Guest guest Report post Posted November 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:04 PM > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have never been born, so I wouldn't know. > > > > - D - > > > > Why beeing unborn is an impediment to know anything that is known by the > > limited mind that is made to know it? > > -geo- > > There is no impediment. > > Trying to figure out what someone else knows, is an impediment. > > The unborn has no one else to figure out. > > - D - > > Well... it sounded a bit personal I admit - jsut sounded, though. I was > thinking in general impersonal terms. > -geo- The unborn is utterly impersonal. And thus, the born, the personal, turns out to be impersonal. Although it may look very personal at first. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 19, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:41 PM Re: The Absolute Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:04 PM > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have never been born, so I wouldn't know. > > > > - D - > > > > Why beeing unborn is an impediment to know anything that is known by the > > limited mind that is made to know it? > > -geo- > > There is no impediment. > > Trying to figure out what someone else knows, is an impediment. > > The unborn has no one else to figure out. > > - D - > > Well... it sounded a bit personal I admit - jsut sounded, though. I was > thinking in general impersonal terms. > -geo- The unborn is utterly impersonal. And thus, the born, the personal, turns out to be impersonal. Although it may look very personal at first. - D - Within the born - which is impersonal - runs a stream of personification, of illusion as separateness -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:04 PM > > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never been born, so I wouldn't know. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Why beeing unborn is an impediment to know anything that is known by the > > > limited mind that is made to know it? > > > -geo- > > > > There is no impediment. > > > > Trying to figure out what someone else knows, is an impediment. > > > > The unborn has no one else to figure out. > > > > - D - > > > > Well... it sounded a bit personal I admit - jsut sounded, though. I was > > thinking in general impersonal terms. > > -geo- > > The unborn is utterly impersonal. > > And thus, the born, the personal, turns out to be impersonal. > > Although it may look very personal at first. > > - D - > The unborn is neither personal nor impersonal, it neither does exist nor does it not exist. The born in now way is related to the unborn besides in wicked minds spoilt by nondual thinking. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, November 18, 2009 1:48 PM > > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:52 PM > > > > > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Tuesday, November 17, 2009 1:58 PM > > > > > > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > Tim G. > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Monday, November 16, 2009 11:30 PM > > > > > > > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's that the relative being comes to a full stop. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It realizes that it can never comprehend. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It can't even comprehend that it can't comprehend, or what > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > can't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comprehend. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed... one realizes that there was never anything to > > > > > > > > > comprehend. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'relative being' is only thought's tendency to divide the > > > > > > > > > indivisible, apparently as a way to ensure survival of the > > > > > > > > > organism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why this tends to goes so far beyond the necessary in human > > > > > > > > > beings, > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > can't comprehend :-p. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's a puzzle within a mystery, wrapped in an enigma. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scratching head, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may have something to do with 'being able to project my own > > > > > > > death', > > > > > > > once > > > > > > > I feel that 'I exist'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " I exist " (thus) " I will die " becomes a sort of broken > > > > > > > thought-loop, > > > > > > > existing only for its own continuation, and stirring up all sorts > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > silliness in the process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The issue is 'time', and the associated dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. This is the basic fear-program that runs time-based > > > > > > > dream-pseudo-existence > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never been born, so I wouldn't know. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > But you know you dont know? You dont know what? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > In other words, I am not encapsulated by a fear-based program or an > > > > > existence in time. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > I suppose for one who feels as... and is able to say " all is > > > > > consciousness " > > > > > to talk about some " unborn " must sound absurd or imagination? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > Was this so-called consciousness that all is, something that was > > > > born? > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Fwiw, I think " all is consciousness " is a cheesy way to say " there's no > > > such thing as objectivity " . > > > > > > Also fwiw, I don't recall you ever uttering the words " all is > > > consciousness " . Thought that was Ramesh Balsekar's thing. > > > > Yes. Not my thing. > > > > Just seems limited, saying all is x. > > > > Maybe it's worth a try, but anything said falls short. > > > > All is consciousness. > > -d- > > > > Well...usually, people refer to consciousness as manifestation, the world, > > or mind/body, or all of those together. Hardly ever something unborn > > -geo- > > > Yes, the born consciousness can't know the unborn. > > Trying to give a name to the unborn (like Self, Consciousness, Being, God) gives the impression something is known about it by the consciousness of a limited (born) individual. > > The born can't know the unborn. > > Hence the advaita teaching about the child of a barren mother - the child being the born consciousness, or body-mind-consciousness. > > The knowing which is unborn, is not commented upon, not languaged. And thus arises the 'difficulty', when a relative being wants to communicate with another relative being. Two falsities end up exchanging mutual falsehoods. And there isn't even an exchange happening, as neither relative being is actually there. One ends up essentially talking to oneself, and being spoken to by oneself. Which is fine... can definitely be fun ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > And thus arises the 'difficulty', when a relative being wants to communicate with another relative being. > > Two falsities end up exchanging mutual falsehoods. > > And there isn't even an exchange happening, as neither relative being is actually there. > > One ends up essentially talking to oneself, and being spoken to by oneself. > > Which is fine... can definitely be fun ;-). > What is 'duality' after all? A child playing on a playground. Running through tunnels, sliding down slides, swinging up and down on swingsets, hiding inside big tires. Playing hide and go seek. Playing tag. " You're IT " ... waiting for replies ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:04 PM > > > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never been born, so I wouldn't know. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > Why beeing unborn is an impediment to know anything that is known by the > > > > limited mind that is made to know it? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > There is no impediment. > > > > > > Trying to figure out what someone else knows, is an impediment. > > > > > > The unborn has no one else to figure out. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Well... it sounded a bit personal I admit - jsut sounded, though. I was > > > thinking in general impersonal terms. > > > -geo- > > > > The unborn is utterly impersonal. > > > > And thus, the born, the personal, turns out to be impersonal. > > > > Although it may look very personal at first. > > > > - D - > > > > > The unborn is neither personal nor impersonal, it neither does exist nor does it not exist. > > The born in now way is related to the unborn besides in wicked minds spoilt by nondual thinking. > > Werner this is just an inborn idea you have werner. why are you so personally attached to the personal impersonal? you just seem to want to be argumentative. this may be the result of a spoiled upbringing. but that's just an impersonal suggestion. don't take it personally. it neither exists nor does not exist. it's not related to anything. see? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > And thus arises the 'difficulty', when a relative being wants to communicate with another relative being. > > > > Two falsities end up exchanging mutual falsehoods. > > > > And there isn't even an exchange happening, as neither relative being is actually there. > > > > One ends up essentially talking to oneself, and being spoken to by oneself. > > > > Which is fine... can definitely be fun ;-). > > > > What is 'duality' after all? A child playing on a playground. > > Running through tunnels, sliding down slides, swinging up and down on swingsets, hiding inside big tires. > > Playing hide and go seek. Playing tag. > > " You're IT " ... waiting for replies ;-). after all? no.. duality is the essence of the all before anything is. and you are not it. why tag yourself so? no reply is being waited for. none is needed. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 19, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:51 PM Re: The Absolute Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have never been born, so I wouldn't know. > > > > - D - > > > > Why beeing unborn is an impediment to know anything that is known by the > > limited mind that is made to know it? > > -geo- > > There is no impediment. > > Trying to figure out what someone else knows, is an impediment. > > The unborn has no one else to figure out. > > - D - The born can seem to impede the unborn. Until it's understood that, just as the unborn is born, the born is unborn. -tim- The unborn is born? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:51 PM > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never been born, so I wouldn't know. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Why beeing unborn is an impediment to know anything that is known by the > > > limited mind that is made to know it? > > > -geo- > > > > There is no impediment. > > > > Trying to figure out what someone else knows, is an impediment. > > > > The unborn has no one else to figure out. > > > > - D - > > The born can seem to impede the unborn. > > Until it's understood that, just as the unborn is born, the born is unborn. > -tim- > > The unborn is born? > -geo- The word " born " is unborn, and so... so what? So wh00t? Abby-so-w0000t? ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Well... it sounded a bit personal I admit - jsut sounded, though. I was > > thinking in general impersonal terms. > > -geo- > > The unborn is utterly impersonal. > > And thus, the born, the personal, turns out to be impersonal. > > Although it may look very personal at first. > > - D - > > Within the born - which is impersonal - runs a stream of personification, of > illusion as separateness > -geo- Yes, definitive separation as factually real is illusion. Not tricked by illusion: even the illusion isn't arising in separation. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Yes, the born consciousness can't know the unborn. > > > > Trying to give a name to the unborn (like Self, Consciousness, Being, God) gives the impression something is known about it by the consciousness of a limited (born) individual. > > > > The born can't know the unborn. > > > > Hence the advaita teaching about the child of a barren mother - the child being the born consciousness, or body-mind-consciousness. > > > > The knowing which is unborn, is not commented upon, not languaged. > > And thus arises the 'difficulty', when a relative being wants to communicate with another relative being. > > Two falsities end up exchanging mutual falsehoods. > > And there isn't even an exchange happening, as neither relative being is actually there. > > One ends up essentially talking to oneself, and being spoken to by oneself. > > Which is fine... can definitely be fun ;-). It's really impossible to say " who " is doing the talking - because there isn't anyone separate from " talking happening " who is doing anything. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Well... it sounded a bit personal I admit - jsut sounded, though. I was > > > thinking in general impersonal terms. > > > -geo- > > > > The unborn is utterly impersonal. > > > > And thus, the born, the personal, turns out to be impersonal. > > > > Although it may look very personal at first. > > > > - D - > > > > Within the born - which is impersonal - runs a stream of personification, of > > illusion as separateness > > -geo- > > Yes, definitive separation as factually real is illusion. > > Not tricked by illusion: even the illusion isn't arising in separation. > > > - Dan - why answer? you evidently have been tricked. illusion for whom? illusion by whom? you seem to be separated from the Actual. and remarkably you believe that you can separate yourself.. from THAT and make a cogent comment. indeed.. you have been flim-flammed.. by an illusion of an illusion (self). as always. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, the born consciousness can't know the unborn. > > > > > > Trying to give a name to the unborn (like Self, Consciousness, Being, God) gives the impression something is known about it by the consciousness of a limited (born) individual. > > > > > > The born can't know the unborn. > > > > > > Hence the advaita teaching about the child of a barren mother - the child being the born consciousness, or body-mind-consciousness. > > > > > > The knowing which is unborn, is not commented upon, not languaged. > > > > And thus arises the 'difficulty', when a relative being wants to communicate with another relative being. > > > > Two falsities end up exchanging mutual falsehoods. > > > > And there isn't even an exchange happening, as neither relative being is actually there. > > > > One ends up essentially talking to oneself, and being spoken to by oneself. > > > > Which is fine... can definitely be fun ;-). > > It's really impossible to say " who " is doing the talking - because there isn't anyone separate from " talking happening " who is doing anything. > > - D - why then do you attempt.. to make the impossible..possible..by commenting? just so.. it's a sad undertaking. but in fact.. there is nothing sad about foolishness. it' inescapable. " you " must needs be just feel compelled and driven by needy desire.. and therefore feel that you MUST make comment. this action has been being observed for some time. you however seem to miss the significance of it.. and the real insignificance of purpose that it entails. it's a hoot. thank you. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, the born consciousness can't know the unborn. > > > > > > Trying to give a name to the unborn (like Self, Consciousness, Being, God) gives the impression something is known about it by the consciousness of a limited (born) individual. > > > > > > The born can't know the unborn. > > > > > > Hence the advaita teaching about the child of a barren mother - the child being the born consciousness, or body-mind-consciousness. > > > > > > The knowing which is unborn, is not commented upon, not languaged. > > > > And thus arises the 'difficulty', when a relative being wants to communicate with another relative being. > > > > Two falsities end up exchanging mutual falsehoods. > > > > And there isn't even an exchange happening, as neither relative being is actually there. > > > > One ends up essentially talking to oneself, and being spoken to by oneself. > > > > Which is fine... can definitely be fun ;-). > > It's really impossible to say " who " is doing the talking - because there isn't anyone separate from " talking happening " who is doing anything. > > - D - Correct. Everyone is noone. Everything is nothing - it is the simple to the complex, and the complex to the simple, all the same = all and nothing. The same. No difference. -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, the born consciousness can't know the unborn. > > > > > > Trying to give a name to the unborn (like Self, Consciousness, Being, God) gives the impression something is known about it by the consciousness of a limited (born) individual. > > > > > > The born can't know the unborn. > > > > > > Hence the advaita teaching about the child of a barren mother - the child being the born consciousness, or body-mind-consciousness. > > > > > > The knowing which is unborn, is not commented upon, not languaged. > > > > And thus arises the 'difficulty', when a relative being wants to communicate with another relative being. > > > > Two falsities end up exchanging mutual falsehoods. > > > > And there isn't even an exchange happening, as neither relative being is actually there. > > > > One ends up essentially talking to oneself, and being spoken to by oneself. > > > > Which is fine... can definitely be fun ;-). > > It's really impossible to say " who " is doing the talking - because there isn't anyone separate from " talking happening " who is doing anything. > > - D - Now that ya mention it... that's true. The 'other side' of the uncarved brick is the same side as 'this side'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the born consciousness can't know the unborn. > > > > > > > > Trying to give a name to the unborn (like Self, Consciousness, Being, God) gives the impression something is known about it by the consciousness of a limited (born) individual. > > > > > > > > The born can't know the unborn. > > > > > > > > Hence the advaita teaching about the child of a barren mother - the child being the born consciousness, or body-mind-consciousness. > > > > > > > > The knowing which is unborn, is not commented upon, not languaged. > > > > > > And thus arises the 'difficulty', when a relative being wants to communicate with another relative being. > > > > > > Two falsities end up exchanging mutual falsehoods. > > > > > > And there isn't even an exchange happening, as neither relative being is actually there. > > > > > > One ends up essentially talking to oneself, and being spoken to by oneself. > > > > > > Which is fine... can definitely be fun ;-). > > > > It's really impossible to say " who " is doing the talking - because there isn't anyone separate from " talking happening " who is doing anything. > > > > - D - > > Now that ya mention it... that's true. > > The 'other side' of the uncarved brick is the same side as 'this side'. now that's very NOW of you. or is that: THAT is very NOW of " you " ? maybe it's irrelevant..neither " you " nor " now " nor NOW " are real. say! even " real " is not " REAL " . if you know what i mean.. even though there is no " you " nor " me " .. just some inchoate mish-mash of stuff that isn't.. within the Great Nothingness that cannot be named. aw jeez is this stuff ever clever and wise...or what? maybe i should start capitalizing my i.. like " I " .. just like you do. even though there is no " you " .. within or without the Eternal Sunshine...in the " Vast Darkness " . just like " me " and everything dude. God man! I just keep coming up with them here and all... NOW. DAZZLING! and you who is me already and always KNOW this.. as the " other side of the brick " and all.. the One and Only Super Brick that has no " other " etc. etc. and yet there is no " etc " because there is only THIS as THAT... which can be called a brick because it doesn't matter anyway. boy oh boy.. danny and timmy.. (who are me anyway).. just keep rolling along.. like the tumbling tumbleweed. I AM proud of you boys because I am you-hoo too: Sons of the Pioneers sorta. just like you both say as yourselves when you aren't being me. ....even though there is no such thing as " self " ..or " thing " or.. ring-a-ding-ding..there just ain't no words for 'IT " dudes. see here NOW gentlemen.. I'm in the CLUB! " we " are ONE and A-1 Aces of the WISE. and we do so love to show this to everyone even though.. there iz only UZ without second or other and everything.. like that there as Don Cherry sayz on " Hockey Night in Canada " . that is if you believe there is a Canada..or a night..or a Cherry.. or two or so and so on. OR..maybe it's the cheap booze. who knows? especially since there are no " whos " in the Uncreated Un-carved Brick. manifest as brick-a-brack on the shelf of everything that is not. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 20, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the born consciousness can't know the unborn. > > > > > > > > Trying to give a name to the unborn (like Self, Consciousness, Being, God) gives the impression something is known about it by the consciousness of a limited (born) individual. > > > > > > > > The born can't know the unborn. > > > > > > > > Hence the advaita teaching about the child of a barren mother - the child being the born consciousness, or body-mind-consciousness. > > > > > > > > The knowing which is unborn, is not commented upon, not languaged. > > > > > > And thus arises the 'difficulty', when a relative being wants to communicate with another relative being. > > > > > > Two falsities end up exchanging mutual falsehoods. > > > > > > And there isn't even an exchange happening, as neither relative being is actually there. > > > > > > One ends up essentially talking to oneself, and being spoken to by oneself. > > > > > > Which is fine... can definitely be fun ;-). > > > > It's really impossible to say " who " is doing the talking - because there isn't anyone separate from " talking happening " who is doing anything. > > > > - D - > > Now that ya mention it... that's true. > > The 'other side' of the uncarved brick is the same side as 'this side'. P: Absolut is the third largest brand of alcoholic spirits in the world after Bacardi and Smirnoff, marketed in 126 countries. The largest export market is the United States where close to 73 million litres were sold in 2003. More than 40% of the imported vodka in the United States is Absolut. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > Now that ya mention it... that's true. > > The 'other side' of the uncarved brick is the same side as 'this side'. Solid, man, solid. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > Now that ya mention it... that's true. > > > > The 'other side' of the uncarved brick is the same side as 'this side'. > > > Solid, man, solid. > > - D - Blockhead ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 21, 2009 Just because it feels cold does not mean it is cold. It has nothing to do with the mind other than its relationship with the second cause of existence. k Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Re: The Absolute > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > Distinguishing between is and is not is an activity of conceptual mind. > > > > - D - > > > > > > Yes it is. > > > > -geo- > > > > > No, it is not. > > 'Today it is cold' and 'today it is not cold', is that a concept or a > classification ? > > Werner > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 21, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:19 PM > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:25 PM > > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I think...ramesh, wine liquormen, pete, toombaru...and some > > > others...There > > > are those who strive to fit " non-duality " into the one movement they > > > call > > > consciousness. It somehow works out.....but it lacks the essence > > > -geo- > > > > Yes, 'all is consciousness' makes little sense, unless one is trying to > > say > > " there isn't such a thing as objectivity " (which is true). > > > > I used to joke on my old " Fewtchykrishnamurti " list that " All is > > Consciousness " is something they teach to anesthesiologists, to help them > > wake people up after surgery ;-). > > = > > Ha...yea. I admit that I was there at one time. It really cleans some - or > > most - of the mess. One is able to say there is only THIS. But if one is > > honest and tries to " understand " /contemplate/meditate the nature of this > > what is....the observer/observed thing becomes strange. It is a thing > > observeing itself...and then one MUST say that they are one. It is subtle > > and not so - at the same time. In fact one MUST " BE " in order to land.. > > :>) > > -geo- > > what could be " strange " in a natural state? > > " being " and " non-being " are irrelevant here. > > This is the most " raw " and " innate " condition of all conditions. > > It is the truly Unconditional of any and all possible condition. > > It is (at it's most natural) a " being there " as " Identity " .. > > without " other " or " self " .. > > nor is This with recognition of possession or absence of same. > > This is Truth. > > but it's not possible to explain. > > by " Infection " It is become Awareness. > > No one is outside nor inside This. > > all talk falls flat. > > but..what the hell else can be done? > > Nothing is as Nothing does.. > > and It does nothing. > > Hark the Herald Angels sing! > > for This is Witness and the Bringer of Great Joy! > > it's a beginning of sorts... as it were. > > Rejoice! > > .b b.b. > > GOOOOOD MORNING VIETNAAAAMM!!!!! > What can I say. Wanna bet? Nelson Piquet Jr is lining up in the next years > grid. What a bunch of hypocrites!!! > -geo- hypocrites always come in bunches. in fact.. without " bunches " .. the notion of being hypocritical would have no meaning. now here we have something strange. since all is One..including " bunches'.. we have a self defying parody in that notion of hypocrisy. but that's ok. let the games begin! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 21, 2009 - BobN Nisargadatta Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:19 PM Re: The Absolute Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:25 PM > Re: The Absolute > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think...ramesh, wine liquormen, pete, toombaru...and some > > others...There > > are those who strive to fit " non-duality " into the one movement they > > call > > consciousness. It somehow works out.....but it lacks the essence > > -geo- > > Yes, 'all is consciousness' makes little sense, unless one is trying to > say > " there isn't such a thing as objectivity " (which is true). > > I used to joke on my old " Fewtchykrishnamurti " list that " All is > Consciousness " is something they teach to anesthesiologists, to help them > wake people up after surgery ;-). > = > Ha...yea. I admit that I was there at one time. It really cleans some - or > most - of the mess. One is able to say there is only THIS. But if one is > honest and tries to " understand " /contemplate/meditate the nature of this > what is....the observer/observed thing becomes strange. It is a thing > observeing itself...and then one MUST say that they are one. It is subtle > and not so - at the same time. In fact one MUST " BE " in order to land.. > :>) > -geo- what could be " strange " in a natural state? " being " and " non-being " are irrelevant here. This is the most " raw " and " innate " condition of all conditions. It is the truly Unconditional of any and all possible condition. It is (at it's most natural) a " being there " as " Identity " .. without " other " or " self " .. nor is This with recognition of possession or absence of same. This is Truth. but it's not possible to explain. by " Infection " It is become Awareness. No one is outside nor inside This. all talk falls flat. but..what the hell else can be done? Nothing is as Nothing does.. and It does nothing. Hark the Herald Angels sing! for This is Witness and the Bringer of Great Joy! it's a beginning of sorts... as it were. Rejoice! ..b b.b. GOOOOOD MORNING VIETNAAAAMM!!!!! What can I say. Wanna bet? Nelson Piquet Jr is lining up in the next years grid. What a bunch of hypocrites!!! -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 21, 2009 ....by " Infection " It is become Awareness. -bbb- What do you mean? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > ...by " Infection " It is become Awareness. > -bbb- > > What do you mean? > -geo- i grow old and weary but will here uselessly try and explain: like " feeling " the pulse of a strong electric current.. in the mere act of being located near (in terms of " physical space " ).. a strong electrical source... it is then that a " Force " is known as a " flowing through " .. similar in kind to the sense of flowing waters.. rippling through the " body " and yet never (at the " time " ) does any actual.. " joining " or " contacting " occur. like the transmission of a " disease " without actual " touching " it is by somewhat similar " means " .. that knowledge of Identity as THAT become Recognized. and the two are then ONE. This is a peculiar Understanding. it Arises without " person " . a common mistake made in higher mediation or thought.. is the seeking for a subtle object of Recognition.. i.e: something that could be experienced. This is not the situation nor Condition.. this Adumbration of Divinity.. Aligns with a sense of simply tremendous Authority Life grows darker as we " go on " . till only one " Vestal Light " is left shining. and that is Faith in Certitude. THIS is neither Bliss nor Agony. the closest wording that may be employed regarding It.. (in terms of Quality)..is " Satisfaction " . yet it is High Indifference of an Order beyond human ken. HERE...even Satisfaction is dropped as a sort of need or desire. Old age..like solitude and sorrow..has...Revelation. and aging..age and or " dotage " .. are not one of the beauties of " Creation " .. however...the Case (of aging).. is most definitely one of Initial Conception's " Harmonies " . Jubilation!. i attend now therefore to the words of Madame Anne Sophie Swetchine: " Poor humanity! - so dependent..so insignificant..and yet so great! " Wonderful Wonderful!.. and before all birthrights. IT is THIS. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 22, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Well... it sounded a bit personal I admit - jsut sounded, though. I was > > > > thinking in general impersonal terms. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > The unborn is utterly impersonal. > > > > > > And thus, the born, the personal, turns out to be impersonal. > > > > > > Although it may look very personal at first. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Within the born - which is impersonal - runs a stream of personification, of > > > illusion as separateness > > > -geo- > > > > Yes, definitive separation as factually real is illusion. > > > > Not tricked by illusion: even the illusion isn't arising in separation. > > > > > > - Dan - > > > why answer? > > you evidently have been tricked. > > illusion for whom? > > illusion by whom? > > you seem to be separated from the Actual. > > and remarkably you believe that you can separate yourself.. > > from THAT and make a cogent comment. > > indeed.. > > you have been flim-flammed.. > > by an illusion of an illusion (self). > > as always. > > .b b.b. > No'one' has been flim-falmmed by an illusion. The sense of self IS the illusion. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
