Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > they disappear when there is silence....again > > > > > > > > > > > > means, when real Self appears, again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a real Self? > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > real Self is all there is for real... > > > > > > > > little restless imaginary egos can't see It... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Toom seems allergic to the pointer " the Self " , for whatever it's worth. > > > > > > Most of the time, this is due to wanting to be rid of oneself, > > > > > > which is a form of holding onto oneself, as one has to be separate from what one wants to be rid of. > > > > > > So there ;-). > > > > P.S. the interesting thing, from here, is that Toom accepts some of what Ramana Maharshi said, but not other parts (e.g. he spoke extensively of The Self). > > > > Ironically, this is what selves do... pick and choose what suits them in sages' teachings, rather than conclude " OK, this fellow is genuine " , and go about looking to see what the poor fellow was trying to communicate, as a whole. > > > > This is because the 'goal' of the self is to survive as an imaginarily continuous entity. And so, nothing that could trouble this goal is ever looked too closely at. > > > > Thus, when Ramana talks about " the Self " he's wrong in some way, but when Ramana says this or that (which fits the 'me's' safety limits) he's right. > > > > I guess Ramana was 'awake' part of the time, and 'asleep' the other part, or something, right? :-p. > > > > > " Ramana " is the Self.... > > ...like all others who are finished with this their little imaginary ego & world.... > > means, with their choiceless path to Self > > > > Marc > Is that the same thing as the yellow brick road? :-0 toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:29 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:09 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:28 AM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > toombaru2006 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 9:26 PM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 9:17 PM > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 6:12 PM > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 5:32 PM > > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sense of self is not there for the survival of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > We differ on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is there for the survival of the continuity of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > The I amness arises concurrently with conceptual thought. > > > > > > They are the same phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The continuity of a ghost-entity, which in truth has no > > > > > > > continuity, > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > merely an ever-changing series of thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > And it is what is speaking now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is like a repeating habit, not an entity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. The sense of self in fact is harmfull for the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't explain the fact that humans have the most > > > > > > successful > > > > > > of > > > > > > all > > > > > > life forms on earth. > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> What explains is the program that takes care of the body > > > > > > but > > > > > > that > > > > > > has > > > > > > nothing to do with a self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the other > > > > > > > hand, indeed, it is a survival program and indeed abhors the > > > > > > > idea > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > one day will die. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is programmed to survive and reproduce. > > > > > > It is not part of its program to understand its own relationship > > > > > > to > > > > > > vastness > > > > > > out of which it emerged. > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> The body is progaramed like that much alike any animal. The > > > > > > human > > > > > > organism does not need an imagined inner observer. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And who is it that has decided that? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Please rephrase the question. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it something other that the sense of self...the inner > > > > observer.....that > > > > has concluded that the physical organism doesn't need an inner > > > > observer? > > > > > > > > Where do those opinions reside? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Ahhhh...toomba...Not opinions, it is obvious. > > > > There is the seeing of this organism/consciosuness and the awareness > > > > that > > > > is > > > > just an empty pattern and the possiblity of being able to look at it > > > > means > > > > I > > > > am not it. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Biiiiiingo! > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > That is the whole " point " is it not? > > > The seeing of the manifested - as a whole - suddenly as some quantum > > > snap > > > evaporates any observer into the empty not-knowable non-manifested > > > no-thingness. > > > -geo- > > > > No, it is being the suffering without identifying with it. > > > > Not escaping into some never-never land of not-manifested no-thingness. > > > > The suffering itself is the emptiness. > > > > -- D -- > > > > " it is being the suffering without identifying with it. " > > In what manner that is different from " empty not-knowable non-manifested > > no-thingness. " ? > > Is any of those expressions identical with it? > > -geo- > > Just be it. > > You'll never explain it or express it. > > - D - > > I look at suffering, consciousness, the world...and ask: what is " I " ? > I am none of those. If I can look at them I am not them. > -geo- Apparently, you experience looking at something that is other than you. Where do you think it comes from, somewhere else? Do you actually experience some kind of distance between the looker and the looked at? -- D -- There is no distance. Words fail here, you know I suppose. But as I tryed in another post i will try again. All that is beeing seen is changing, have a beguining, evolve or involve and die. When there is the seeing of the everchanging which is the world or consciousness for some....that question is posited: what is the " I " ? The answer is never heard.....but the unchanging comes to life. -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 , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > they disappear when there is silence....again > > > > > > > > > > > > means, when real Self appears, again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a real Self? > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > real Self is all there is for real... > > > > > > > > little restless imaginary egos can't see It... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Toom seems allergic to the pointer " the Self " , for whatever it's worth. > > > > > > Most of the time, this is due to wanting to be rid of oneself, > > > > > > which is a form of holding onto oneself, as one has to be separate from what one wants to be rid of. > > > > > > So there ;-). > > > > P.S. the interesting thing, from here, is that Toom accepts some of what Ramana Maharshi said, but not other parts (e.g. he spoke extensively of The Self). > > > > Ironically, this is what selves do... pick and choose what suits them in sages' teachings, rather than conclude " OK, this fellow is genuine " , and go about looking to see what the poor fellow was trying to communicate, as a whole. > > > > This is because the 'goal' of the self is to survive as an imaginarily continuous entity. And so, nothing that could trouble this goal is ever looked too closely at. > > > > Thus, when Ramana talks about " the Self " he's wrong in some way, but when Ramana says this or that (which fits the 'me's' safety limits) he's right. > > > > I guess Ramana was 'awake' part of the time, and 'asleep' the other part, or something, right? :-p. > > > > > > Ramana got some things right......but an enlightened cow......cooooome oooooooooooooonnn. > > > > toombaru > Namaste, Ramana just helped the cow purify its mind of samskaras and vasanas, so it was pure in reflecting the Self. At that point it was a natural step as there is only one mind...Tony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:37 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:12 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:41 AM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sense of self is not there for the survival of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We differ on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is there for the survival of the continuity of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The I amness arises concurrently with conceptual thought. > > > > > They are the same phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The continuity of a ghost-entity, which in truth has no > > > > > > continuity, > > > > > > is > > > > > > merely an ever-changing series of thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > And it is what is speaking now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is like a repeating habit, not an entity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. The sense of self in fact is harmfull for the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't explain the fact that humans have the most successful > > > > > of > > > > > all life forms on earth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the other > > > > > > hand, indeed, it is a survival program and indeed abhors the > > > > > > idea > > > > > > that it > > > > > > one day will die. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is programmed to survive and reproduce. > > > > > It is not part of its program to understand its own relationship > > > > > to > > > > > vastness out of which it emerged. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > It doesn't do anything, have anything, see anything. > > > > > > > > You are talking about a pattern of neural events, not a thing that > > > > does > > > > or has or sees. > > > > > > > > You try to debunk something that isn't there. > > > > > > > > You address many, many comments to something that is not. > > > > > > > > In that ongoing attempt to debunk it, you show a belief in it, and > > > > give > > > > it power it never has had, as if to exist. > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there something other than " it " speaking through you? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > That's a silly question that can't be answered. > > > > Who would care about such a trivial concept as that? > > > > Trying to figure out who is really speaking? > > > > That is obviously nonsense, as any attempt to define what is speaking > > requires someone to do that defining. > > > > Getting involved in such games is a mental preoccupation to avoid being > > what > > one actually is. > > > > The evasion is very close to home. > > > > It is not out there with someone else. > > > > - Dan - > > > > You are not too well today dan. Who else could be doing enything? > > -geo- > > You are not doing too well today. > > There is no one else. > > -- D -- > > " That's a silly question that can't be answered. Who would care about such > a > trivial concept as that? Trying to figure out who is really speaking? " > Where is the trivial concept? > -geo- Wherever you think it is. Your question is trivial. - D - OK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:46 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > " Objectifiable " ... > > So, you think there are objects you are looking at? > > And you think fear is some kind of object separate from you and other > > than you? > > - D - When the nature of 'time' is clear, The notion of 'objects' is rather amusing :-p. The fact of 'no-separation' is related to time (which is awareness, which is movement). And time is precisely the issue, is it not? How much time does the human race have left, given what's happening? And yet, few ever look closely at the nature of time. -tim- Yes, time. Once time is understood/seen...who or what is understanding/seeing? Can the observer observe itself? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they disappear when there is silence....again > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means, when real Self appears, again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a real Self? > > > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > real Self is all there is for real... > > > > > > > > > > little restless imaginary egos can't see It... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > Toom seems allergic to the pointer " the Self " , for whatever it's worth. > > > > > > > > Most of the time, this is due to wanting to be rid of oneself, > > > > > > > > which is a form of holding onto oneself, as one has to be separate from what one wants to be rid of. > > > > > > > > So there ;-). > > > > > > P.S. the interesting thing, from here, is that Toom accepts some of what Ramana Maharshi said, but not other parts (e.g. he spoke extensively of The Self). > > > > > > Ironically, this is what selves do... pick and choose what suits them in sages' teachings, rather than conclude " OK, this fellow is genuine " , and go about looking to see what the poor fellow was trying to communicate, as a whole. > > > > > > This is because the 'goal' of the self is to survive as an imaginarily continuous entity. And so, nothing that could trouble this goal is ever looked too closely at. > > > > > > Thus, when Ramana talks about " the Self " he's wrong in some way, but when Ramana says this or that (which fits the 'me's' safety limits) he's right. > > > > > > I guess Ramana was 'awake' part of the time, and 'asleep' the other part, or something, right? :-p. > > > > > > > > > > > Ramana got some things right......but an enlightened cow......cooooome oooooooooooooonnn. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Namaste, > > Ramana just helped the cow purify its mind of samskaras and vasanas, so it was pure in reflecting the Self. At that point it was a natural step as there is only one mind...Tony. > I......just don't know what to say. I guess that that is no harder to believe than Sai Baba manifesting cheap watches out of thin air......or Jesus casting demons out of humans and putting them in some pigs. If you want believe that Lakshmi became enlightened......go for it. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:31 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:12 PM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:39 AM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 8:25 PM > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sense of self is not there for the survival of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We differ on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is there for the survival of the continuity of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The I amness arises concurrently with conceptual thought. > > > > > They are the same phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The continuity of a ghost-entity, which in truth has no > > > > > > continuity, > > > > > > is > > > > > > merely an ever-changing series of thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > And it is what is speaking now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is like a repeating habit, not an entity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. The sense of self in fact is harmfull for the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't explain the fact that humans have the most successful > > > > > of > > > > > all > > > > > life forms on earth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the other > > > > > > hand, indeed, it is a survival program and indeed abhors the idea > > > > > > that > > > > > > it > > > > > > one day will die. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is programmed to survive and reproduce. > > > > > It is not part of its program to understand its own relationship to > > > > > vastness out of which it emerged. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > It doesn't do anything, have anything, see anything. > > > > > > > > You are talking about a pattern of neural events, not a thing that > > > > does > > > > or > > > > has or sees. > > > > > > > > You try to debunk something that isn't there. > > > > > > > > You address many, many comments to something that is not. > > > > > > > > In that ongoing attempt to debunk it, you show a belief in it, and > > > > give > > > > it > > > > power it never has had, as if to exist. > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > > > The sense of self? why do you say that? Of course it does. It is a > > > > sourece > > > > of fear, anxiety, anger, illusion. illness.... > > > > > > The attempt to establish something that is the source of fear, *is* > > > fear. > > > > > > >Profound fear for inexistent > > > > causes, great anguish for fear of loosing imagined stuff.....all this > > > > affects the body/mind... > > > > > > There aren't any final explanations for the fear you are - there is > > > simply > > > being it. > > > > > > This is not for the squeamish. > > > > > > The fear of death is like a poison the alters the > > > > organic balance of the body/mind delicate balance. What about > > > > jealousy, > > > > panic...lots and lots of more reactions that shoot wrong enzims, > > > > inapropriate hormones, harmfull discharges all over the organism..I > > > > really > > > > dont get you here... > > > > > > Fear is much more than the biological observations you've learned about. > > > > > > It is the basis for the establishment of the science that produced these > > > observations about the biochemistry of fear. > > > > > > > PS - Not the inexistent self - of course - but the sense of " as if " . > > > > > > Sure - but learning about the " as if " nature of human nature, is itself > > > an > > > " as if. " > > > > > > In other words, there is no refuge available from fear and suffering, > > > and > > > the pain humans inflict on each other, by surmising an " as if " condition > > > involved. Learning that this is a dream, is itself learning in a dream. > > > > > > The attraction for the dream is to attempt to get away into a reality > > > that > > > can be controlled somehow. > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > All I said is that living with the imagined center harms the organism: > > > the > > > need for fforts from morning till night and night till morning. > > > You are talking of something else. > > > -geo- > > > > Not really. > > > > But you think so. > > > > Do you understand the fear you are? > > > > - D - > > > > I am nothing objectivable. How could I? > > -geo- > > " Objectifiable " ... > > So, you think there are objects you are looking at? > > And you think fear is some kind of object separate from you and other than > you? > > - D - > > ME is not looking, it can not look or see. It is inexistent. There is only > seeing-being...the one. > Suffering, sorrow, happiness, fear...are all part of consciousness, and > conscousness is seen as patterns of the one. > > My turn: can the observer observe itself? > -geo- > It could.....if it had one. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:46 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > " Objectifiable " ... > > > > So, you think there are objects you are looking at? > > > > And you think fear is some kind of object separate from you and other > > > than you? > > > > - D - > > When the nature of 'time' is clear, > > The notion of 'objects' is rather amusing :-p. > > The fact of 'no-separation' is related to time (which is awareness, which is > movement). > > And time is precisely the issue, is it not? How much time does the human > race have left, given what's happening? > > And yet, few ever look closely at the nature of time. > -tim- > > Yes, time. Once time is understood/seen...who or what is > understanding/seeing? > Can the observer observe itself? > -geo- > If God existed before time.....how did He tell what time it was? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:49 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:15 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:51 AM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > There is physical suffering and there is suffering induced by the > > > fearful imagination of the ego. > > > > > > They have been given the same name........but they are not the same. > > > > Yes, let's split suffering in two, now. > > > > The more bits and pieces we can get, the better. > > > > The more thought can divide, the more 'in control' it feels. > > -tim- > > > > Nop. There are real sufferings and imagined ones. > > -geo- > > Nope. > > There is an end to analysis. > > The need to make the distinction between real and imagined ends. > > One is the suffering. > > One stops evading and thinking one has things figured out. > > It is the end of having anything figured out. > > Go figure. > > -- D -- > > How can I be the suffering that I am looking at? > -geo- Geo - There is no distance apart between looker and looked at. The attempt to establish a distance apart involves a wish not to be suffering, to dismiss suffering, to separate from it, to be able to control it. When the attempt to maintain distance breaks down, one is the suffering. One is one's experiencing. The experiencer is what is experienced. There is no way to end the thought-involved division between subject and object, except for the apparent continuity of thought to " break down. " This ends any sense of a distance between observer and observed. One is the suffering, and the suffering is not separated from the awareness of it. One is every aspect of the present perception, the perceptual moment as it is. It has never not been this way. However, thought invented a scenario with a false distance that never actually was there. Thought, by attempting continuity and maintaining a sense of reality and the known, constructed an avoidance mechanism, a sense of observing from a separated position. It is not like there is some separate entity called " thought " that divides things. It is rather that, resorting to words, it will sound like there are separable entities. Thought doesn't " do " anything. One is aware. One observes thought. Thought and the observer are not separated. Thus, thinker is not separated from thought, thought is not separated from the present experiential moment, the perception is undivided -- one is aware (one is aware-ing). - D - Dan - We can go round and round beating the same bush ...trying to express this. You are using different wordings to say the same thing. There is no distance, object and subject are the same, there is no elswhere, suffering is me and it is not, the world is me and it is not, consicousness is not me and it is. There can not be anything that is not me. There is no other " time " ... All this said..... is different from the projected idea of some inner entity looking at some " outside " world. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:49 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:15 PM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:51 AM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is physical suffering and there is suffering induced by the > > > > fearful imagination of the ego. > > > > > > > > They have been given the same name........but they are not the same. > > > > > > Yes, let's split suffering in two, now. > > > > > > The more bits and pieces we can get, the better. > > > > > > The more thought can divide, the more 'in control' it feels. > > > -tim- > > > > > > Nop. There are real sufferings and imagined ones. > > > -geo- > > > > Nope. > > > > There is an end to analysis. > > > > The need to make the distinction between real and imagined ends. > > > > One is the suffering. > > > > One stops evading and thinking one has things figured out. > > > > It is the end of having anything figured out. > > > > Go figure. > > > > -- D -- > > > > How can I be the suffering that I am looking at? > > -geo- > > Geo - > > There is no distance apart between looker and looked at. > > The attempt to establish a distance apart involves a wish not to be > suffering, to dismiss suffering, to separate from it, to be able to control > it. > > When the attempt to maintain distance breaks down, one is the suffering. > > One is one's experiencing. > > The experiencer is what is experienced. > > There is no way to end the thought-involved division between subject and > object, except for the apparent continuity of thought to " break down. " > > This ends any sense of a distance between observer and observed. > > One is the suffering, and the suffering is not separated from the awareness > of it. > > One is every aspect of the present perception, the perceptual moment as it > is. > > It has never not been this way. > > However, thought invented a scenario with a false distance that never > actually was there. > > Thought, by attempting continuity and maintaining a sense of reality and the > known, constructed an avoidance mechanism, a sense of observing from a > separated position. > > It is not like there is some separate entity called " thought " that divides > things. > > It is rather that, resorting to words, it will sound like there are > separable entities. > > Thought doesn't " do " anything. > > One is aware. > > One observes thought. > > Thought and the observer are not separated. > > Thus, thinker is not separated from thought, thought is not separated from > the present experiential moment, the perception is undivided -- one is aware > (one is aware-ing). > > - D - > > Dan - We can go round and round beating the same bush ...trying to express > this. > You are using different wordings to say the same thing. There is no > distance, object and subject are the same, there is no elswhere, suffering > is me and it is not, the world is me and it is not, consicousness is not me > and it is. There can not be anything that is not me. There is no other > " time " ... All this said..... is different from the projected idea of some > inner entity looking at some " outside " world. > -geo- > Trying to paint a picture using nothing but words is a hard thing to do. :-0 toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 4:03 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 2:23 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:15 PM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:51 AM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is physical suffering and there is suffering induced by the > > > > fearful imagination of the ego. > > > > > > > > They have been given the same name........but they are not the same. > > > > > > Yes, let's split suffering in two, now. > > > > > > The more bits and pieces we can get, the better. > > > > > > The more thought can divide, the more 'in control' it feels. > > > -tim- > > > > > > Nop. There are real sufferings and imagined ones. > > > -geo- > > > > Nope. > > > > There is an end to analysis. > > > > The need to make the distinction between real and imagined ends. > > > > One is the suffering. > > > > One stops evading and thinking one has things figured out. > > > > It is the end of having anything figured out. > > > > Go figure. > > > > -- D -- > > > > How can I be the suffering that I am looking at? > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can " you " be anything? > > toombaru > > Yes..you see...there is a funny thing that happens here, no? At one point > I > am everything - no doubt about that. Everything that falls upon the senses > are me. > But then ..........if I am able to look at that....I am not that. I am > gone.... > -geo- So, you are commenting about how you saw that you were gone? You are not here, so you're telling us that you're not here. Just so we know how not here you are, I guess. LOL. -- D -- LOL I know...I know....I know.... -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Yes, time. Once time is understood/seen...who or what is > understanding/seeing? > Can the observer observe itself? > -geo- There is no observer apart in the first place. What the observer appears to be separate from to observe, is the observer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 AHHHHHhhhh.....I thought it was all about me...but no. -geo- - duveyoung Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 4:12 PM Re: No-communication Ha, I guess I got to ya, eh? Look at your kneejerking reactions and personal attacks. Some egoless, hep, cool-ass-enlightened person you're proving to be, eh? As if. Geo at least has this air of innocence and can be forgiven for being over confident, but from the way you sling the concepts here, it is easy to see that you've done some homework, but since you choose to kill the messenger instead of countering my statements with your own more logical statements or bring in new but pertinent facts to a discussion, you come off like a kid with a cap gun pretending to be a mofo.Your snide attitude -- where can it be found in an Advaitan teacher extant? You attitude is fucking shameful. Odious.You're like the pickpocket who meets a saint and can only speculate about what's in the saint's pockets -- you think because you have stolen a few pet concepts from Advaita that you've emptied the pockets. Comparatively, next to you, Geo's a true hearted seeker who should be welcomed into the fold with open arms. No matter how wrong I am and how right you are, your willingness to point at me in front of the others here and dismiss my statements by dismissing me instead of the statements, shows how bereft you are of the most essential dynamic of someone who would present and embody the knowledge of Advaita -- that is: heart. And, it shows your lack of scholarship that you do not recognize Nisargadatta and Ramana concepts being parroted by me. You aim your pucker at me, but your shit hits them instead, and that's where I get angry. They represent a body of knowledge that is and should be the very neo-foundation of modern psychological thought, and you're laughing up your sleeve that anyone would see any value in their writings enough to repeat them. I take some comfort that there are at least a few scholars here who see you for what you are: a poser who smugly leads the blind with his own white cane. Don't you get it that the world's only big enough for one Wayne Liquorman who can pull off being crotchety and a world class ego batterer? What a joke of a wannabe you are. Go to a Wayne seminar and be properly dressed down. Not that Wayne's enlightened, but he sure is skilled enough to deconstruct your hubris in a nonce....hopefully before an adoring crowd who will from then on look at you like you're the spiritual equivilent of a greasy sewer rat that's wandered into a wedding banquet and thinks it's entered heaven while ignoring the ladies on their chairs and the men getting something to whack you with.You're in knee pants at a white tail and tie grand ball.And, in case you didn't hear it between the lines above: fuck you.EdgNisargadatta , "toombaru2006" <lastrain wrote:>> > > > > I got 40 years of mediatation, yoga, puja, scriptural studies, thousands of hours of writing about Advaita, and I tremble to speak here, because there are some folks who have intellectual clarity here.> > > > > > > > > t:> If you tremble..........you shouldn't speak.> This road is not for little children.> > > > > > > > > > I fucking know that I don't know, so I try very carefully to string the words such that I wouldn't be an embarrassment to myself -> > > > > > > > t:> If you are still trying to save yourself from embarrassment....all that meditation has been wasted.> > > > > > > > > > > - I still fail, but at least I know I'm trying to write about that which I but distantly view. > > > > > > > > > t:> Then stop worrying what others distantly view.> > > > > > > > > Every time a newbie comes here, you're here speaking pure bullshit and making no sense 95% of the time, and the newbie cannot be expected to sort out who here is handling the subtleties and who is a little kid scribbling on research papers with a crayon.> > > > > > > > t:> Fuck the newbies.> If they cannot stand up on their own......let them lurk in the shadows.> Only the bravest enter these doors.> I never met a lurker that had anything I wanted.> If they have nothing to say.....they have nothing to say.> > > > > > > > > > > Does ya get it that that newbie might be turned off from seeking just because of nutjobs like you posing here as if they knew what was what?> > > > You're building a most horrid karma for yourself --> > > > > > > t:> Oh my god.....you still believe in karma?> ...perhaps another thirty years of meditation is in order.> > > > > > > you're guaranteeing that you too will be mislead in life by others equally unaware of their own lack of expertise yet willing to lead you into the crapper. I shudder to think what you're going to be suckered into next.> > > > > > > > t:> Do you really think that you.....or anyone......has the power to mislead others?> You really have no idea what advaita is.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And, for all those who would say, "Edg, where's your compassion for this conceptual cripple?" -- I say, it besmirches anyone who would indulge a fool when enlightenment is on the line. > > > > Geo, you're like a guy who just figured out how to masturbate and you've got online and joined a chat-room for children ages 5 - 10 and now you're telling them about SELF pleasuring. > > > > Look in the mirror. You don't have a PhD in shit one. All your tee shirts are still to be purchased at Walmart. > > > > My sin? I waste my time looking for a decent conversation where trolls, posers and the utterly lonely collect like fish washed up on shore after the lake is poisoned.> > > > FUCK!> > > > Edg> >> > > > > What you have so dimly glimpsed is your own smokey image......running from the light.> > > > toombaru> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Trying to paint a picture using nothing but words is a hard thing to do. > > > > :-0 The painter is (in) the picture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Trying to paint a picture using nothing but words is a hard thing to do. > > > > > > > > :-0 > > The painter is (in) the picture. > Yes. In the painting clumsily scrumbled from words. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 9:49 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:46 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > " Objectifiable " ... > > > > So, you think there are objects you are looking at? > > > > And you think fear is some kind of object separate from you and other > > > than you? > > > > - D - > > When the nature of 'time' is clear, > > The notion of 'objects' is rather amusing :-p. > > The fact of 'no-separation' is related to time (which is awareness, which > is > movement). > > And time is precisely the issue, is it not? How much time does the human > race have left, given what's happening? > > And yet, few ever look closely at the nature of time. > -tim- > > Yes, time. Once time is understood/seen...who or what is > understanding/seeing? > Can the observer observe itself? > -geo- > If God existed before time.....how did He tell what time it was? toombaru Not before and not god...but timeless. For time to be aknowledged there must be the timeless. For change to be aknowledged there must be the changeless. For borning....the unborn... -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:00 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Yes, time. Once time is understood/seen...who or what is > understanding/seeing? > Can the observer observe itself? > -geo- There is no observer apart in the first place. What the observer appears to be separate from to observe, is the observer. -tim ....and we can toss an twist words round and tound to try to express it. UNI-VERSE -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 9:13 PM Re: Re: No-communication - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:08 PM Re: No-communication Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 2:36 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > toombaru2006 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 2:20 PM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:08 PM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:31 AM > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 9:17 PM > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 6:12 PM > > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 5:32 PM > > > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sense of self is not there for the survival of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We differ on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is there for the survival of the continuity of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The I amness arises concurrently with conceptual thought. > > > > > > > They are the same phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The continuity of a ghost-entity, which in truth has no > > > > > > > > continuity, > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > merely an ever-changing series of thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > And it is what is speaking now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is like a repeating habit, not an entity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. The sense of self in fact is harmfull for the > > > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't explain the fact that humans have the most > > > > > > > successful > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > life forms on earth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> What explains is the program that takes care of the body > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > nothing to do with a self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the other > > > > > > > > hand, indeed, it is a survival program and indeed abhors the > > > > > > > > idea > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > one day will die. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is programmed to survive and reproduce. > > > > > > > It is not part of its program to understand its own > > > > > > > relationship > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > vastness > > > > > > > out of which it emerged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> The body is progaramed like that much alike any animal. > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > human > > > > > > > organism does not need an imagined inner observer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And who is it that has decided that? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > Please rephrase the question. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it something other that the sense of self...the inner > > > > > observer.....that > > > > > has concluded that the physical organism doesn't need an inner > > > > > observer? > > > > > > > > > > Where do those opinions reside? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Ahhhh...toomba...Not opinions, it is obvious. > > > > > There is the seeing of this organism/consciosuness and the > > > > > awareness > > > > > that > > > > > is > > > > > just an empty pattern and the possiblity of being able to look at > > > > > it > > > > > means > > > > > I > > > > > am not it. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > It is you. > > > > > > > > There is no one else to be this, other than you. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > It is the same. But you said no - so you missed it. > > > > The world is my empty patterns, there is no other. The same. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > No, you got it wrong, Geo, and I got it right. > > > > > > There aren't two of us. > > > > > > See, I know that. > > > > > > How come you don't? > > > > > > LOL. > > > > > > Smiles and wishes for a great day - > > > > > > - Dan > > > > > > Yes...it depends what you want from all this. Sometimes it is good to > > > use > > > words with care and attention > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not when it is apprehended that the sense of self emerges concurrently > > with > > the words....and that the imaginary entity really has no responsibility > > for > > what spills out of their mouth. > > > > :-) > > > > toombaru > > > > I get the idea...but it is possible to think , speak, imagine without > > any > > imaginary entity. Nothing falls of the pans borders - or everything. > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. > > The imaginary entity and the words are the same phenomenon. > > For it.....there is nothing beyond the objectified world. > > Try to think of something that doesn't have a name. > > The entity is map that it tries to explore. > > toombaru > > Dont go for the " no " too fast. All and everything, without exception, is > consciousness/world. That includes words, imagination, sex, plot, nexus, > names, no-names, maps, look.....all changing arisings are over there. But > none of those is the unchanging. > -geo- > > > > > > > A small sign over the door: " Unchanging Room " toombaru Yes. Nobady ever changed in there...LOL On a more serious side: is there a " something " that never change here? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 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? ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 4:10 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > toombaru2006 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 2:36 PM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 2:20 PM > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:08 PM > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:31 AM > > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 9:17 PM > > > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 6:12 PM > > > > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 5:32 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sense of self is not there for the survival of the > > > > > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We differ on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is there for the survival of the continuity of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The I amness arises concurrently with conceptual thought. > > > > > > > > > They are the same phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The continuity of a ghost-entity, which in truth has no > > > > > > > > > > continuity, > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > merely an ever-changing series of thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > And it is what is speaking now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is like a repeating habit, not an entity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. The sense of self in fact is harmfull for the > > > > > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't explain the fact that humans have the most > > > > > > > > > successful > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > life forms on earth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> What explains is the program that takes care of the > > > > > > > > > body > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > nothing to do with a self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the other > > > > > > > > > > hand, indeed, it is a survival program and indeed abhors > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > idea > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > one day will die. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is programmed to survive and reproduce. > > > > > > > > > It is not part of its program to understand its own > > > > > > > > > relationship > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > vastness > > > > > > > > > out of which it emerged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> The body is progaramed like that much alike any animal. > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > human > > > > > > > > > organism does not need an imagined inner observer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And who is it that has decided that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please rephrase the question. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it something other that the sense of self...the inner > > > > > > > observer.....that > > > > > > > has concluded that the physical organism doesn't need an inner > > > > > > > observer? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where do those opinions reside? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahhhh...toomba...Not opinions, it is obvious. > > > > > > > There is the seeing of this organism/consciosuness and the > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > just an empty pattern and the possiblity of being able to look > > > > > > > at it > > > > > > > means > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > am not it. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > It is you. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no one else to be this, other than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the same. But you said no - so you missed it. > > > > > > The world is my empty patterns, there is no other. The same. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > No, you got it wrong, Geo, and I got it right. > > > > > > > > > > There aren't two of us. > > > > > > > > > > See, I know that. > > > > > > > > > > How come you don't? > > > > > > > > > > LOL. > > > > > > > > > > Smiles and wishes for a great day - > > > > > > > > > > - Dan > > > > > > > > > > Yes...it depends what you want from all this. Sometimes it is good > > > > > to > > > > > use > > > > > words with care and attention > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not when it is apprehended that the sense of self emerges concurrently > > > > with > > > > the words....and that the imaginary entity really has no > > > > responsibility > > > > for > > > > what spills out of their mouth. > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > I get the idea...but it is possible to think , speak, imagine without > > > > any > > > > imaginary entity. Nothing falls of the pans borders - or everything. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > The imaginary entity and the words are the same phenomenon. > > > > > > For it.....there is nothing beyond the objectified world. > > > > > > Try to think of something that doesn't have a name. > > > > > > The entity is map that it tries to explore. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Dont go for the " no " too fast. All and everything, without exception, is > > > consciousness/world. That includes words, imagination, sex, plot, nexus, > > > names, no-names, maps, look.....all changing arisings are over there. > > > But > > > none of those is the unchanging. > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A small sign over the door: > > > > > > " Unchanging Room " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > I'll throw you and your buddy geo some spare change. > > You could use some. > > Stop your delusion now, please. > > I asked nicely. > > - D - > > Can I go out and play now? > -geo- Where can you go out to, that is not you? So, yes, by all means ... play. The play's the thing! Play on words. Play of light. Play of change. Play nice. Not that you can help it. Nice play. ;-) - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:49 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:15 PM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:51 AM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is physical suffering and there is suffering induced by the > > > > fearful imagination of the ego. > > > > > > > > They have been given the same name........but they are not the same. > > > > > > Yes, let's split suffering in two, now. > > > > > > The more bits and pieces we can get, the better. > > > > > > The more thought can divide, the more 'in control' it feels. > > > -tim- > > > > > > Nop. There are real sufferings and imagined ones. > > > -geo- > > > > Nope. > > > > There is an end to analysis. > > > > The need to make the distinction between real and imagined ends. > > > > One is the suffering. > > > > One stops evading and thinking one has things figured out. > > > > It is the end of having anything figured out. > > > > Go figure. > > > > -- D -- > > > > How can I be the suffering that I am looking at? > > -geo- > > Geo - > > There is no distance apart between looker and looked at. > > The attempt to establish a distance apart involves a wish not to be > suffering, to dismiss suffering, to separate from it, to be able to control > it. > > When the attempt to maintain distance breaks down, one is the suffering. > > One is one's experiencing. > > The experiencer is what is experienced. > > There is no way to end the thought-involved division between subject and > object, except for the apparent continuity of thought to " break down. " > > This ends any sense of a distance between observer and observed. > > One is the suffering, and the suffering is not separated from the awareness > of it. > > One is every aspect of the present perception, the perceptual moment as it > is. > > It has never not been this way. > > However, thought invented a scenario with a false distance that never > actually was there. > > Thought, by attempting continuity and maintaining a sense of reality and the > known, constructed an avoidance mechanism, a sense of observing from a > separated position. > > It is not like there is some separate entity called " thought " that divides > things. > > It is rather that, resorting to words, it will sound like there are > separable entities. > > Thought doesn't " do " anything. > > One is aware. > > One observes thought. > > Thought and the observer are not separated. > > Thus, thinker is not separated from thought, thought is not separated from > the present experiential moment, the perception is undivided -- one is aware > (one is aware-ing). > > - D - > > Dan - We can go round and round beating the same bush ...trying to express > this. > You are using different wordings to say the same thing. There is no > distance, object and subject are the same, there is no elswhere, suffering > is me and it is not, the world is me and it is not, consicousness is not me > and it is. There can not be anything that is not me. There is no other > " time " ... All this said..... is different from the projected idea of some > inner entity looking at some " outside " world. > -geo- Talking about this tends to go in one of these directions: It is all this. It is all that. I am all. I am nothing. I dissolve. I never was. Only I ever was. Nothing is everything. There is neither this nor that. I am you. You are me. There is no me or you. There is only being. Nothing is. Being is nonbeing. There is neither being nor nonbeing. That's pretty much it. Understood clearly, they are all ways of pointing to nothing that is. All the talk is just to get the mind to the point where it is open to be nothing, have nothing, be empty. So it's not the words. It's the being empty. The empty that is all. Primordial empty ... that is. The shining void god. The totality. The all before you, that is your being. The empty perceptual moment, as is. When words are offered, one may sense a breathing through the words. Something unsaid. The nothing one is. A breath of fresh air. A cataclysm. A crystalization. A nothing happening. A happening nothing. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > I never was. > > Only I ever was. Exactly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > Can I go out and play now? > > > -geo- > > > > > > Where can you go out to, that is not you? > > > > So, yes, by all means ... play. > > > > The play's the thing! > > > > Play on words. > > > > Play of light. > > > > Play of change. > > > > Play nice. > > > > Not that you can help it. > > > > Nice play. > > > > ;-) > > > > - D - > > > > > The audience claps in appreciation. > > ~A The audience preces in acclaptiation, too ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > All I said is that living with the imagined center harms the organism: > > > the > > > need for fforts from morning till night and night till morning. > > > You are talking of something else. > > > -geo- > > > > Not really. > > > > But you think so. > > > > Do you understand the fear you are? > > > > - D - > > > > I am nothing objectivable. How could I? > > -geo- > > " Objectifiable " ... > > So, you think there are objects you are looking at? > > And you think fear is some kind of object separate from you and other than > you? > > - D - > > ME is not looking, it can not look or see. It is inexistent. There is only > seeing-being...the one. > Suffering, sorrow, happiness, fear...are all part of consciousness, and > conscousness is seen as patterns of the one. Yes. There is no escape for consciousness from fear. It is how its universe is constructed. Fear is psychological time. Can one experience this first hand? Not as an idea, but the actuality of the fear involved? The fear that constructs self and world? This is why all the advaita ideas are silly if they are repeated without experiencing the avoidance, the contraction that is self/world, identity, time .... One can only die to an experience if one ceases avoidance of the experience. Fear is the fundamental experience of being human, of constructing the known, of time, of what is called " my life. " > > My turn: can the observer observe itself? > -geo- There is no " it " involved. The observer is an imaginary positioning. There is only all this - the observed. The observed is the observer. There is no observer found anywhere " else. " It's not that fear is a content of consciousness. There isn't a container and its contents. Fear is the movement of consciousness to construct a reality that can be held, fixed, known. Fear is time, is the known, and therefore is very much the day to day life of humanity. The projecting and introjecting. The self-ing and other-ing. The identifying. Fear is the construction of a body from sensation, and the claiming of the body as one's vehicle to have a life. Unless one is this fear, without avoidance, and not based on ideas about it ... one can only go 'round and 'round the thought-based life being attempted as an adventure - which is actually a nightmare, but because the fear is denied, there is the pretense that it is a real life of a being. This is the denial that the human race currently is attempting to make its existence as selves. And has been for centuries, one implosion only leading to a reinstatement of the attempt, the attempt to continue whatever was left after the implosion. The full implosion leaves nothing behind, except memory traces that have no hold. The being is nothing. So, one understands the fear. There is no way to understand the nothing one is, unless everything is " taken " by nothing. And this is what is feared. Being nothing, being taken by nothing, having nothing, having no control. People will kill themselves just as a last-ditch attempt to have some control. People will steal, start wars, lie, cheat, compulsively try to acquire - all for the sake of not being nothing, for the sake of establishing some sense of personal control, being able to " get over " on what is. Being able to cheat what is. It can't be done. One is not separate from the movement of humanity, of humanness. So, one understands, one is the fear that is humanity. One understands the nightmare of the human race. There is no other way to understand non-division. One can't have a wonderful peaceful nondivision of bliss and avoid the fear and suffering. That kind of " enlightenment " is pseudo, and therefore that kind of enlightenment is embraced by people because they can " worship " it and continue everything the same. No one wants an " enlightenment " that shows you the fear you are, without avoidance. Everyone wants to die and be reborn in heaven, as long as it isn't a real death, as long as it isn't a death that undoes every aspect of their avoidance. This is why it's avoided. This is why there are so many subterfuges, false " enlightenments, " clinging to teachers and teachings, clinging to religion, sex, money, power, status, beauty, recognition ... Humans are motivated by greed, greed eventually brings down what they have built up, and clearly, the greed is an acting out of anxiety, an acting out of fear. The fear that is time. Time is always running out. Time always involves avoidance. Well, not always. One who dies fully, understands time differently, immediately, without division, without an observer position. -- Dan -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:29 PM > Re: No-communication > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:09 PM > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:28 AM > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 9:26 PM > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 9:17 PM > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 6:12 PM > > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Monday, August 10, 2009 5:32 PM > > > > > > > Re: No-communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sense of self is not there for the survival of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We differ on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is there for the survival of the continuity of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The I amness arises concurrently with conceptual thought. > > > > > > > They are the same phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The continuity of a ghost-entity, which in truth has no > > > > > > > > continuity, > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > merely an ever-changing series of thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > And it is what is speaking now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is like a repeating habit, not an entity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. The sense of self in fact is harmfull for the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't explain the fact that humans have the most > > > > > > > successful > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > life forms on earth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> What explains is the program that takes care of the body > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > nothing to do with a self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the other > > > > > > > > hand, indeed, it is a survival program and indeed abhors the > > > > > > > > idea > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > one day will die. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is programmed to survive and reproduce. > > > > > > > It is not part of its program to understand its own relationship > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > vastness > > > > > > > out of which it emerged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> The body is progaramed like that much alike any animal. The > > > > > > > human > > > > > > > organism does not need an imagined inner observer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And who is it that has decided that? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > Please rephrase the question. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it something other that the sense of self...the inner > > > > > observer.....that > > > > > has concluded that the physical organism doesn't need an inner > > > > > observer? > > > > > > > > > > Where do those opinions reside? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Ahhhh...toomba...Not opinions, it is obvious. > > > > > There is the seeing of this organism/consciosuness and the awareness > > > > > that > > > > > is > > > > > just an empty pattern and the possiblity of being able to look at it > > > > > means > > > > > I > > > > > am not it. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Biiiiiingo! > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > That is the whole " point " is it not? > > > > The seeing of the manifested - as a whole - suddenly as some quantum > > > > snap > > > > evaporates any observer into the empty not-knowable non-manifested > > > > no-thingness. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > No, it is being the suffering without identifying with it. > > > > > > Not escaping into some never-never land of not-manifested no-thingness. > > > > > > The suffering itself is the emptiness. > > > > > > -- D -- > > > > > > " it is being the suffering without identifying with it. " > > > In what manner that is different from " empty not-knowable non-manifested > > > no-thingness. " ? > > > Is any of those expressions identical with it? > > > -geo- > > > > Just be it. > > > > You'll never explain it or express it. > > > > - D - > > > > I look at suffering, consciousness, the world...and ask: what is " I " ? > > I am none of those. If I can look at them I am not them. > > -geo- > > Apparently, you experience looking at something that is other than you. > > Where do you think it comes from, somewhere else? > > Do you actually experience some kind of distance between the looker and the > looked at? > > -- D -- > > There is no distance. Words fail here, you know I suppose. But as I tryed in > another post i will try again. All that is beeing seen is changing, have a > beguining, evolve or involve and die. When there is the seeing of the > everchanging which is the world or consciousness for some....that question > is posited: what is the " I " ? > The answer is never heard.....but the unchanging comes to life. > -geo- If the changing comes to life, the unchanging is right there. There isn't an unchanging apart from the changingness. The unchanging is the immediacy of the changingness. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
