Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > The primordial awareness is not of time, yet fully understands the > > > timing of time as itself. > > > > > > Not that it has a self or that it is understanding an object. > > > > It is 'understanding as Being'. > > > > " Knowing " that isn't separable from being. > > > > > > It it knows anything......it is conceptually separate. > > > > toombaru So ... you have a concept of " concept " , eh? But do you really? Is there ever really any concept of a concept? Where would that occur? -- D -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:10 PM Re: timeless nonexperience Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > > -geo- > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > ;-) > > - D - > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > -geo- It refers to a past that isn't. - D - Once that is understood, there is nothing wrong with it. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:16 PM Re: timeless nonexperience Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond > > > understanding. > > > -geo- > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > ;-) > > > > - D - > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Out of language the dream of separation and its imaginary struggle emerge. > > There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. > > It is a highly evolved phenomenon. > > But there is a resulting tension that can lead to suffering if > consciousness identifies itself as the phantom that emerges into the > naming of things. > > The sense of me and other it a fear-based overlay. > > Its function is survival and reproduction of the species. > > But for the imaginary individual.....its a scary place. > > And there is no way around that. > > > > > > toombaru Yes but once this is seen....no more problems...all is clear. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it knows anything......it is conceptually separate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > 'Knowing' is direct, as 'being'. > > > > > > What is known indirectly (conceptual knowledge) is ignorance. > > > > > > What is " known " directly, that which isn't knowledge, isn't ignorance either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being and knowing exist only in relationship to other. > > Nothing has ever existed in relationship, and nothing ever will. > > Toom is in delusion. He is the delusion. > > > There is no direct knowing. > > There will never be for Toom... > > ... for one very good reason. LOL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it knows anything......it is conceptually separate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > 'Knowing' is direct, as 'being'. > > > > > > > > What is known indirectly (conceptual knowledge) is ignorance. > > > > > > > > What is " known " directly, that which isn't knowledge, isn't ignorance either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being and knowing exist only in relationship to other. > > > > Nothing has ever existed in relationship, and nothing ever will. > > > " Things " exist only in relationship. > > > > Toom is in delusion. He is the delusion. > > > > > > > Granted. > > Although some are in deeper delusion than others. And you don't see that this is how you project " things " ... these " some " who are in deeper delusion than " others " ??? And if I believe I am talking to you, and you are going to gain something from what I say ... I am projecting an " other " ??? -- D -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > Toom is in delusion. He is the delusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Granted. > > > > Although some are in deeper delusion than others. > > Oh, of course. > > There's an entire world out there in relationship. > > Some relating better than others, some worse... some in delusion, some not. > > And then... there's me. Eh? ;-). Yes, exactly. Never mind that the only way I know of any " them " is through " my experience " ... And never mind that when I say there is " no self " and " no one to get anything " the only meaning that " having no self " has, is from my experience, my memory, my way of using language. And I will dispute on and on the use of language and how it creates " things " - as if I am speaking to someone other than me, and there is any other language use creating things than my use of language. But there are all these other people out there, and they all use language differently, and some speak other languages I can't even speak, so there must be all these others, some more deluded than others, some not even understanding the conceptual overlay that I am so clear about, and some not even knowing that there is no self, the way I know there is no self. How can it be that the only way I conceptualize these others is from my own experience and through my own conceptuality? - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Out of language the dream of separation and its imaginary struggle emerge. > > > > There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. > > > > It is a highly evolved phenomenon. > > > > But there is a resulting tension that can lead to suffering if consciousness identifies itself as the phantom that emerges into the naming of things. > > > > The sense of me and other it a fear-based overlay. > > > > Its function is survival and reproduction of the species. > > > > But for the imaginary individual.....its a scary place. > > > > And there is no way around that. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Explanations are always of the past. > > There is no " the past. " > > - D - > One can learn a lot about a vessel by watching the wake. .....well......can learn a little........maybe. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Out of language the dream of separation and its imaginary struggle emerge. > > > > There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. > > > > It is a highly evolved phenomenon. > > > > But there is a resulting tension that can lead to suffering if consciousness identifies itself as the phantom that emerges into the naming of things. > > > > The sense of me and other it a fear-based overlay. > > > > Its function is survival and reproduction of the species. > > > > But for the imaginary individual.....its a scary place. > > > > And there is no way around that. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Explanations are always of the past. > > There is no " the past. " > > - D - When this is seen clearly, the whole kit 'n kaboodle is left behind to rot. Not that it was ever 'there' to begin with. Interest in 'what isn't', drops. And then 'what is', is clear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:10 PM > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > > > -geo- > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > ;-) > > > > - D - > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > -geo- > > It refers to a past that isn't. > > - D - > > Once that is understood, there is nothing wrong with it. > -geo- Once that is understood, it doesn't refer to anything. Wrong or right refer to the past. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The primordial awareness is not of time, yet fully understands the > > > > timing of time as itself. > > > > > > > > Not that it has a self or that it is understanding an object. > > > > > > It is 'understanding as Being'. > > > > > > " Knowing " that isn't separable from being. > > > > > > > > > > > If it knows anything......it is conceptually separate. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > So ... you have a concept of " concept " , eh? > > But do you really? > > The conceptual mind cannot be aware of anything unless it is converted to a concept. The sense of I am is merely the imaginary geocentric center that results for the naming of " things " . > Is there ever really any concept of a concept? > > > Where would that occur? > > > -- D -- > There is an attempt by conceptual thought to understand its conceptual own overlay. It has access to all things but itself. Simply because it is not a thing. It is the thinging machine. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:18 PM Re: timeless nonexperience Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:10 PM > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond > > > understanding. > > > -geo- > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > ;-) > > > > - D - > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > -geo- > > It refers to a past that isn't. > > - D - > > Once that is understood, there is nothing wrong with it. > -geo- Once that is understood, it doesn't refer to anything. Wrong or right refer to the past. - D - I suppose " sacrilegious " in " invention of language is sacrilegious " is referring to the present...and is neither right nor wrong... :>) -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it knows anything......it is conceptually separate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > 'Knowing' is direct, as 'being'. > > > > > > > > > > What is known indirectly (conceptual knowledge) is ignorance. > > > > > > > > > > What is " known " directly, that which isn't knowledge, isn't ignorance either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being and knowing exist only in relationship to other. > > > > > > Nothing has ever existed in relationship, and nothing ever will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Things " exist only in relationship. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toom is in delusion. He is the delusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Granted. > > > > Although some are in deeper delusion than others. > > > And you don't see that this is how you project " things " ... > > these " some " who are in deeper delusion than " others " ??? > > > And if I believe I am talking to you, and you are going to gain something from what I say ... I am projecting an " other " ??? > > > -- D -- > Of course you are. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Out of language the dream of separation and its imaginary struggle emerge. > > > > > > There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. > > > > > > It is a highly evolved phenomenon. > > > > > > But there is a resulting tension that can lead to suffering if consciousness identifies itself as the phantom that emerges into the naming of things. > > > > > > The sense of me and other it a fear-based overlay. > > > > > > Its function is survival and reproduction of the species. > > > > > > But for the imaginary individual.....its a scary place. > > > > > > And there is no way around that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Explanations are always of the past. > > > > There is no " the past. " > > > > - D - > > > > > > One can learn a lot about a vessel by watching the wake. > > ....well......can learn a little........maybe. > > > > > toombaru There isn't anything to learn, because there is no learner. There is just an ever-vanishing wake, with no knower of it, located within it. It only becomes an experience " in the past. " So, no experience ever occurred. As you inadvertently pointed out, the sense of a being engaging with a reality has much to do with experiences of pain ... Just an ever-vanishing wake, an image of an image of an image ... endlessly evaporating as soon as " registering " ... Never actually registering, because nowhere to register ... Always " as if " ... The actual present (which can't be communicated) has no contents, no explorer, hence nothing to explore. (And Geo, this doesn't interfere with doing math.) No adventure to be had. No description to be offered. -- D -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > > -geo- > > > > > > It refers to a past that isn't. > > > > > > - D - > > There's nothing 'wrong' with that. > > It certainly has some utility, in terms of the exchange of information, and getting along in 'everyday life'. If you feel like you're getting along in every day life, then you are in the bubble of time. If you are involved in exchanges of information that have utility for you, then you are interacting with others and doing useful things with information, such as surviving. However, all of that occurs only in the past. It never happens, it only has happened, is past, is ever as if. One being aware, is not " inside " the bubble, giving and receiving information. There is merely choiceless awareness of images vanishing, no one inside it, no one getting anything out of it ... no matter how " real " the experience of it may seem, there's no position to be held there, no duration of it. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:10 PM > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > > -geo- > > > > It refers to a past that isn't. > > > > - D - > > > > Once that is understood, there is nothing wrong with it. > > -geo- > > Once that is understood, it doesn't refer to anything. > > Wrong or right refer to the past. > > - D - > The idea that the conceptual mind can morph itself into a non-conceptual mind is the great hope.......of the conceptual mind. It imagines a perfectly peaceful existence......where its dream of separation simply evaporates. It wants its cake and to be it at the same time. It's a tricky little monkey. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The primordial awareness is not of time, yet fully understands the > > > > > timing of time as itself. > > > > > > > > > > Not that it has a self or that it is understanding an object. > > > > > > > > It is 'understanding as Being'. > > > > > > > > " Knowing " that isn't separable from being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it knows anything......it is conceptually separate. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > So ... you have a concept of " concept " , eh? > > > > But do you really? > > > > > > > The conceptual mind cannot be aware of anything unless it is converted to a concept. > > The sense of I am is merely the imaginary geocentric center that results for the naming of " things " . > > > > > > Is there ever really any concept of a concept? > > > > > > Where would that occur? > > > > > > -- D -- > > > > > > > There is an attempt by conceptual thought to understand its conceptual own overlay. > > It has access to all things but itself. > > Simply because it is not a thing. > > It is the thinging machine. > > > > > > toombaru What the hell " things " are you talking about??? Some thing existing independently from what you're calling " conceptual thought " ? But if there are no such things, then what is a conceptual thought? If it can't observe itself, then how can it hold an idea that there is a conceptual thought occurring? Or a conceptual overlay??? - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:18 PM > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:10 PM > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond > > > > understanding. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > > -geo- > > > > It refers to a past that isn't. > > > > - D - > > > > Once that is understood, there is nothing wrong with it. > > -geo- > > Once that is understood, it doesn't refer to anything. > > Wrong or right refer to the past. > > - D - > > I suppose " sacrilegious " in " invention of language is sacrilegious " is > referring to the present...and is neither right nor wrong... :>) > -geo- I meant it as humor. Smiles, - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:58 PM Re: timeless nonexperience Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond > > > > > understanding. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Out of language the dream of separation and its imaginary struggle > > > emerge. > > > > > > There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. > > > > > > It is a highly evolved phenomenon. > > > > > > But there is a resulting tension that can lead to suffering if > > > consciousness identifies itself as the phantom that emerges into the > > > naming of things. > > > > > > The sense of me and other it a fear-based overlay. > > > > > > Its function is survival and reproduction of the species. > > > > > > But for the imaginary individual.....its a scary place. > > > > > > And there is no way around that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Explanations are always of the past. > > > > There is no " the past. " > > > > - D - > > > > > > One can learn a lot about a vessel by watching the wake. > > ....well......can learn a little........maybe. > > > > > toombaru There isn't anything to learn, because there is no learner. There is just an ever-vanishing wake, with no knower of it, located within it. It only becomes an experience " in the past. " So, no experience ever occurred. As you inadvertently pointed out, the sense of a being engaging with a reality has much to do with experiences of pain ... Just an ever-vanishing wake, an image of an image of an image ... endlessly evaporating as soon as " registering " ... Never actually registering, because nowhere to register ... Always " as if " ... The actual present (which can't be communicated) has no contents, no explorer, hence nothing to explore. (And Geo, this doesn't interfere with doing math.) geo> ......thanks god...and what about tic tac toe? No adventure to be had. No description to be offered. -- D -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The primordial awareness is not of time, yet fully understands the > > > > > > timing of time as itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not that it has a self or that it is understanding an object. > > > > > > > > > > It is 'understanding as Being'. > > > > > > > > > > " Knowing " that isn't separable from being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it knows anything......it is conceptually separate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > So ... you have a concept of " concept " , eh? > > > > > > But do you really? > > > > > > > > > > > > The conceptual mind cannot be aware of anything unless it is converted to a concept. > > > > The sense of I am is merely the imaginary geocentric center that results for the naming of " things " . > > > > > > > > > > > Is there ever really any concept of a concept? > > > > > > > > > Where would that occur? > > > > > > > > > -- D -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is an attempt by conceptual thought to understand its conceptual own overlay. > > > > It has access to all things but itself. > > > > Simply because it is not a thing. > > > > It is the thinging machine. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > What the hell " things " are you talking about??? > > Some thing existing independently from what you're calling " conceptual thought " ? > > But if there are no such things, then what is a conceptual thought? > > If it can't observe itself, then how can it hold an idea that there is a conceptual thought occurring? > > Or a conceptual overlay??? > > > - D - > It can observe its own wake. It IS that observation. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it knows anything......it is conceptually separate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Knowing' is direct, as 'being'. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is known indirectly (conceptual knowledge) is ignorance. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is " known " directly, that which isn't knowledge, isn't ignorance either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being and knowing exist only in relationship to other. > > > > > > > > Nothing has ever existed in relationship, and nothing ever will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Things " exist only in relationship. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toom is in delusion. He is the delusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Granted. > > > > > > Although some are in deeper delusion than others. > > > > > > And you don't see that this is how you project " things " ... > > > > these " some " who are in deeper delusion than " others " ??? > > > > > > And if I believe I am talking to you, and you are going to gain something from what I say ... I am projecting an " other " ??? > > > > > > -- D -- > > > > > > Of course you are. > > > > toombaru That's what I said. Of course I am. Thanks for providing the echo. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > It refers to a past that isn't. > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > There's nothing 'wrong' with that. > > > > It certainly has some utility, in terms of the exchange of information, and getting along in 'everyday life'. > > > > > > Only when that to which it refers has a physical counterpart. > > > > > toombaru Precisely. And there is no " out there " that it can refer to, that it can match. Mental and physical are co-arising, and co-dissolving. -- D -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:10 PM > > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > It refers to a past that isn't. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Once that is understood, there is nothing wrong with it. > > > -geo- > > > > Once that is understood, it doesn't refer to anything. > > > > Wrong or right refer to the past. > > > > - D - > > > > > > > The idea that the conceptual mind can morph itself into a non-conceptual mind is the great hope.......of the conceptual mind. > > It imagines a perfectly peaceful existence......where its dream of separation simply evaporates. > > It wants its cake and to be it at the same time. > > > It's a tricky little monkey. > > > > toombaru How can you not get sick of this endless reiteration of talking about what " it " does ... At the same time you say there are no " things " ... At what point do you get sick of asserting what you're negating, and negating what you're asserting? - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:10 PM > > > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > > > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > > > > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > It refers to a past that isn't. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > Once that is understood, there is nothing wrong with it. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Once that is understood, it doesn't refer to anything. > > > > > > Wrong or right refer to the past. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea that the conceptual mind can morph itself into a non-conceptual mind is the great hope.......of the conceptual mind. > > > > It imagines a perfectly peaceful existence......where its dream of separation simply evaporates. > > > > It wants its cake and to be it at the same time. > > > > > > It's a tricky little monkey. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > How can you not get sick of this endless reiteration of talking about what " it " does ... > > > At the same time you say there are no " things " ... > > > At what point do you get sick of asserting what you're negating, and negating what you're asserting? > > > - D - > No. :-0 toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:58 PM > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > > > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond > > > > > > understanding. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > > > > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Out of language the dream of separation and its imaginary struggle > > > > emerge. > > > > > > > > There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. > > > > > > > > It is a highly evolved phenomenon. > > > > > > > > But there is a resulting tension that can lead to suffering if > > > > consciousness identifies itself as the phantom that emerges into the > > > > naming of things. > > > > > > > > The sense of me and other it a fear-based overlay. > > > > > > > > Its function is survival and reproduction of the species. > > > > > > > > But for the imaginary individual.....its a scary place. > > > > > > > > And there is no way around that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > Explanations are always of the past. > > > > > > There is no " the past. " > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > One can learn a lot about a vessel by watching the wake. > > > > ....well......can learn a little........maybe. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > There isn't anything to learn, because there is no learner. > > There is just an ever-vanishing wake, with no knower of it, located within > it. > > It only becomes an experience " in the past. " > > So, no experience ever occurred. > > As you inadvertently pointed out, the sense of a being engaging with a > reality has much to do with experiences of pain ... > > Just an ever-vanishing wake, an image of an image of an image ... endlessly > evaporating as soon as " registering " ... > > Never actually registering, because nowhere to register ... > > Always " as if " ... > > The actual present (which can't be communicated) has no contents, no > explorer, hence nothing to explore. > > (And Geo, this doesn't interfere with doing math.) > > geo> ......thanks god...and what about tic tac toe? D: I thought you'd never ask. Here's my first move: X Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > It can observe its own wake. > > It IS that observation. > > > > > toombaru It is what it observes. For that very reason, it is NOT that wake, and is not an it. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
