Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > 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- > The I am never evolved to understand its self. It doesn't even have one. LOL 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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > 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- > > > > > The I am never evolved to understand its self. > > It doesn't even have one. > > > > LOL > > > toombaru > B alone y.... Who's laughing now? ~A ~A 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 3:26 PM Re: I think therefore I am. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > 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- > I never evolved to understand its self. It doesn't even have one. LOL toombaru But...can " what is " be seen from within what is? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, August 09, 2009 3:26 PM > Re: I think therefore I am. > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > 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- > > > > I never evolved to understand its self. > > It doesn't even have one. > > LOL > > toombaru > > But...can " what is " be seen from within what is? > -geo- > The sense of self...the I am.....can only " see " its objective pseudo world.......which are its own totality. It is a highly evolved unique perceptual filter. There is another perspective that it seems to be privy to that doesn't involve the use of things. But I'm off the the store. I'll get back to you. 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 , " 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 > Namaste, Ultimately that isn't the full truth as 'it never happened at all' and there was only truth.There are no concepts or knowing or not knowing...Tony Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > Namaste, > > Ultimately that isn't the full truth as 'it never happened at all' and there was only truth.There are no concepts or knowing or not knowing...> What is " true " in nature? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > Namaste, > > > > Ultimately that isn't the full truth as 'it never happened at all' and there was only truth.There are no concepts or knowing or not knowing...> > > > > What is " true " in nature? > > > > > toombaru > Namaste, There is nothing true in nature, it never did happen...Tony Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > What is " true " in nature? What is 'nature'? Is " nature " , " something apart from my situation, here and now? " Then -- it is imaginary, something being imagined, in imagination. And thus, as irrelevant as purple-polka-dotted elephants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > 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 Parrots all the way down. And it's a long waaaaaaaay down. Grabbing onto ferns while falling doesn't help, even if they are pretty and well-potted. I danced on the edge of the ledge with Sister Sledge. She hammered me. " You can't touch this, " she cried. Instantly, I died. No time left to cry. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > What is " true " in nature? > > What is 'nature'? > > Is " nature " , " something apart from my situation, here and now? " > > Then -- it is imaginary, something being imagined, in imagination. > > And thus, as irrelevant as purple-polka-dotted elephants. > There is a substantial (natural) world and a dream world (conceptual overlay) in which the self stalks its programmed desires through its personal shadowland. The awareness in man is privy to both worlds.....but most seem to be locked into the pseudo-reality. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > Parrots all the way down. > > And it's a long waaaaaaaay down. > > Grabbing onto ferns while falling doesn't help, even if they are pretty and well-potted. > > > > I danced on the edge of the ledge with Sister Sledge. > > She hammered me. > > " You can't touch this, " she cried. > > Instantly, I died. > > No time left to cry. > > > - Dan - > ......and the sound of whimpering recedes at the speed of light. LOL toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > There is a substantial (natural) world > > Nothing in thought is substantial. > > The notion of a " substantial natural world " is utterly insubstantial. > OK. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > There is a substantial (natural) world > > > > Nothing in thought is substantial. > > > > The notion of a " substantial natural world " is utterly insubstantial. > > > > > > > OK. Is that a genuine " OK? " After all, this is about 'transcendence of thought', if ya will. Transcending the mind's notion of its projections of " out there " actually being " out there " , independent of thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is a substantial (natural) world > > > > > > Nothing in thought is substantial. > > > > > > The notion of a " substantial natural world " is utterly insubstantial. > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. > > Is that a genuine " OK? " > > After all, this is about 'transcendence of thought', if ya will. Transcending the mind's notion of its projections of " out there " actually being " out there " , independent of thought. > Can anything transcend itself? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is a substantial (natural) world > > > > > > > > Nothing in thought is substantial. > > > > > > > > The notion of a " substantial natural world " is utterly insubstantial. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. > > > > Is that a genuine " OK? " > > > > After all, this is about 'transcendence of thought', if ya will. Transcending the mind's notion of its projections of " out there " actually being " out there " , independent of thought. > > > > > Can anything transcend itself? > > > > > toombaru The question is a descendence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a substantial (natural) world > > > > > > > > > > Nothing in thought is substantial. > > > > > > > > > > The notion of a " substantial natural world " is utterly insubstantial. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. > > > > > > Is that a genuine " OK? " > > > > > > After all, this is about 'transcendence of thought', if ya will. Transcending the mind's notion of its projections of " out there " actually being " out there " , independent of thought. > > > > > > > > > Can anything transcend itself? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > The question is a descendence. > Is mind a thing? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a substantial (natural) world > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing in thought is substantial. > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of a " substantial natural world " is utterly insubstantial. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. > > > > > > > > Is that a genuine " OK? " > > > > > > > > After all, this is about 'transcendence of thought', if ya will. Transcending the mind's notion of its projections of " out there " actually being " out there " , independent of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anything transcend itself? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > The question is a descendence. > > > > > > > Is mind a thing? Mind is the above question. Is the above question a thing? Look away from the computer screen for a second, and relax completely. Is the question still there? So, is the question a 'thing'? There are no things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a substantial (natural) world > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing in thought is substantial. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of a " substantial natural world " is utterly insubstantial. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. > > > > > > > > > > Is that a genuine " OK? " > > > > > > > > > > After all, this is about 'transcendence of thought', if ya will. Transcending the mind's notion of its projections of " out there " actually being " out there " , independent of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anything transcend itself? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > The question is a descendence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is mind a thing? > > Mind is the above question. > > Is the above question a thing? > > Look away from the computer screen for a second, and relax completely. > > Is the question still there? > > So, is the question a 'thing'? > > There are no things. > If the mind is not a thing.......how can it transcend itself? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 - Tony OClery Nisargadatta Sunday, August 09, 2009 8:58 PM Re: I think therefore I am. Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > Namaste, > > > > Ultimately that isn't the full truth as 'it never happened at all' and > > there was only truth.There are no concepts or knowing or not > > knowing...> > > > > What is " true " in nature? > > > > > toombaru > Namaste, There is nothing true in nature, it never did happen... geo> Tony, what do you mean by " it never did happen " ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:36 PM Re: I think therefore I am. Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > What is " true " in nature? What is 'nature'? Is " nature " , " something apart from my situation, here and now? " Then -- it is imaginary, something being imagined, in imagination. And thus, as irrelevant as purple-polka-dotted elephants -tim- No. The sun is not imagined. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:01 PM Re: I think therefore I am. Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > There is a substantial (natural) world Nothing in thought is substantial. The notion of a " substantial natural world " is utterly insubstantial. -tim- There is a difference between the observer/periphery imagined world and the sun, the stars, the winds and trees. Thelater are not imagined, they are part of the human world. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 At 01:24 PM 8/9/2009, you wrote: --- In Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > --- In Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In 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 Edg: I'll be responding to several of your posts, but I think today'll be the last time I react to your stuff unless I see some hope for you to debate fairly instead of being smarmy. I will respond today, cuz there's several issues you responded to and I want the record to show that I was not ignoring them. For you to even mention Nisargadatta's smoking as if it were somehow a major " tell " that he was somehow lacking in clarity about the tenets of Advaita is such a fucking vile tactic, what are you? -- a Republican? -- and to be smarmy about it with the smiley face doubles the sin. Calling him Nizzy, triples the sin. Not that Nisargadatta deserves some sort of absolute respect, but that your SOUL deserves to develop the " ability to respect, " and Nisargadatta is a fine object of consciousness upon which to practice. If you cannot bow to him, then you simply are not an Advaitan of much merit -- bowing to his insight, his consistency, his great heartedness, his one-pointedness, his clarity is easy because it's right there, and if you can't bow to that, then how are you going to have the wherewithal to bow to your inner guru's much more refined and delicate qualities? Aw, forget it, I already know your answer will be snotty and haughty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 At 11:22 AM 8/9/2009, you wrote: --- In 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 Edg: I don't know the truth, but Nisargadatta's consistency and unassailability impress the fuck out of me. He had something that could not be shaken, and if his words couldn't package it enough to motivate ALL readers to start inquiry, well, that's no surprise, but his unshakable devotion to " his truth " and his brute force logic in handling of concepts provide a " well lit intellectual arena for a seeker to gain enough clarity to motivate the practice of inquiry. " And, call it an act of faith, but only Nisargadatta and Ramana have been able to be the kind of powerhouse thinkers that could inspire me to do inquiry. What do you have, toombaru? Your posts here are lousy with fuzzy word usage, and when you lack clarity, you resort to parroting or poetics of zero merit. Given what you actually do have for clarity, it's better than not knowing Advaita at all, but as a teacher for any newbie that comes here, yuck, you'll send them all running from Advaita if they think that you are a model of what comes from Advaita. Are you actually running around the real world spouting with that lack of grasp? If so, well, I pity you, cuz even small children can smell bullshit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 At 11:19 AM 8/9/2009, you wrote: --- In Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > --- In 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? Edg: I don't care if he found it written in lipstick on a whorehouse bathroom wall. What matters is that he resonated with the Advaitan truths, -- why? -- because he was living the reality that inspired the words. 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. Edg: It ain't parroting if you know what you're talking about. His consistency shows that he fucking knew (was) truth. 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. Edg: Again with the personal attacks. Are you so blind to your inner Nisargadatta that you do this? He can carry you only so far. Be a brave little soldier and step up to the edge. toombaru Edg: Again with the personal attacks. Again with the haughty reply. So, this is your compassion for folks who are still seeking and are making errors? Here you are spouting like a guru and showing zero heart. That's addiction to smarm, and it is a major sickness....heal thyself with inquiry, but in the meanwhile, shut the fuck up. I admit my attachment, so I get to be haughty and smarmy, but you pretend to be a knower of reality and here you are categorizing me with a demeaning nutshelling of my travail. If you have ever had a child, you must have failed big time as a parent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 10, 2009 At 11:07 AM 8/9/2009, you wrote: --- In Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > --- In Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > --- In 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 Edg: Yep, Waking Life is one of my favorites. I wrote about it at IMBD.com -- I'll find it and cut and paste it hereinbelow. As for Cosmic Ego, I mean, literally, the same functionality being operational for the entire universe as egoic processing is operational for the body/individual. To me the universe's material and radiation is a cosmic body that one can find oneself inhabiting if one slips out of identification with the individual but while still having the addiction of identification -- that now finds one associating with entirety instead of a mere body/mind system. This is a concept I take on faith, but to me it makes sense that God has an ego too, and that, if God is said to have a body at all, it must be the universe at minimum. " God " here is being used in the same fashion that the word " Brahma " is used in Hinduism. The " higher " Gods above Brahma are ever more refined states of divine egoism, but all are still within creation and are objects of consciousness. Mother Divine I would say is the concept " pure being " or " amness. " My clarity about the Hindu pantheon and what each metaphor " stands for, " is not complete, so maybe you and I could jaw about this and refine our notions. All these gods are, bottom line, processes of a human nervous system -- functionalities that are so beneficial to the human that they do deserve to be honored for their edifying natures -- they be goody dynamics to dwell with for the personality's evolution -- not freedom from personality. Inquiry shoots the awareness right past them, and there's, say, Indra, going, " What the fuck, here I am in perfect glory and that guy can't give me the time of day. " It's very funny to see Indra's inability to " get it. " To me, the mind settles down with inquiry, and by repeating such, one gets the ability to reach the least state of excitation that I would call " amness. " In that state, ego is merged into unity and resides as a potentiality of amness. When Brahma has His first thought, that's the Cosmic Ego appearing out of unity. Brahma is said to " enter creation, " which I take to mean " loses Himself in attachment to creation. " At best, Brahma can be said to be a perfect human being, but only that. To me, when Brahma looks at a rock, it's the same as if I look at my fingernail. My fingernail is dead, but don't try to convince me that it isn't me. Just as I'm present throughout my body and am getting sensory reports in a constant stream of data from every speck of my body/mind, just so do I think Brahma looks upon a rock -- He's there owning it like I own my fingernail. This is the Cosmic Ego -- it sees ALL objects as its body. To become Brahma is to become a saint, but it is Brahman that is the " target " of inquiry. One can refine the mind by spiritual techniques such that one's inner Brahma nature is realized, but inquiry instantly puts one into silence-of-being -- the Absolute. Inquiry, therefore, is not a spiritual technique as much as it is a technique to free one from the need for spirituality. One can get free and still have a lot of spiritual refinement yet to acquire, ya see? Here's my IMBD review....written many years ago. Waking Life This film, if seen by someone who has DEEPLY considered the mysteries of life, will thoroughly delight. If you don't have a spiritual bone in your body, avoid. It has its flaws, but only in retrospect or through the eyes of another will they be found -- and then forgiven if you have even an ounce of heart or a particle of transcendence. It gets beneath one's radar and past one's filters. For instance, it hits you perceptually with constantly varying animation styles, and after some time, you adjust to this so much that when you leave the theater, THE WORLD IS ANIMATED -- a poetic way of saying that your connection to the proposition that all things are real is loosen WONDERFULLY! And then, it hits you intellectually by parading a dozen+ viewpoints of persons who would not necessarily disagree with one another, but show the vast importance to us of the personal way we manifest our philosophical axioms and how much that depends on our individual interests -- not all of us are psychologically constructed to be philosophers, but all of us can be analyzed to have a philosophical set of suppositions. Waking Life challenges these suppositions by merely presenting to you, in dramatic form, persons who vividly present their " takes " on the concepts and how they are impacted by them...especially emotionally. Ultimately, this is not a movie, and it shouldn't be viewed as such; instead, one should approach it as therapy. See it, be with it, relax, and GROW. Every time you see it again, the concepts saturate your nervous system with reinforcing patterns that will later " echo " in your dynamics in synergistic ways. A seed gets planted and with repeated viewings the seed gets watered. Go to this event. See it from a seat that's within the first ten rows of the theater; immerse yourself. Let go. All you have to lose (loosen) is identification with a reflection of the real you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
