challenge this group to show their credentials by handling this statement in a scholarly fashion. Doing so would be intellectually edifying for anyone here, and I do mean anyone -- me of course, but everyone else too -- even God would be edified taking a stand for or against that statement. > > I present this challenge, because I'm calling out certain posters here on their shit. If you don't know who I might be referring to, then that probably means it's you. > > This locker-room mentality here besmirches the knowledge that Nisargadatta championed. > > Can you imagine how tawdry and embarrassing it would be for some of the posters here to be standing before Nisargadatta and ask him questions with the adoring crowd onlooking in the upstairs room? > > Can you see the EGOS here smugly challenging Nisargadatta whenever he used the words, " I, you, they? " Can you see them brazenly high hatting Nisargadatta with " GOTCHA SUCKER " and " Gang, look who thinks he's a me, " and " All your words are nonsense about nonsense. Get out of your head you old geezer " and " I kill you smug false Buddha? " > > So, all you snide bastards running this empty trip of devaluation of all created things, who delight in spitting on anyone for any reason, let's see you present a cogent argument in support or against the statement in such a way that Nisargadatta would be pleased, or defend your anti-Advaitanism. > > A simple denial or affirmation will not do. We don't take opinions as proofs; we gotta have logical syllogisms, and failing that, your right to post here about Advaita should be self-curtailed from there on out if you have the least intellectual honesty. Or, admit you're a troll shouting jargon words with only a vile obfuscation as your intent. > > In case, you don't get it, I'm saying that the most frequent posters here are writing as if they are authoritative, enlightened, tee-shirted, and yet obviously they are FLAT OUT WRONG -- not necessarily because the word-constructs wouldn't be supported by Nisargadatta -- but because the words are merely being parroted without any clarity about them, and fucking wrong, because snapping word-towels at someone's philosophical butt isn't funny, isn't clever, isn't cute, isn't entertaining, but instead is childish, sick, twisted, and DAMNABLE. > > Where's kindness seen here? Where's karuna mandala karum? > > Where's simple humility and gentle discourse? > > Okay, show your true colors -- step up to the plate, hit a home run, or shut the fuck up cuz you're a fool wasting everyone's time. > > Are you for or against the statement, and why? > > Edg > You are sounding a bit smug yourself eh? You believe that you and old Nizzy have a handle on It.....don't you? You think that the people here are naive but it is you who is proudly displaying his intellectual bias. How about this: " I think I think...therefor...I think I am. " The one who thinks it is the one thinking has no existential reality outside of the conceptual dream. And I am referring you and all your ranting about the truth of " things " that you hold in your little hands. If it is kindness you seek........go to church. Your move. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > " I think therefore I am. " > > > > That statement is probably one of the most famous quotes of human civilization, and rightly so since it posits axioms that either must be accepted or rejected -- no gray areas allowed -- because how YOU affirm or deny that statement is critical to ANYONE's philosophy. If you have merely the least inkling of a philosophy, you must have clarity about whether the statement is true or not -- it is that basic, that fundamental, that critical. > > > > Now, despite the catcalls that many of you will be certain to rasp out at the statement -- even an insane dog can bark at anything -- I'd like to challenge this group to show their credentials by handling this statement in a scholarly fashion. Doing so would be intellectually edifying for anyone here, and I do mean anyone -- me of course, but everyone else too -- even God would be edified taking a stand for or against that statement. > > > > I present this challenge, because I'm calling out certain posters here on their shit. If you don't know who I might be referring to, then that probably means it's you. > > > > This locker-room mentality here besmirches the knowledge that Nisargadatta championed. > > > > Can you imagine how tawdry and embarrassing it would be for some of the posters here to be standing before Nisargadatta and ask him questions with the adoring crowd onlooking in the upstairs room? > > > > Can you see the EGOS here smugly challenging Nisargadatta whenever he used the words, " I, you, they? " Can you see them brazenly high hatting Nisargadatta with " GOTCHA SUCKER " and " Gang, look who thinks he's a me, " and " All your words are nonsense about nonsense. Get out of your head you old geezer " and " I kill you smug false Buddha? " > > > > So, all you snide bastards running this empty trip of devaluation of all created things, who delight in spitting on anyone for any reason, let's see you present a cogent argument in support or against the statement in such a way that Nisargadatta would be pleased, or defend your anti-Advaitanism. > > > > A simple denial or affirmation will not do. We don't take opinions as proofs; we gotta have logical syllogisms, and failing that, your right to post here about Advaita should be self-curtailed from there on out if you have the least intellectual honesty. Or, admit you're a troll shouting jargon words with only a vile obfuscation as your intent. > > > > In case, you don't get it, I'm saying that the most frequent posters here are writing as if they are authoritative, enlightened, tee-shirted, and yet obviously they are FLAT OUT WRONG -- not necessarily because the word-constructs wouldn't be supported by Nisargadatta -- but because the words are merely being parroted without any clarity about them, and fucking wrong, because snapping word-towels at someone's philosophical butt isn't funny, isn't clever, isn't cute, isn't entertaining, but instead is childish, sick, twisted, and DAMNABLE. > > > > Where's kindness seen here? Where's karuna mandala karum? > > > > Where's simple humility and gentle discourse? > > > > Okay, show your true colors -- step up to the plate, hit a home run, or shut the fuck up cuz you're a fool wasting everyone's time. > > > > Are you for or against the statement, and why? > > > > Edg > > > >As I understand Nisargadatta, " I am therefore I think " would be more correct. " I am " is the primordial feeling of presence of all sentient beings which later in humans becomes the thought/words " I am " . Kant had it backwards me thinks. > Doug, You're not one of those I'm calling out, but thanks for the reply. It was Descartes, not Kant, but ya did get on the Advaitan side of the statement. I like your phrase " primordial feeling of presence, " and I suspect it would do me good if you'd flesh out that skeleton. Why? Cuz it sounds very much like your phrase " goes to " what I'm talking about when I used the phrase " Cosmic Ego. " And, um, do you think rocks have sentience? Christ did, so, of course, your opinion would be interesting if you think otherwise. And, how's 'bout you answer questions like these: " If one is dreaming that one is sitting in a chair, does that dream character speak truly if he says, 'I think,' or 'I am?' Does the chair he's sitting on have as much sentience as he does? Do the boundaries between objects in a dream 'count' as much as the boundaries in waking life? " I see the phenomenon " dream " as of-a-piece. That is, every aspect of the content of a dream is determined/caused by the same generational process -- the chair, the person, the air, the room they're in, the clothing of the person, the color of the paint of the chair, each and all different but the same. Each merely a concept juggled aloft temporarily by a sleeping brain of a human whose dreams are as if entire creations by a god of sorts. The dream person cannot easily contend that his boundaries are important -- that where the chair ends and his butt begins is a true distinction. To me, dreams are one of the best blessings in that their nature, if examined, directly pertains to the " dream " we call " waking life. " Edg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Sunday, August 09, 2009 12:19 PM Re: I think therefore I am. Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > " I think therefore I am. " > > That statement is probably one of the most famous quotes of human > civilization, and rightly so since it posits axioms that either must be > accepted or rejected -- no gray areas allowed -- because how YOU affirm or > deny that statement is critical to ANYONE's philosophy. If you have merely > the least inkling of a philosophy, you must have clarity about whether the > statement is true or not -- it is that basic, that fundamental, that > critical. > > Now, despite the catcalls that many of you will be certain to rasp out at > the statement -- even an insane dog can bark at anything -- I'd like to > challenge this group to show their credentials by handling this statement > in a scholarly fashion. Doing so would be intellectually edifying for > anyone here, and I do mean anyone -- me of course, but everyone else > too -- even God would be edified taking a stand for or against that > statement. > > I present this challenge, because I'm calling out certain posters here on > their shit. If you don't know who I might be referring to, then that > probably means it's you. > > This locker-room mentality here besmirches the knowledge that Nisargadatta > championed. > > Can you imagine how tawdry and embarrassing it would be for some of the > posters here to be standing before Nisargadatta and ask him questions with > the adoring crowd onlooking in the upstairs room? > > Can you see the EGOS here smugly challenging Nisargadatta whenever he used > the words, " I, you, they? " Can you see them brazenly high hatting > Nisargadatta with " GOTCHA SUCKER " and " Gang, look who thinks he's a me, " > and " All your words are nonsense about nonsense. Get out of your head you > old geezer " and " I kill you smug false Buddha? " > > So, all you snide bastards running this empty trip of devaluation of all > created things, who delight in spitting on anyone for any reason, let's > see you present a cogent argument in support or against the statement in > such a way that Nisargadatta would be pleased, or defend your > anti-Advaitanism. > > A simple denial or affirmation will not do. We don't take opinions as > proofs; we gotta have logical syllogisms, and failing that, your right to > post here about Advaita should be self-curtailed from there on out if you > have the least intellectual honesty. Or, admit you're a troll shouting > jargon words with only a vile obfuscation as your intent. > > In case, you don't get it, I'm saying that the most frequent posters here > are writing as if they are authoritative, enlightened, tee-shirted, and > yet obviously they are FLAT OUT WRONG -- not necessarily because the > word-constructs wouldn't be supported by Nisargadatta -- but because the > words are merely being parroted without any clarity about them, and > fucking wrong, because snapping word-towels at someone's philosophical > butt isn't funny, isn't clever, isn't cute, isn't entertaining, but > instead is childish, sick, twisted, and DAMNABLE. > > Where's kindness seen here? Where's karuna mandala karum? > > Where's simple humility and gentle discourse? > > Okay, show your true colors -- step up to the plate, hit a home run, or > shut the fuck up cuz you're a fool wasting everyone's time. > > Are you for or against the statement, and why? > > Edg > You are sounding a bit smug yourself eh? You believe that you and old Nizzy have a handle on It.....don't you? You think that the people here are naive but it is you who is proudly displaying his intellectual bias. How about this: " I think I think...therefor...I think I am. " The one who thinks it is the one thinking has no existential reality outside of the conceptual dream. And I am referring you and all your ranting about the truth of " things " that you hold in your little hands. If it is kindness you seek........go to church. Your move. toombaru Edg is a spider entangled in his own netting of theoretical book knowledge wordings. I've seen very few so full of it. Interesting that if he could get rid of all his hearasay book knowledge...he would just be IT. But no way...he is sooooo proud of his literary poetic display... -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , "toombaru2006" <lastrain wrote:>> Nisargadatta , "duveyoung" edg@ wrote:> >> > "I think therefore I am."> > > > That statement is probably one of the most famous quotes of human civilization, and rightly so since it posits axioms that either must be accepted or rejected -- no gray areas allowed -- because how YOU affirm or deny that statement is critical to ANYONE's philosophy. If you have merely the least inkling of a philosophy, you must have clarity about whether the statement is true or not -- it is that basic, that fundamental, that critical. > > > > Now, despite the catcalls that many of you will be certain to rasp out at the statement -- even an insane dog can bark at anything -- I'd like to challenge this group to show their credentials by handling this statement in a scholarly fashion. Doing so would be intellectually edifying for anyone here, and I do mean anyone -- me of course, but everyone else too -- even God would be edified taking a stand for or against that statement.> > > > I present this challenge, because I'm calling out certain posters here on their shit. If you don't know who I might be referring to, then that probably means it's you. > > > > This locker-room mentality here besmirches the knowledge that Nisargadatta championed. > > > > Can you imagine how tawdry and embarrassing it would be for some of the posters here to be standing before Nisargadatta and ask him questions with the adoring crowd onlooking in the upstairs room? > > > > Can you see the EGOS here smugly challenging Nisargadatta whenever he used the words, "I, you, they?" Can you see them brazenly high hatting Nisargadatta with "GOTCHA SUCKER" and "Gang, look who thinks he's a me," and "All your words are nonsense about nonsense. Get out of your head you old geezer" and "I kill you smug false Buddha?"> > > > So, all you snide bastards running this empty trip of devaluation of all created things, who delight in spitting on anyone for any reason, let's see you present a cogent argument in support or against the statement in such a way that Nisargadatta would be pleased, or defend your anti-Advaitanism.> > > > A simple denial or affirmation will not do. We don't take opinions as proofs; we gotta have logical syllogisms, and failing that, your right to post here about Advaita should be self-curtailed from there on out if you have the least intellectual honesty. Or, admit you're a troll shouting jargon words with only a vile obfuscation as your intent.> > > > In case, you don't get it, I'm saying that the most frequent posters here are writing as if they are authoritative, enlightened, tee-shirted, and yet obviously they are FLAT OUT WRONG -- not necessarily because the word-constructs wouldn't be supported by Nisargadatta -- but because the words are merely being parroted without any clarity about them, and fucking wrong, because snapping word-towels at someone's philosophical butt isn't funny, isn't clever, isn't cute, isn't entertaining, but instead is childish, sick, twisted, and DAMNABLE.> > > > Where's kindness seen here? Where's karuna mandala karum?> > > > Where's simple humility and gentle discourse?> > > > Okay, show your true colors -- step up to the plate, hit a home run, or shut the fuck up cuz you're a fool wasting everyone's time.> > > > Are you for or against the statement, and why?> > > > Edg> >> > > > You are sounding a bit smug yourself eh?Yeah, so what? Any statement by anyone is egoic and by definition is smug. I have put a ton of time into mulling Advaita. I have a tee shirt, and I wear it. I don't say I'm enlightened, so there's the possibility that my clarity is imperfect, and that's why I put out the challenge -- to see if my clarity can be buffed or polished into a yet more refined conceptual delicacy. The gross violations of vibe and energy here seems very much to be in opposition to true dialog. > > You believe that you and old Nizzy have a handle on It.....don't you?Yep on Nisargadatta, nope on me. I can stay aboard the Advaita bronko for only so long, and then, because I'm not living the silence, when nuances are important, I can be found to be semantically sloppy, whereas, Nisargadatta's statements are always unassailable. > > You think that the people here are naive but it is you who is proudly displaying his intellectual bias.> I'm proud to call bullshitters on the carpet where I can push them to entertain certain concepts that I hold to be true by dint of Nisargadatta's support for them -- not by my having some spiritual status that must be honored here. And, are you actually saying that there's no naivete here? And, I'm not saying folks are naive so much as I'm saying they're outrightly fucking wrong and should know better, wrong and haven't studied Advaita enough to grok it and defend it -- just plain tee-shirtless pretending to be fully clothed and able to have a beer and chat with Wayne-the-pain.> How about this:> > "I think I think...therefor...I think I am."So, here we have an example of what I'm complaining about. You merely toss out some words as if you could create an essay to flesh them out. Phihhhh -- as if.But, given your history of posting here, I can confidently say you'll struggle to even begin the essay. In short, I think you're parroting much more than you're seeing clearly, and it shows up when you post some clever arrangement of words as if they're the done-deal and we should all be satisfied that the debate is over. > > The one who thinks it is the one thinking has no existential reality outside of the conceptual dream.> I don't believe you can define the words "existence, amness, being and non-being" in a way that would show you have the clarity to justify your being allowed to use the word "existential" in your above statement.> And I am referring you and all your ranting about the truth of "things" that you hold in your little hands.Now we're getting the real you -- personal attacks instead of logic and scholarship. If my smugness is bothering you, then you'd better have a talk with "that you" about why its confidence in its philosphy is so shaky that it is alarmed by my statements or my egoic energy such that you have to resort to ad hominem ploys instead of honest debate.> > If it is kindness you seek........go to church.Which church? The church that Nisargadatta had in his upstairs room? If so, yep, there, for certain, I'd get my cup overflowing with that vibe. For all his intellectual ferocity, Nisargadatta never put anyone's self esteem into the crapper like you're attempting to do with my self esteem. If someone smugly came to Nisargadatta, he'd correct their intellectual errors, but he'd never dampen the seeker's spirit but instead encourage inquiry with inifinite compassion. > > Your move.So, it's merely a game to you. As I suspected.> toombaru> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > " I think therefore I am. " > > > > > > That statement is probably one of the most famous quotes of human civilization, and rightly so since it posits axioms that either must be accepted or rejected -- no gray areas allowed -- because how YOU affirm or deny that statement is critical to ANYONE's philosophy. If you have merely the least inkling of a philosophy, you must have clarity about whether the statement is true or not -- it is that basic, that fundamental, that critical. > > > > > > Now, despite the catcalls that many of you will be certain to rasp out at the statement -- even an insane dog can bark at anything -- I'd like to challenge this group to show their credentials by handling this statement in a scholarly fashion. Doing so would be intellectually edifying for anyone here, and I do mean anyone -- me of course, but everyone else too -- even God would be edified taking a stand for or against that statement. > > > > > > I present this challenge, because I'm calling out certain posters here on their shit. If you don't know who I might be referring to, then that probably means it's you. > > > > > > This locker-room mentality here besmirches the knowledge that Nisargadatta championed. > > > > > > Can you imagine how tawdry and embarrassing it would be for some of the posters here to be standing before Nisargadatta and ask him questions with the adoring crowd onlooking in the upstairs room? > > > > > > Can you see the EGOS here smugly challenging Nisargadatta whenever he used the words, " I, you, they? " Can you see them brazenly high hatting Nisargadatta with " GOTCHA SUCKER " and " Gang, look who thinks he's a me, " and " All your words are nonsense about nonsense. Get out of your head you old geezer " and " I kill you smug false Buddha? " > > > > > > So, all you snide bastards running this empty trip of devaluation of all created things, who delight in spitting on anyone for any reason, let's see you present a cogent argument in support or against the statement in such a way that Nisargadatta would be pleased, or defend your anti-Advaitanism. > > > > > > A simple denial or affirmation will not do. We don't take opinions as proofs; we gotta have logical syllogisms, and failing that, your right to post here about Advaita should be self-curtailed from there on out if you have the least intellectual honesty. Or, admit you're a troll shouting jargon words with only a vile obfuscation as your intent. > > > > > > In case, you don't get it, I'm saying that the most frequent posters here are writing as if they are authoritative, enlightened, tee-shirted, and yet obviously they are FLAT OUT WRONG -- not necessarily because the word-constructs wouldn't be supported by Nisargadatta -- but because the words are merely being parroted without any clarity about them, and fucking wrong, because snapping word-towels at someone's philosophical butt isn't funny, isn't clever, isn't cute, isn't entertaining, but instead is childish, sick, twisted, and DAMNABLE. > > > > > > Where's kindness seen here? Where's karuna mandala karum? > > > > > > Where's simple humility and gentle discourse? > > > > > > Okay, show your true colors -- step up to the plate, hit a home run, or shut the fuck up cuz you're a fool wasting everyone's time. > > > > > > Are you for or against the statement, and why? > > > > > > Edg > > > > > >As I understand Nisargadatta, " I am therefore I think " would be more correct. " I am " is the primordial feeling of presence of all sentient beings which later in humans becomes the thought/words " I am " . Kant had it backwards me thinks. > > > > Doug, > > You're not one of those I'm calling out, but thanks for the reply. It was Descartes, not Kant, but ya did get on the Advaitan side of the statement. I like your phrase " primordial feeling of presence, " and I suspect it would do me good if you'd flesh out that skeleton. Why? Cuz it sounds very much like your phrase " goes to " what I'm talking about when I used the phrase " Cosmic Ego. " > > And, um, do you think rocks have sentience? Christ did, so, of course, your opinion would be interesting if you think otherwise. > > And, how's 'bout you answer questions like these: " If one is dreaming that one is sitting in a chair, does that dream character speak truly if he says, 'I think,' or 'I am?' Does the chair he's sitting on have as much sentience as he does? Do the boundaries between objects in a dream 'count' as much as the boundaries in waking life? " > > I see the phenomenon " dream " as of-a-piece. That is, every aspect of the content of a dream is determined/caused by the same generational process -- the chair, the person, the air, the room they're in, the clothing of the person, the color of the paint of the chair, each and all different but the same. Each merely a concept juggled aloft temporarily by a sleeping brain of a human whose dreams are as if entire creations by a god of sorts. The dream person cannot easily contend that his boundaries are important -- that where the chair ends and his butt begins is a true distinction. > > To me, dreams are one of the best blessings in that their nature, if examined, directly pertains to the " dream " we call " waking life. " > > Edg > > >I do daydream think that rocks are sentient beings, just on a different level. Just what do you mean by Cosmic Ego so that i don't assume anything. Have you ever seen the animated film entitled, " Waking Life " ? Just like a dream. Doug Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Yep on Nisargadatta, nope on me. -edg- If its nope for you how can you say a yep for someone else? Can you see higher then yourself? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 And, I'm not saying folks are naive so much as I'm saying they're outrightly fucking wrong and should know better, wrong and haven't studied Advaita enough to grok it and defend it.. -edg- How much more are you going to study in order to stop dreaming and just be it? Taking time to get rid of time? As tumba would say: niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice..... -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " edg@ wrote: > > > > > > " I think therefore I am. " > > > > > > That statement is probably one of the most famous quotes of human > civilization, and rightly so since it posits axioms that either must be > accepted or rejected -- no gray areas allowed -- because how YOU affirm > or deny that statement is critical to ANYONE's philosophy. If you have > merely the least inkling of a philosophy, you must have clarity about > whether the statement is true or not -- it is that basic, that > fundamental, that critical. > > > > > > Now, despite the catcalls that many of you will be certain to rasp > out at the statement -- even an insane dog can bark at anything -- I'd > like to challenge this group to show their credentials by handling this > statement in a scholarly fashion. Doing so would be intellectually > edifying for anyone here, and I do mean anyone -- me of course, but > everyone else too -- even God would be edified taking a stand for or > against that statement. > > > > > > I present this challenge, because I'm calling out certain posters > here on their shit. If you don't know who I might be referring to, then > that probably means it's you. > > > > > > This locker-room mentality here besmirches the knowledge that > Nisargadatta championed. > > > > > > Can you imagine how tawdry and embarrassing it would be for some of > the posters here to be standing before Nisargadatta and ask him > questions with the adoring crowd onlooking in the upstairs room? > > > > > > Can you see the EGOS here smugly challenging Nisargadatta whenever > he used the words, " I, you, they? " Can you see them brazenly high > hatting Nisargadatta with " GOTCHA SUCKER " and " Gang, look who thinks > he's a me, " and " All your words are nonsense about nonsense. Get out of > your head you old geezer " and " I kill you smug false Buddha? " > > > > > > So, all you snide bastards running this empty trip of devaluation of > all created things, who delight in spitting on anyone for any reason, > let's see you present a cogent argument in support or against the > statement in such a way that Nisargadatta would be pleased, or defend > your anti-Advaitanism. > > > > > > A simple denial or affirmation will not do. We don't take opinions > as proofs; we gotta have logical syllogisms, and failing that, your > right to post here about Advaita should be self-curtailed from there on > out if you have the least intellectual honesty. Or, admit you're a > troll shouting jargon words with only a vile obfuscation as your intent. > > > > > > In case, you don't get it, I'm saying that the most frequent posters > here are writing as if they are authoritative, enlightened, tee-shirted, > and yet obviously they are FLAT OUT WRONG -- not necessarily because the > word-constructs wouldn't be supported by Nisargadatta -- but because the > words are merely being parroted without any clarity about them, and > fucking wrong, because snapping word-towels at someone's philosophical > butt isn't funny, isn't clever, isn't cute, isn't entertaining, but > instead is childish, sick, twisted, and DAMNABLE. > > > > > > Where's kindness seen here? Where's karuna mandala karum? > > > > > > Where's simple humility and gentle discourse? > > > > > > Okay, show your true colors -- step up to the plate, hit a home run, > or shut the fuck up cuz you're a fool wasting everyone's time. > > > > > > Are you for or against the statement, and why? > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > > > You are sounding a bit smug yourself eh? > > Yeah, so what? Any statement by anyone is egoic and by definition is > smug. I have put a ton of time into mulling Advaita. I have a tee > shirt, and I wear it. I don't say I'm enlightened, so there's the > possibility that my clarity is imperfect, and that's why I put out the > challenge -- to see if my clarity can be buffed or polished into a yet > more refined conceptual delicacy. The gross violations of vibe and > energy here seems very much to be in opposition to true dialog. > > > > > You believe that you and old Nizzy have a handle on It.....don't you? > > Yep on Nisargadatta, nope on me. I can stay aboard the Advaita bronko > for only so long, and then, because I'm not living the silence, when > nuances are important, I can be found to be semantically sloppy, > whereas, Nisargadatta's statements are always unassailable. > > > > > You think that the people here are naive but it is you who is proudly > displaying his intellectual bias. > > > I'm proud to call bullshitters on the carpet where I can push them to > entertain certain concepts that I hold to be true by dint of > Nisargadatta's support for them -- not by my having some spiritual > status that must be honored here. > > And, are you actually saying that there's no naivete here? > > And, I'm not saying folks are naive so much as I'm saying they're > outrightly fucking wrong and should know better, wrong and haven't > studied Advaita enough to grok it and defend it -- just plain > tee-shirtless pretending to be fully clothed and able to have a beer and > chat with Wayne-the-pain. > > > How about this: > > > > " I think I think...therefor...I think I am. " > > So, here we have an example of what I'm complaining about. You merely > toss out some words as if you could create an essay to flesh them out. > Phihhhh -- as if. > > But, given your history of posting here, I can confidently say you'll > struggle to even begin the essay. In short, I think you're parroting > much more than you're seeing clearly, and it shows up when you post some > clever arrangement of words as if they're the done-deal and we should > all be satisfied that the debate is over. > > > > > The one who thinks it is the one thinking has no existential reality > outside of the conceptual dream. > > > > I don't believe you can define the words " existence, amness, being and > non-being " in a way that would show you have the clarity to justify your > being allowed to use the word " existential " in your above statement. > > > And I am referring you and all your ranting about the truth of > " things " that you hold in your little hands. > > Now we're getting the real you -- personal attacks instead of logic and > scholarship. If my smugness is bothering you, then you'd better have a > talk with " that you " about why its confidence in its philosphy is so > shaky that it is alarmed by my statements or my egoic energy such that > you have to resort to ad hominem ploys instead of honest debate. > > > > If it is kindness you seek........go to church. > > Which church? The church that Nisargadatta had in his upstairs room? > If so, yep, there, for certain, I'd get my cup overflowing with that > vibe. For all his intellectual ferocity, Nisargadatta never put > anyone's self esteem into the crapper like you're attempting to do with > my self esteem. If someone smugly came to Nisargadatta, he'd correct > their intellectual errors, but he'd never dampen the seeker's spirit but > instead encourage inquiry with inifinite compassion. > > > > Your move. > > So, it's merely a game to you. As I suspected. > > > toombaru > > > Do you think that Nisargadatta came up with all that stuff? Do you think that he invented " child of a barren woman " and washing blood with blood " ? If you research further, you will find that Nisargadatta was parroting also. It's squawking all the way down. It's time to leave the old bastard in that smokey little room and venture out on you own. He can carry you only so far. Be a brave little soldier and step up to the edge. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Yep on Nisargadatta, nope on me. > -edg- > If you think that Nisargadatta has the truth.....you also think that you have the truth. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta never put anyone's self esteem into the crapper like you're attempting to do with my self esteem. If someone smugly came to Nisargadatta, he'd correct their intellectual errors, but he'd never dampen the seeker's spirit but instead encourage inquiry with inifinite compassion. -edg- Nis. systematicly sent people straight down the stairs because he said they wanted to show off their enormous knowledge. And told them so. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > " I think therefore I am. " > > > > That statement is probably one of the most famous quotes of human civilization, and rightly so since it posits axioms that either must be accepted or rejected -- no gray areas allowed -- because how YOU affirm or deny that statement is critical to ANYONE's philosophy. If you have merely the least inkling of a philosophy, you must have clarity about whether the statement is true or not -- it is that basic, that fundamental, that critical. > > > > Now, despite the catcalls that many of you will be certain to rasp out at the statement -- even an insane dog can bark at anything -- I'd like to challenge this group to show their credentials by handling this statement in a scholarly fashion. Doing so would be intellectually edifying for anyone here, and I do mean anyone -- me of course, but everyone else too -- even God would be edified taking a stand for or against that statement. > > > > I present this challenge, because I'm calling out certain posters here on their shit. If you don't know who I might be referring to, then that probably means it's you. > > > > This locker-room mentality here besmirches the knowledge that Nisargadatta championed. > > > > Can you imagine how tawdry and embarrassing it would be for some of the posters here to be standing before Nisargadatta and ask him questions with the adoring crowd onlooking in the upstairs room? > > > > Can you see the EGOS here smugly challenging Nisargadatta whenever he used the words, " I, you, they? " Can you see them brazenly high hatting Nisargadatta with " GOTCHA SUCKER " and " Gang, look who thinks he's a me, " and " All your words are nonsense about nonsense. Get out of your head you old geezer " and " I kill you smug false Buddha? " > > > > So, all you snide bastards running this empty trip of devaluation of all created things, who delight in spitting on anyone for any reason, let's see you present a cogent argument in support or against the statement in such a way that Nisargadatta would be pleased, or defend your anti-Advaitanism. > > > > A simple denial or affirmation will not do. We don't take opinions as proofs; we gotta have logical syllogisms, and failing that, your right to post here about Advaita should be self-curtailed from there on out if you have the least intellectual honesty. Or, admit you're a troll shouting jargon words with only a vile obfuscation as your intent. > > > > In case, you don't get it, I'm saying that the most frequent posters here are writing as if they are authoritative, enlightened, tee-shirted, and yet obviously they are FLAT OUT WRONG -- not necessarily because the word-constructs wouldn't be supported by Nisargadatta -- but because the words are merely being parroted without any clarity about them, and fucking wrong, because snapping word-towels at someone's philosophical butt isn't funny, isn't clever, isn't cute, isn't entertaining, but instead is childish, sick, twisted, and DAMNABLE. > > > > Where's kindness seen here? Where's karuna mandala karum? > > > > Where's simple humility and gentle discourse? > > > > Okay, show your true colors -- step up to the plate, hit a home run, or shut the fuck up cuz you're a fool wasting everyone's time. > > > > Are you for or against the statement, and why? > > > > Edg > > > Namaste, > > 'I think' therefore the mind 'I Am'.........Tony. Namaste again, I see only simplicity in these remarks all is mind after all...Advaita is mentioned on here, but most advaita stops at Saguna Brahman and appearances..........perhaps you meant ajativada...Tony Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Yep on Nisargadatta, nope on me. > > -edg- > > > > > If you think that Nisargadatta has the truth.....you also think that you have the truth. > > > > > toombaru > Namaste, When Pilate asked Jesus..'What is Truth?' Jesus didn't answer as that would turn it into a concept.........Tony Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Yep on Nisargadatta, nope on me. > > > -edg- > > > > > > > > > If you think that Nisargadatta has the truth.....you also think that you have the truth. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Namaste, > > When Pilate asked Jesus..'What is Truth?' Jesus didn't answer as that would turn it into a concept.........> Not answering also turns it into a concept. For the identified entity.....there's just no way out of the loop. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 I have put a ton of time into mulling Advaita. -edg- I had a friend that had to make it four times the second year in high-school. Poor guy...he was really weak in math. And you edg...which is the weak part of your being so that you had - and still is - spending so much time studing advaita? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Sunday, August 09, 2009 1:22 PM Re: I think therefore I am. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Yep on Nisargadatta, nope on me. > -edg- > If you think that Nisargadatta has the truth.....you also think that you have the truth. toombaru Obvious...is it not sir edg? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I have put a ton of time into mulling Advaita. > -edg- > > I had a friend that had to make it four times the second year in high-school. Poor guy...he was really weak in math. > And you edg...which is the weak part of your being so that you had - and still is - spending so much time studing advaita? > -geo- > The conceptual mind needs a landmark to chart its imaginary course. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yep on Nisargadatta, nope on me. > > > > -edg- > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think that Nisargadatta has the truth.....you also think that you have the truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > Namaste, > > > > When Pilate asked Jesus..'What is Truth?' Jesus didn't answer as that would turn it into a concept.........> > > > > > Not answering also turns it into a concept. > > For the identified entity.....there's just no way out of the loop. > > > > > toombaru P: Simon Bolivar, the man who liberated Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador from Spain's rule, said when asked what he thought of his life's work: " I have plowed the sea. " which of course means, I accomplished nothing. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yep on Nisargadatta, nope on me. > > > > > -edg- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think that Nisargadatta has the truth.....you also think that you have the truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > When Pilate asked Jesus..'What is Truth?' Jesus didn't answer as that would turn it into a concept.........> > > > > > > > > > > Not answering also turns it into a concept. > > > > For the identified entity.....there's just no way out of the loop. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > P: Simon Bolivar, the man who liberated Venezuela, Bolivia, > Peru, and Ecuador from Spain's rule, said when asked what he > thought of his life's work: " I have plowed the sea. " which of > course means, I accomplished nothing. > > > And yet he still claimed to be the doer of nothing. At least he's got that going for him. :-) toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yep on Nisargadatta, nope on me. > > > > -edg- > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think that Nisargadatta has the truth.....you also think that you have the truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > Namaste, > > > > When Pilate asked Jesus..'What is Truth?' Jesus didn't answer as that would turn it into a concept.........> > > > > > Not answering also turns it into a concept. > > For the identified entity.....there's just no way out of the loop. > > > > > toombaru > Namaste Tooms, No it doesn't it just doesn't pollute it with mind...check NIZ on this.............Tony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Sunday, August 09, 2009 2:04 PM Re: I think therefore I am. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I have put a ton of time into mulling Advaita. > -edg- > > I had a friend that had to make it four times the second year in > high-school. Poor guy...he was really weak in math. > And you edg...which is the weak part of your being so that you had - and > still is - spending so much time studing advaita? > -geo- > The conceptual mind needs a landmark to chart its imaginary course. toombaru In fact there is only conceptual mind. The trouble is beleiving that it will understand the nature of what is. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yep on Nisargadatta, nope on me. > > > > > -edg- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think that Nisargadatta has the truth.....you also think that you have the truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > When Pilate asked Jesus..'What is Truth?' Jesus didn't answer as that would turn it into a concept.........> > > > > > > > > > > Not answering also turns it into a concept. > > > > For the identified entity.....there's just no way out of the loop. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Namaste Tooms, > > No it doesn't it just doesn't pollute it with mind...check NIZ on this.............Tony. > For the conceptual mind there is nothing beyond its personal arena. By not answering one is implying that there is no answer. In the truest sense that is an answer and it still occurs within the conceptual entity....who remains unscathed.....content in " not knowing " . And I never check in with Nizzy anymore.....I quit smoking a long time ago. :-) toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
