Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:31 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:22 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:46 PM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:09 PM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > But some-no-thing never changes with time. Will you deny that? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > How can I deny what I cannot be apart from? > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > yes....I amnot challenging. Just wondering if we can touch the same > > > thing... > > > -geo- > > > > I didn't think you were challenging. > > > > We are this nothing without any we materializing from it. > > > > We can't touch it. > > > > It already is everything we are touching, and the touching of it, > > simultaneously, without division. > > > > - D - > > > > > > Yes. I would not say this " first unchanging person ting " is part of > > consciousness. Would you? > > -geo- > > When you say " first unchanging person thing " I assume you are referring to > the sense of an I that continues the same through someone's life, that is > the subjective sense of existing for that person, as that person, > associated > with a particular body-mind? > > If this is what you mean, that I-sense does not hold up under " full > attention " so to speak, by which I mean " undivided awareness. " > > (This has a lot to do with the " revolt " of Buddhism against Hinduism, and > the migration of Buddhism from India to China and southeast Asia. Hinduism > tended to equate the " I-sense " with " awareness " and " totality. " And tended > to view totality as Self. Buddhism questioned the substantiality of the > " I-sense " and questioned any sense of essence, of self or Self, being > associated with " what is. " > > Although in some advaita texts and teachings, self and Self is questioned > in > a similar way to Buddhism, as if awareness won't allow self or Self to > continue to be assumed, at a certain point.) > > The impersonal awareness isn't even an awareness. It has no concept of > itself, therefore no sense of an awareness being there. > > - D - > > Just curiosity: before you came back to write this last post...have you > done > some stuff, something that might have disrupted the train of " observation " > we where undertaking? Just curiosity really... > -geo- Yes. I am pretty busy doing stuff, on and off, multi-tasking. - D - I appreciate your honest answer - its because I am about to graduate on wizardBSness... :>)) -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:51 PM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:11 PM > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:41 AM > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change > > > > > > > here? > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > " Change " never changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > It just keeps changing, eh? ;-). > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > The unchanging changingness is the " aware-ing " of experience, the > > > > > aware-ing > > > > > of time, the timing of being. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > It is the " ing " that never changes. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Live as the " ing " - > > > > > > > > Indeed one has no choice. > > > > > > > > It is the " ing " alone that is. > > > > > > > > Which is very funny. > > > > > > > > Because the common-sense view of reality is that the " ing " is very > > > > miniscule, hardly even noticeable. > > > > > > > > And everything else is very solid. > > > > > > > > And the truth is the reverse of that. > > > > > > > > Common-sense is stood on its head. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > So...somehow...it is difficult to express...in this ing...in the > > > > direction/locus of this ing...there is something that does not change. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Everything is changing. > > > > > > The " ing " of the changing isn't changing. > > > > > > The " ing " is aware. > > > > > > The " ing " is misunderstood as a momentary bit of time, between a past > > > extending behind on and on and a future yet to come for millions of years. > > > > > > The " ing " is actually what is. > > > > > > There isn't any past or future - what we call the past and future is the > > > " ing " with images projected onto it - backwards and forwards - from an > > > imaginary position. > > > > > > Backwards and forwards can refer to time and to space. > > > > > > And that is no accident. > > > > > > Time and space are the same, and they are constructed the same way, in > > > relation to each other - they only become " tangible " if an observer is given > > > an imaginary point-dot location. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Yes...and somehow I dont think this location/consciousness must nescessarily > > > interfere with the unchanging nature of that. Only when that unchanging > > > thing is missused, missplaced as ME that interference happens indeed. > > > -geo- > > > > I very much agree. > > > > One understands the positioning of the I-point as a theoretical construct. It is a way to establish time, location, events that can be talked about, how memory images will be organized. It appears to me that organization of memory images is the basis for establishing the I-point. That allows a coherent sense of time and predictability of events to develop. Then, the I-point becomes a reference for the attempt to control those events (either " inside " or " outside " the organism). As emotionality attaches to these I-references having to do with establishing a feeling of control and volition, a really-existing self seems to be there, a self that has feelings, needs, desires, reactions to threats. > > > > One may be tempted to say that there are some people who understand, and those people see that the I-point is only a theoretical point, much like devising a map. The map is not the terrain. They see this directly, not because someone told them about it. They have died to the accumulation of emotion and memory constituting the sense of a really existing self. And other people feel the I-point as a real being of its own, themselves, as self. They haven't died to self. This is a great temptation, and one hears this theme over and over in different ways. However, at the same time one hears this, or one may say it, one understands that this distinction between " people who understand " and " people who don't understand " is also theory. To have emotionality and judgment about this issue also is " self. " > > > > So, that distinction is also part of a map, and not the actual terrain. Even the distinction " an organism " and " everything else that is not that organism " is part of a map, a conceptual overlay. > > > > What is freeing about recognizing this is that the life that was attributed to an individual organism is not actually situated in or with that organism. This is also so of the awareness. One understands that volitionality and existence are feelings that build up over time as an accumulation. One is aware nonvolitionally, with no location, and no sense of personally having an existence anywhere, through any body. And yet, cognitions are free to organize. Forms are free to appear. Thought is free to arise. > > > > - D - > > > > > > What happens to the self when that understanding dawns? > > > > > toombaru There is no " when " for understanding to dawn. You know this. You have said this is not of time. The self is the belief in existence in time, and the attempt to hold such an existence. What happens to this belief and attempt when it is not? It simply is not. There is no time for it to be. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:51 PM > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:11 PM > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:41 AM > > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change > > > > > > > > here? > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Change " never changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It just keeps changing, eh? ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > The unchanging changingness is the " aware-ing " of experience, the > > > > > > aware-ing > > > > > > of time, the timing of being. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the " ing " that never changes. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > Live as the " ing " - > > > > > > > > > > Indeed one has no choice. > > > > > > > > > > It is the " ing " alone that is. > > > > > > > > > > Which is very funny. > > > > > > > > > > Because the common-sense view of reality is that the " ing " is very > > > > > miniscule, hardly even noticeable. > > > > > > > > > > And everything else is very solid. > > > > > > > > > > And the truth is the reverse of that. > > > > > > > > > > Common-sense is stood on its head. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > So...somehow...it is difficult to express...in this ing...in the > > > > > direction/locus of this ing...there is something that does not change. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Everything is changing. > > > > > > > > The " ing " of the changing isn't changing. > > > > > > > > The " ing " is aware. > > > > > > > > The " ing " is misunderstood as a momentary bit of time, between a past > > > > extending behind on and on and a future yet to come for millions of years. > > > > > > > > The " ing " is actually what is. > > > > > > > > There isn't any past or future - what we call the past and future is the > > > > " ing " with images projected onto it - backwards and forwards - from an > > > > imaginary position. > > > > > > > > Backwards and forwards can refer to time and to space. > > > > > > > > And that is no accident. > > > > > > > > Time and space are the same, and they are constructed the same way, in > > > > relation to each other - they only become " tangible " if an observer is given > > > > an imaginary point-dot location. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > Yes...and somehow I dont think this location/consciousness must nescessarily > > > > interfere with the unchanging nature of that. Only when that unchanging > > > > thing is missused, missplaced as ME that interference happens indeed. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > I very much agree. > > > > > > One understands the positioning of the I-point as a theoretical construct. It is a way to establish time, location, events that can be talked about, how memory images will be organized. It appears to me that organization of memory images is the basis for establishing the I-point. That allows a coherent sense of time and predictability of events to develop. Then, the I-point becomes a reference for the attempt to control those events (either " inside " or " outside " the organism). As emotionality attaches to these I-references having to do with establishing a feeling of control and volition, a really-existing self seems to be there, a self that has feelings, needs, desires, reactions to threats. > > > > > > One may be tempted to say that there are some people who understand, and those people see that the I-point is only a theoretical point, much like devising a map. The map is not the terrain. They see this directly, not because someone told them about it. They have died to the accumulation of emotion and memory constituting the sense of a really existing self. And other people feel the I-point as a real being of its own, themselves, as self. They haven't died to self. This is a great temptation, and one hears this theme over and over in different ways. However, at the same time one hears this, or one may say it, one understands that this distinction between " people who understand " and " people who don't understand " is also theory. To have emotionality and judgment about this issue also is " self. " > > > > > > So, that distinction is also part of a map, and not the actual terrain. Even the distinction " an organism " and " everything else that is not that organism " is part of a map, a conceptual overlay. > > > > > > What is freeing about recognizing this is that the life that was attributed to an individual organism is not actually situated in or with that organism. This is also so of the awareness. One understands that volitionality and existence are feelings that build up over time as an accumulation. One is aware nonvolitionally, with no location, and no sense of personally having an existence anywhere, through any body. And yet, cognitions are free to organize. Forms are free to appear. Thought is free to arise. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > What happens to the self when that understanding dawns? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > There is no " when " for understanding to dawn. > > You know this. > > You have said this is not of time. > > > The self is the belief in existence in time, and the attempt to hold such an existence. > > > What happens to this belief and attempt when it is not? > > It simply is not. > > > There is no time for it to be. > > > - D - > Yeah...........well.......for someone who claims that it can't be talked about..... .......you're talking about it pretty good! .......and I thank you. :-) toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > It is the " ing " that never changes. > > > -geo- > > > > Yes. > > > > Live as the " ing " - > > > > Indeed one has no choice. > > > > It is the " ing " alone that is. > > > > Which is very funny. > > > > Because the common-sense view of reality is that the " ing " is very > > miniscule, hardly even noticeable. > > > > And everything else is very solid. > > > > And the truth is the reverse of that. > > > > Common-sense is stood on its head. > > > > - D - > > > > So...somehow...it is difficult to express...in this ing...in the > > direction/locus of this ing...there is something that does not change. > > -geo- > > Yes. > > Everything is changing. > > The " ing " of the changing isn't changing. > > The " ing " is aware. Buncha ing-bats posting here today ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Yeah...........well.......for someone > who claims that it can't be talked about..... > ......you're talking about it pretty good! > > ......and I thank you. > > :-) > > > > > > toombaru Thanks, Toom. I enjoy talking about what has never been said. Glad you do, too. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > Yeah...........well.......for someone > > who claims that it can't be talked about..... > > ......you're talking about it pretty good! > > > > ......and I thank you. > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Thanks, Toom. > > I enjoy talking about what has never been said. > > Glad you do, too. > > - D - > Yeah.....not the normal coffee shop talk is it? :-) toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yeah...........well.......for someone > > > who claims that it can't be talked about..... > > > ......you're talking about it pretty good! > > > > > > ......and I thank you. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Thanks, Toom. > > > > I enjoy talking about what has never been said. > > > > Glad you do, too. > > > > - D - > > > > > > Yeah.....not the normal coffee shop talk is it? > > > :-) > > > > toombaru That may depends how much time one spends talking in coffee shops, Or how much time one spends sitting alone, listening to everyone else talk ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:41 AM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL > > > > > > > > On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change here? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > " Change " never changes. > > > > > > It just keeps changing, eh? ;-). > > > > Yes. > > > > The unchanging changingness is the " aware-ing " of experience, the aware-ing > > of time, the timing of being. > > > > - D - > > > > It is the " ing " that never changes. > > -geo- > > Yes. > > Live as the " ing " - > > Indeed one has no choice. > > It is the " ing " alone that is. > > Which is very funny. > > Because the common-sense view of reality is that the " ing " is very miniscule, hardly even noticeable. > > And everything else is very solid. > > And the truth is the reverse of that. > > Common-sense is stood on its head. > > - D - Yup... The 'ing' is 'the known'. What appears as 'ing' (the supposedly 'solid') is 'the unknown'. Quite the reverse from how it's usually viewed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:41 AM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL > > > > > > > > > > On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change here? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > " Change " never changes. > > > > > > > > It just keeps changing, eh? ;-). > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > The unchanging changingness is the " aware-ing " of experience, the aware-ing > > > of time, the timing of being. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > It is the " ing " that never changes. > > > -geo- > > > > Yes. > > > > Live as the " ing " - > > > > Indeed one has no choice. > > > > It is the " ing " alone that is. > > > > Which is very funny. > > > > Because the common-sense view of reality is that the " ing " is very miniscule, hardly even noticeable. > > > > And everything else is very solid. > > > > And the truth is the reverse of that. > > > > Common-sense is stood on its head. > > > > - D - > > Yup... > > The 'ing' is 'the known'. > > What appears as 'ing' (the supposedly 'solid') is 'the unknown'. > > Quite the reverse from how it's usually viewed. Sure, that's common sense, all right. The ing is the known. I think you can tell everyone you meet how much you know about the ing. They will surely be complimenting you on your common sense. But ing the unknown, isn't really unknown. It's known as ing. The really unknown ing is known as bing. It's really unknown name is badda bing. But don't tell anyone that. Because then it won't be so unknown, and we won't be so special for knowing the really unknown badda bing. Badda boom, - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Sure, that's common sense, all right. > > The ing is the known. > > I think you can tell everyone you meet how much you know about the > ing. > > They will surely be complimenting you on your common sense. > > But ing the unknown, isn't really unknown. > > It's known as ing. Exactly what I meant. How clever of you to stumble onto that (grin).... > The really unknown ing is known as bing. > > It's really unknown name is badda bing. > > But don't tell anyone that. > > Because then it won't be so unknown, and we won't be so special for > knowing the really unknown badda bing. Ring the doorbell, ping-ping-ping. Come in, my good fellow. > Badda boom, > > - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
