Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The tree outside my window is my face. > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > That tree is literally my face. > > > > I am the mirror by which it sees itself. > > > > It is looking at this mirror, which reflects itself, seeing itself through these eyes. > > > > My face. > > > > - D - > I had a trip like that once........in Amsterdam. > > She had on wooden shoes and the shoes...............well........I guess you had to be there. > > > > > > toombaru I was. The shoes were way smelly. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tree outside my window is my face. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok........you have your very own face.....and you have a window......and there is a tree outside (we'll let the inside outside thing go for a while)......the window.......and that tree is YOUR face. > > > > > > > > > I think I'm beginning to see where you are coming from...... > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > He's picturing a tree outside his window, and confusing the mental picture with the tree outside his window. > > > > The mental picture is/was his face, sure enough. > > > > There is no continuously-existing tree, though. > > > > For whatever reason, he's giving continuity to the discontinuous. > > > > > > > I think maybe he saw the reflection of his face in the window superimposed over a tree and got a little confused. > > > I mean......he this afternoon called one of MY posts " BULL SHIT " for crisesakes. > > > toombaru Yes, and a fat lot of good it did, too. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Google it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > I tried googling 'it', but way, way too many results came up ;-). > > > > > > > > > There is one web site that has a lot of his writings for free. > > ...but its an adult only kinda thing. > > > > > > toombaru > > Oh, you mean Wei Wei Woo Woo. > > -- D -- I meant Wei wu It. Dunno what Toomie meant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > Next time say that, so it's clearer what you're getting at ;-). > > > > I'm being extremely clear. > > > > That is why no one knows what I'm talking about. > > > > If I was less clear, I'd be getting much more agreement. > > > > - D - > > Look -- is there a continuously-existing tree outside your window? Look -- is there a continuously-existence sentence on the computer screen? > When the words are being typed " the tree outside my window is my face, " where is the tree outside my window? When the words are being typed, where are the words being typed? > Behind " me " ? Behind " you " ? > To the left of " me? " To the left of " you " ? > To the right of " me? " To the right of " you " ? > Do tell. Sure. Putting " me " and " you " in quotes doesn't accomplish a damn thing. And there is nothing special about the words " me " and " you " requiring them to be used over and over in post after post, often with quotes around them, as if that means something very significant was said about those two over-used words. -- D -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > Next time say that, so it's clearer what you're getting at ;-). > > > > > > I'm being extremely clear. > > > > > > That is why no one knows what I'm talking about. > > > > > > If I was less clear, I'd be getting much more agreement. > > > > > > - D - > > > > Look -- is there a continuously-existing tree outside your window? > > Look -- is there a continuously-existence sentence on the computer screen? > > > When the words are being typed " the tree outside my window is my face, " where is the tree outside my window? > > When the words are being typed, where are the words being typed? > > > Behind " me " ? > > Behind " you " ? > > > To the left of " me? " > > To the left of " you " ? > > > To the right of " me? " > > To the right of " you " ? > > > Do tell. > > > Sure. > > Putting " me " and " you " in quotes doesn't accomplish a damn thing. > > And there is nothing special about the words " me " and " you " requiring them to be used over and over in post after post, often with quotes around them, as if that means something very significant was said about those two over-used words. > > -- D -- By " me " , I meant the body. In order to " be the tree outside your window " , without sensing it now, you would have to be a continuously-existing being, located in time and space, with the tree at some pre-existing location in relation to " you " , continuously there. Are you, or are you not, sensing a tree outside your window, now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tree outside my window is my face. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That tree is literally my face. > > > > > > > > > > I am the mirror by which it sees itself. > > > > > > > > When does it see itself? > > > > > > > > In the past? In the future? > > > > > > > > Is it visible now, or only as a thought? > > > > > > > > The thought is seeing itself, sure enough. > > > > > > > > The thought is not a tree. > > > > > > > > > The thought that there is only thought, is a conceit. > > > > > > - D - > > > > Then don't think it. > > I'm not. > > Take your own advice. > > - D - Look above and tell me where I typed " there is only thought " . Next time, when addressing Toomie with " Bull Shit " , address the addresser. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Next time say that, so it's clearer what you're getting at ;-). > > > > > > > > I'm being extremely clear. > > > > > > > > That is why no one knows what I'm talking about. > > > > > > > > If I was less clear, I'd be getting much more agreement. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Look -- is there a continuously-existing tree outside your window? > > > > Look -- is there a continuously-existence sentence on the computer screen? > > > > > When the words are being typed " the tree outside my window is my face, " where is the tree outside my window? > > > > When the words are being typed, where are the words being typed? > > > > > Behind " me " ? > > > > Behind " you " ? > > > > > To the left of " me? " > > > > To the left of " you " ? > > > > > To the right of " me? " > > > > To the right of " you " ? > > > > > Do tell. > > > > > > Sure. > > > > Putting " me " and " you " in quotes doesn't accomplish a damn thing. > > > > And there is nothing special about the words " me " and " you " requiring them to be used over and over in post after post, often with quotes around them, as if that means something very significant was said about those two over-used words. > > > > -- D -- > > By " me " , I meant the body. > > In order to " be the tree outside your window " , without sensing it now, you would have to be a continuously-existing being, located in time and space, with the tree at some pre-existing location in relation to " you " , continuously there. Is that supposed to be a continuously existing sentence conveying some kind of meaning that stays the same, that someone is supposed to read and get some kind of important knowledge out of? > Are you, or are you not, sensing a tree outside your window, now? In what wei would that matter to *anything* ??? - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tree outside my window is my face. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That tree is literally my face. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am the mirror by which it sees itself. > > > > > > > > > > When does it see itself? > > > > > > > > > > In the past? In the future? > > > > > > > > > > Is it visible now, or only as a thought? > > > > > > > > > > The thought is seeing itself, sure enough. > > > > > > > > > > The thought is not a tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > The thought that there is only thought, is a conceit. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Then don't think it. > > > > I'm not. > > > > Take your own advice. > > > > - D - > > Look above and tell me where I typed " there is only thought " . > > Next time, when addressing Toomie with " Bull Shit " , address the addresser. Are you typing continually existing sentences yet? When you figure out how to do that, I'll get to work on getting some kind of continuously existing meaning out of them. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tree outside my window is my face. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok........you have your very own face.....and you have a window......and there is a tree outside (we'll let the inside outside thing go for a while)......the window.......and that tree is YOUR face. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I'm beginning to see where you are coming from...... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > He's picturing a tree outside his window, and confusing the mental picture with the tree outside his window. > > > > > > > > > > The mental picture is/was his face, sure enough. > > > > > > > > > > There is no continuously-existing tree, though. > > > > > > > > > > For whatever reason, he's giving continuity to the discontinuous. > > > > > > > > No, you're confusing that there's something real being represented > by something unreal. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > That, too. > > > > > > But that's a built-in assumption when we use words. > > > > I'm not making that assumption. > > > > - D - > > I'll assume you're not. What else can I do? ;-). You yourself are an assumption. You're assuming that you can address an assumption. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tree outside my window is my face. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok........you have your very own face.....and you have a window......and there is a tree outside (we'll let the inside outside thing go for a while)......the window.......and that tree is YOUR face. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I'm beginning to see where you are coming from...... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > He's picturing a tree outside his window, and confusing the mental picture with the tree outside his window. > > > > > > > > > > > > The mental picture is/was his face, sure enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no continuously-existing tree, though. > > > > > > > > > > > > For whatever reason, he's giving continuity to the discontinuous. > > > > > > > > > > No, you're confusing that there's something real being represented > by something unreal. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > That, too. > > > > > > > > But that's a built-in assumption when we use words. > > > > > > I'm not making that assumption. > > > > > > - D - > > > > I'll assume you're not. What else can I do? ;-). You yourself > are an assumption. > > You're assuming that you can address an assumption. > > - D - Exactly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:48 PM Re: Common Sense (Toomie) Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Google it. > > > > toombaru I tried googling 'it', but way, way too many results came up ;-). geo> He is wayne liquormen avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 13/8/2009 21:09:42 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:48 PM Re: Common Sense (Toomie) Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:24 PM > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > It is all seen as a program. > > > And it is known that that seeing is also part of the program. > > > And it is known that there is nothing beyond the program. > > > > Well, all that is the program. > > > > There is definitely Nothing, beyond the program. > > > > silent Nothing, which is also being inclusive of everything (i.e. one is > > one's perceptions, not a separate watcher apart from them). > > > > The mind turns nothing into something. > > toombaru > > You are confusing no-thing with nothing. There is a big difference. > -geo- > > > > > > No it isn't. Mind things that the absence of things is nothing. Pretty funny when you think about it. toombaru That is what I said. They are not the same. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 13/8/2009 21:09:42 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:52 PM Re: Common Sense (Toomie) Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:05 PM > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > It is all seen as a program. > > > And it is known that that seeing is also part of the program. > > > And it is known that there is nothing beyond the program. > > > > Well, all that is the program. > > > > There is definitely Nothing, beyond the program. > > > > silent Nothing, which is also being inclusive of everything (i.e. one is > > one's perceptions, not a separate watcher apart from them). > > There isn't any program to be beyond. > > Sheesh. > > You think you're beyond a program? > > And you think if you see a program, you're beyond the program? > > Double sheesh. > > - D - > > And the litlle program that sees the big program..how is it know or seen > as > a litlle program?? > -geo- > > > > > By its leetle foot prints. Don't take any of this stuff too seriously. It's all shooting arrows in the dark. toombaru OK then... -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 13/8/2009 21:09:43 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:57 PM Re: Common Sense (Toomie) Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Google it. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > I tried googling 'it', but way, way too many results came up ;-). > There is one web site that has a lot of his writings for free. ....but its an adult only kinda thing. toombaru He is waine liquormen. You can participate in online meetings at his house in LA if you like him. Or meet him there. Its free. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 13/8/2009 21:09:43 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:05 PM Re: Common Sense (Toomie) Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Question: If one's programming cannot be observed, how does one know that > one is programmed, or that one *is* the programming itself? > > > Michael A > > Adamson@ > > geo> Ones programming CAN be observed. It is all that can be done - and it > is being done. But this seeing is not from within consciousness, from > withing the program. Geo - I know what you're trying to suggest, I've tried suggesting such things many times. Yet I know how limited the viability of these suggestions are. -d- Does not matter. Its fun to try to put it in words - and some will listen. -geo- All the commentary about a program is coming from what you're calling the program - which isn't really a program at all. -d- Did not understand a word of that. I am calling consciousness the program. It can be seen as such in all its limitedness and luminosity. The words aome from memory but the seeing of the program no. -geo- It's equally true for my words too, if I speak of awareness and related topics. I can't tell you whether to consider language true or false, real or imaginary - because using those labels is just language trying to comment about itself on its own terms - which is invalid. Same thing when thought tries to know thought by using thought, or self tries to know self, or Self tries to know Self, or person tries to know person or people. - D - And what are you doing here then? So lets put it in word anyway..Folly for folly lets folly.. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 13/8/2009 21:09:44 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:08 PM Re: Common Sense (Toomie) Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:05 PM > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > It is all seen as a program. > > > And it is known that that seeing is also part of the program. > > > And it is known that there is nothing beyond the program. > > > > Well, all that is the program. > > > > There is definitely Nothing, beyond the program. > > > > silent Nothing, which is also being inclusive of everything (i.e. one is > > one's perceptions, not a separate watcher apart from them). > > There isn't any program to be beyond. > > Sheesh. > > You think you're beyond a program? > > And you think if you see a program, you're beyond the program? > > Double sheesh. > > - D - > > And the litlle program that sees the big program..how is it know or seen > as > a litlle program?? > -geo- Yes. And the entire notion of using programmed language to comment about the programmed consciousness is equally absurd. - D - That is an art. I have been helped with such words....why cant I do the same? Not that I want to help enyone. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 13/8/2009 21:09:44 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:48 PM > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > toombaru2006 > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:24 PM > > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is all seen as a program. > > > > And it is known that that seeing is also part of the program. > > > > And it is known that there is nothing beyond the program. > > > > > > Well, all that is the program. > > > > > > There is definitely Nothing, beyond the program. > > > > > > silent Nothing, which is also being inclusive of everything (i.e. one is > > > one's perceptions, not a separate watcher apart from them). > > > > > > > The mind turns nothing into something. > > > > toombaru > > > > You are confusing no-thing with nothing. There is a big difference. > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it isn't. > Mind thinks that the absence of things is nothing. > > Pretty funny when you think about it. > > toombaru > > That is what I said. They are not the same. > -geo- > > > When mind makes an object out of " nothing " ....it becomes something. The mind cannot picture " nothing " . toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:52 PM > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:05 PM > > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is all seen as a program. > > > > And it is known that that seeing is also part of the program. > > > > And it is known that there is nothing beyond the program. > > > > > > Well, all that is the program. > > > > > > There is definitely Nothing, beyond the program. > > > > > > silent Nothing, which is also being inclusive of everything (i.e. one is > > > one's perceptions, not a separate watcher apart from them). > > > > There isn't any program to be beyond. > > > > Sheesh. > > > > You think you're beyond a program? > > > > And you think if you see a program, you're beyond the program? > > > > Double sheesh. > > > > - D - > > > > And the litlle program that sees the big program..how is it know or seen > > as > > a litlle program?? > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > By its leetle foot prints. > > Don't take any of this stuff too seriously. > > It's all shooting arrows in the dark. > > toombaru > > OK then... > -geo- > > > > We get a glimpse now and then and try to put it into words. And I don't know why anyone would do that. Sometimes the lunacy of the attempt is seen and the conversation gets silly. Its all just consciousness surfing its own wake. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:48 PM > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Google it. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > I tried googling 'it', but way, way too many results came up ;-). > > geo> He is wayne liquormen > > > > > > > Wayne is Ran Tsu Wei Wu Wei is well worth the time. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Toomba, I did not tell you the truth. I know wu wei, aka waine liquoreman. (never read wu wei in fact) I attended a few meetings in his house through the net for curiosity. (I have the link to to it if you want - bellow) We exchanged perhaps a dozen posts - I can send them to you if I still got them somewhere. Yes...he will agree with you. He apparently doesnt talk about or is not "aware" of anything beyond consciousness. That is where I stoped listening to him....because it goes against something that is clear to me...so.... But I must warn you: he is a guru type. http://www.advaita.org/ -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Toomba, I did not tell you the truth. I know wu wei, aka waine liquoreman. (never read wu wei in fact) > I attended a few meetings in his house through the net for curiosity. (I have the link to to it if you want - bellow) > We exchanged perhaps a dozen posts - I can send them to you if I still got them somewhere. > Yes...he will agree with you. He apparently doesnt talk about or is not " aware " of anything beyond consciousness. That is where I stoped listening to him....because it goes against something that is clear to me...so.... But I must warn you: he is a guru type. > > http://www.advaita.org/ > > -geo- > I know Wayne well. :-) toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:40 PM Re: Common Sense (Toomie) Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:48 PM > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > toombaru2006 > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:24 PM > > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is all seen as a program. > > > > And it is known that that seeing is also part of the program. > > > > And it is known that there is nothing beyond the program. > > > > > > Well, all that is the program. > > > > > > There is definitely Nothing, beyond the program. > > > > > > silent Nothing, which is also being inclusive of everything (i.e. one > > > is > > > one's perceptions, not a separate watcher apart from them). > > > > > > > The mind turns nothing into something. > > > > toombaru > > > > You are confusing no-thing with nothing. There is a big difference. > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it isn't. > Mind thinks that the absence of things is nothing. > > Pretty funny when you think about it. > > toombaru > > That is what I said. They are not the same. > -geo- > > > When mind makes an object out of " nothing " ....it becomes something. The mind cannot picture " nothing " . toombaru Yes I understand. True. But that which is beyond consciousness, the no-thing-ness is not food for the mind. Never was or will be - impossible. but that does not mean that no-thing is not is-ing. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 13/8/2009 21:43:21 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:40 PM > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > toombaru2006 > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:48 PM > > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > toombaru2006 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:24 PM > > > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It is all seen as a program. > > > > > And it is known that that seeing is also part of the program. > > > > > And it is known that there is nothing beyond the program. > > > > > > > > Well, all that is the program. > > > > > > > > There is definitely Nothing, beyond the program. > > > > > > > > silent Nothing, which is also being inclusive of everything (i.e. one > > > > is > > > > one's perceptions, not a separate watcher apart from them). > > > > > > > > > > The mind turns nothing into something. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > You are confusing no-thing with nothing. There is a big difference. > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it isn't. > > Mind thinks that the absence of things is nothing. > > > > Pretty funny when you think about it. > > > > toombaru > > > > That is what I said. They are not the same. > > -geo- > > > > > > > > When mind makes an object out of " nothing " ....it becomes something. > > The mind cannot picture " nothing " . > > toombaru > > Yes I understand. True. But that which is beyond consciousness, the > no-thing-ness is not food for the mind. Never was or will be - impossible. > but that does not mean that no-thing is not is-ing. > -geo- > > > > > What indication do you have that there is some'thing' outside of consciousness? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:46 PM Re: Common Sense (Toomie) Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:52 PM > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:05 PM > > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is all seen as a program. > > > > And it is known that that seeing is also part of the program. > > > > And it is known that there is nothing beyond the program. > > > > > > Well, all that is the program. > > > > > > There is definitely Nothing, beyond the program. > > > > > > silent Nothing, which is also being inclusive of everything (i.e. one > > > is > > > one's perceptions, not a separate watcher apart from them). > > > > There isn't any program to be beyond. > > > > Sheesh. > > > > You think you're beyond a program? > > > > And you think if you see a program, you're beyond the program? > > > > Double sheesh. > > > > - D - > > > > And the litlle program that sees the big program..how is it know or seen > > as > > a litlle program?? > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > By its leetle foot prints. > > Don't take any of this stuff too seriously. > > It's all shooting arrows in the dark. > > toombaru > > OK then... > -geo- > > > > We get a glimpse now and then and try to put it into words. And I don't know why anyone would do that. Sometimes the lunacy of the attempt is seen and the conversation gets silly. Its all just consciousness surfing its own wake. toombaru You contradict yourself. The words are from consciousness. The glimpse, the fact, no. Nothing mystic about it. Now...you can not get cought by the desiese called religious-guru-hangover. It means that at one time or other you overdid it...too much wrong efforts in the wrong direction and now you react to it. The result is that you not only cant stand gurus by also believe that any and averything they may say is BS - a trauma. I never followed one single guru in my life and I can say that some of them have something to say others not - just like any human being. No traumas please.. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 13/8/2009 21:51:05 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:48 PM Re: Common Sense (Toomie) Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:48 PM > Re: Common Sense (Toomie) > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Google it. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > I tried googling 'it', but way, way too many results came up ;-). > > geo> He is wayne liquormen > > > > > > > Wayne is Ran Tsu Wei Wu Wei is well worth the time. toombaru Yes, sorry...mixed the names. He is also on the site I sent...maybe one day I will read him. Thanks. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 13/8/2009 21:52:59 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
