Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Indeed. Paradoxicaly (seemingly the door to the no-I must go throught > I. > Those who are never aware of their I can not transcend it. > -geo- It isn't really paradoxical, because the normal outlook is " I and Thou " . There are two paths... " I only " (Nisargadatta's) or " Thou only " (Bhakti, worship). Both of the above have been known to transcend " I and Thou " , and when this is transcended, both " I and thou " vanish together -- as they always arise together: Inner/outer, self/other, me/you, etc.... the dualistic poles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > His goal transcends and is antithetical to the sense of I am. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > It transcends, but is not antithetical at all, Toom. In fact, his main recommendation was to remain with the sense of " I Am " , until transcended. > > The " I Am " cannot be transcended through avoidance. This is plain impossible. In fact, the " I Am's " goal is to avoid, get rid of, change, escape itself. > > To lose oneself, find oneself. All else is mere conceptual repetition, thinking. All that we have that isn't thinking, is Being. > Seeing the unreality of the water in a mirage is all that needs be done to stop searching there for water. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Monday, August 24, 2009 7:50 PM Re: Foundation Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Indeed. Paradoxicaly (seemingly the door to the no-I must go throught > I. > Those who are never aware of their I can not transcend it. > -geo- It isn't really paradoxical, because the normal outlook is " I and Thou " . There are two paths... " I only " (Nisargadatta's) or " Thou only " (Bhakti, worship). Both of the above have been known to transcend " I and Thou " , and when this is transcended, both " I and thou " vanish together -- as they always arise together: Inner/outer, self/other, me/you, etc.... the dualistic poles. -t- I meant: Paradoxicaly (seemingly), the door to the no-I must go throught I. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Monday, August 24, 2009 7:50 PM > Re: Foundation > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Indeed. Paradoxicaly (seemingly the door to the no-I must go throught > I. > > Those who are never aware of their I can not transcend it. > > -geo- > > It isn't really paradoxical, because the normal outlook is " I and Thou " . > There are two paths... " I only " (Nisargadatta's) or " Thou only " (Bhakti, > worship). > > Both of the above have been known to transcend " I and Thou " , and when this > is transcended, both " I and thou " vanish together -- as they always arise > together: Inner/outer, self/other, me/you, etc.... the dualistic poles. > -t- > > I meant: > Paradoxicaly (seemingly), the door to the no-I must go throught I. > -geo- Right. So, to see that " I and Thou " arise together, explains the seeming paradox. When " Thou " (as something apart from here) vanishes, so does the I. Thus, the intense emphasis on " I only " , for the dualistic poles ('me/you') do not survive by themselves. They require each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Monday, August 24, 2009 7:50 PM > Re: Foundation > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Indeed. Paradoxicaly (seemingly the door to the no-I must go throught > I. > > Those who are never aware of their I can not transcend it. > > -geo- > > It isn't really paradoxical, because the normal outlook is " I and Thou " . > There are two paths... " I only " (Nisargadatta's) or " Thou only " (Bhakti, > worship). > > Both of the above have been known to transcend " I and Thou " , and when this > is transcended, both " I and thou " vanish together -- as they always arise > together: Inner/outer, self/other, me/you, etc.... the dualistic poles. > -t- > > I meant: > Paradoxicaly (seemingly), the door to the no-I must go throught I. > -geo- > When the I amness is seen for what it is....the center no longer holds. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > When the I amness is seen for what it is....the center no longer > holds. > > > toombaru It's never seen for what it is... because it isn't anything but the interaction between two poles, " me " and " you " , inner and outer, self and other. Neither exist in isolation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > When the I amness is seen for what it is....the center no longer > > holds. > > > > > > toombaru > > It's never seen for what it is... because it isn't anything but the interaction between two poles, " me " and " you " , inner and outer, self and other. Neither exist in isolation. > Ok.....when it is seen for what it isn't. :-) toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > When the I amness is seen for what it is....the center no longer > > > holds. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > It's never seen for what it is... because it isn't anything but the interaction between two poles, " me " and " you " , inner and outer, self and other. Neither exist in isolation. > > > > > > Ok.....when it is seen for what it isn't. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > toombaru Bzzzzt. I'm not going to be here to either see what it is, or to see what it isn't. When it drops or dissolves, one could say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 - fewtch Nisargadatta Monday, August 24, 2009 7:59 PM Re: Foundation Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Monday, August 24, 2009 7:50 PM > Re: Foundation > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Indeed. Paradoxicaly (seemingly the door to the no-I must go throught > > > I. > > Those who are never aware of their I can not transcend it. > > -geo- > > It isn't really paradoxical, because the normal outlook is " I and Thou " . > There are two paths... " I only " (Nisargadatta's) or " Thou only " (Bhakti, > worship). > > Both of the above have been known to transcend " I and Thou " , and when this > is transcended, both " I and thou " vanish together -- as they always arise > together: Inner/outer, self/other, me/you, etc.... the dualistic poles. > -t- > > I meant: > Paradoxicaly (seemingly), the door to the no-I must go throught I. > -geo- Right. So, to see that " I and Thou " arise together, explains the seeming paradox. When " Thou " (as something apart from here) vanishes, so does the I. Thus, the intense emphasis on " I only " , for the dualistic poles ('me/you') do not survive by themselves. They require each other. -t- Depends on the temperament of each person. You seem to focus in the I-you theme. I focus on the depth of understanding of the nature of the I . They lead to the same oneness - I suppose. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 24/8/2009 21:02:38 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > fewtch > Nisargadatta > Monday, August 24, 2009 7:59 PM > Re: Foundation > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > fewtch > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, August 24, 2009 7:50 PM > > Re: Foundation > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Indeed. Paradoxicaly (seemingly the door to the no-I must go throught > > > > I. > > > Those who are never aware of their I can not transcend it. > > > -geo- > > > > It isn't really paradoxical, because the normal outlook is " I and Thou " . > > There are two paths... " I only " (Nisargadatta's) or " Thou only " (Bhakti, > > worship). > > > > Both of the above have been known to transcend " I and Thou " , and when this > > is transcended, both " I and thou " vanish together -- as they always arise > > together: Inner/outer, self/other, me/you, etc.... the dualistic poles. > > -t- > > > > I meant: > > Paradoxicaly (seemingly), the door to the no-I must go throught I. > > -geo- > > Right. So, to see that " I and Thou " arise together, explains the seeming > paradox. When " Thou " (as something apart from here) vanishes, so does the I. > > Thus, the intense emphasis on " I only " , for the dualistic poles ('me/you') > do not survive by themselves. They require each other. > -t- > > Depends on the temperament of each person. You seem to focus in the I-you > theme. I focus on the depth of understanding of the nature of the I . They > lead to the same oneness - I suppose. > -geo- From my viewpoint, there is only Oneness... experiencing *herself* has I and Thou. See one has to have walked alone, and walked with aloneness. ~A > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 > Tested on: 24/8/2009 21:02:38 > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > From my viewpoint, there is only Oneness... experiencing *herself* > has I and Thou. > > See one has to have walked alone, and walked with aloneness. One always walks alone... no choice in the matter. Anna is not unique in this. And, that's a good thing ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > From my viewpoint, there is only Oneness... experiencing *herself* > has I and Thou. > > > > See one has to have walked alone, and walked with aloneness. > > One always walks alone... no choice in the matter. > > Anna is not unique in this. And, that's a good thing ;-). > Indeed, Martha, Indeed! ;-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
