Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body identification as a stumbling block. > > It is not sufficient to say " who is there to identify? " or " there is no one to identify. " > > Unless there is thorough understanding of " there is no one to identify, " it is just words, just a concept being maintained within the context of body-mind identity. > > One could say, " Awareness misunderstands its situation when there is body-mind identity being maintained. " > > To say there is no struggle involved in disidentifying, because there is no one to identify, is only true if and as there is a full understanding. > > Identification isn't something that is recognized from without, by someone else who tells you about it. It is recognized from within, so to speak. Ultimately, there is no without or within, but again, this needs to be understood, or it is just words being believed. > > One of the claims made by false teachers is that they will undermine your identification through what they say, require you to do, by attacking your so-called ego (which doesn't actually exist), etc. It is impossible for anyone else outside of the process of identifying to release the identification. > > Body-mind identification involves many aspects. There can be identification with feeling states, with the idea of defense, or attack, with having, with losing, with pain, with pleasure, with memory-based concepts of existence or status. > > But at its heart, the identification is the intention to maintain an ongoing point of location within a self centered reality. > > There is no one else to release this identification, just the one identifying. > > One could say that the body-mind system, by a tensioning activity, is maintaining states as if identification were occurring - yet, in actuality, there never has been nor could be identification. > > Indeed, there is no one to do any identifying. > > Once clear on this, the body-mind no longer is experienced as a thing with its own continuity. It is a series of states, always in flux. With no one " inhabiting " the flux. > > Nonidentification doesn't mean anything at all in terms of how a body-mind is supposed to behave. It doesn't mean that it will engage in sitting meditation, or follow a spiritual program, or avoid pleasure, or never experience tension or anxiety, or only have certain types of lofty thoughts. > > The happiness and peace of *what is,* is not a particular body-mind state, nor is it the possession of a particular located body-mind. > > > - Dan - uh huh. yeah i guess so. so what's your point? maybe you don't have one? ok let's see... it's Thursday today. it's kinda cold here too. there's no particular place to go..or any particular " thing " to say. but let's post to be posted. to post is the most! would you like to talk about it? or maybe comic book collections.. or some new stamps received on approval? what about that new movie at the Bijou? one could say that this drivel.. relieves that old " tensioning " (sic. [haha!]) activity. and that this disidentifying (sic. again!) stuff.. is better than twiddling your thumbs. well maybe anyway. now c'mon Danny Boy..give us a smile. you just needed to post something..anything.. and you know it. having a slow day? :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > uh huh. > > yeah i guess so. > > so what's your point? > > maybe you don't have one? > > ok let's see... > > it's Thursday today. > > it's kinda cold here too. > > there's no particular place to go..or any particular " thing " to say. > > but let's post to be posted. > > to post is the most! > > would you like to talk about it? > > or maybe comic book collections.. > > or some new stamps received on approval? > > what about that new movie at the Bijou? > > one could say that this drivel.. > > relieves that old " tensioning " (sic. [haha!]) activity. > > and that this disidentifying (sic. again!) stuff.. > > is better than twiddling your thumbs. > > well maybe anyway. > > now c'mon Danny Boy..give us a smile. > > you just needed to post something..anything.. and you know it. > > having a slow day? > > :-) > > .b b.b. no, everything is moving along nicely. thanks for asking, though. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body identification as a stumbling block. It is not sufficient to say " who is there to identify? " or " there is no one to identify. " Unless there is thorough understanding of " there is no one to identify, " it is just words, just a concept being maintained within the context of body-mind identity. One could say, " Awareness misunderstands its situation when there is body-mind identity being maintained. " To say there is no struggle involved in disidentifying, because there is no one to identify, is only true if and as there is a full understanding. Identification isn't something that is recognized from without, by someone else who tells you about it. It is recognized from within, so to speak. Ultimately, there is no without or within, but again, this needs to be understood, or it is just words being believed. One of the claims made by false teachers is that they will undermine your identification through what they say, require you to do, by attacking your so-called ego (which doesn't actually exist), etc. It is impossible for anyone else outside of the process of identifying to release the identification. Body-mind identification involves many aspects. There can be identification with feeling states, with the idea of defense, or attack, with having, with losing, with pain, with pleasure, with memory-based concepts of existence or status. But at its heart, the identification is the intention to maintain an ongoing point of location within a self centered reality. There is no one else to release this identification, just the one identifying. One could say that the body-mind system, by a tensioning activity, is maintaining states as if identification were occurring - yet, in actuality, there never has been nor could be identification. Indeed, there is no one to do any identifying. Once clear on this, the body-mind no longer is experienced as a thing with its own continuity. It is a series of states, always in flux. With no one " inhabiting " the flux. Nonidentification doesn't mean anything at all in terms of how a body-mind is supposed to behave. It doesn't mean that it will engage in sitting meditation, or follow a spiritual program, or avoid pleasure, or never experience tension or anxiety, or only have certain types of lofty thoughts. The happiness and peace of *what is,* is not a particular body-mind state, nor is it the possession of a particular located body-mind. - Dan - it doesn't make sense to talk about such nonidentification..... certainly there only can be an identification talking to other identification about nonidentification.... ..... nonidentification is of/about another world..... a world which isn't of anything known.... .... nonidentification isn't about/of a deeper understanding, knowledge, enlightenment etc..... it's about peacefully nothing realy....flowing through peacefully nothing realy..... .... you are nothing realy .... like everybody else .... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body identification as a stumbling block. > > It is not sufficient to say " who is there to identify? " or " there is no one to identify. " > > Unless there is thorough understanding of " there is no one to identify, " it is just words, just a concept being maintained within the context of body-mind identity. > > One could say, " Awareness misunderstands its situation when there is body-mind identity being maintained. " > > To say there is no struggle involved in disidentifying, because there is no one to identify, is only true if and as there is a full understanding. > > Identification isn't something that is recognized from without, by someone else who tells you about it. It is recognized from within, so to speak. Ultimately, there is no without or within, but again, this needs to be understood, or it is just words being believed. > > One of the claims made by false teachers is that they will undermine your identification through what they say, require you to do, by attacking your so-called ego (which doesn't actually exist), etc. It is impossible for anyone else outside of the process of identifying to release the identification. > > Body-mind identification involves many aspects. There can be identification with feeling states, with the idea of defense, or attack, with having, with losing, with pain, with pleasure, with memory-based concepts of existence or status. > > But at its heart, the identification is the intention to maintain an ongoing point of location within a self centered reality. > > There is no one else to release this identification, just the one identifying. > > One could say that the body-mind system, by a tensioning activity, is maintaining states as if identification were occurring - yet, in actuality, there never has been nor could be identification. > > Indeed, there is no one to do any identifying. > > Once clear on this, the body-mind no longer is experienced as a thing with its own continuity. It is a series of states, always in flux. With no one " inhabiting " the flux. > > Nonidentification doesn't mean anything at all in terms of how a body-mind is supposed to behave. It doesn't mean that it will engage in sitting meditation, or follow a spiritual program, or avoid pleasure, or never experience tension or anxiety, or only have certain types of lofty thoughts. > > The happiness and peace of *what is,* is not a particular body-mind state, nor is it the possession of a particular located body-mind. > > - Dan - > > > it doesn't make sense to talk about such nonidentification..... > > certainly there only can be an identification talking to other identification about nonidentification.... > > .... > > nonidentification is of/about another world..... > a world which isn't of anything known.... > > ... > > nonidentification isn't about/of a deeper understanding, knowledge, enlightenment etc..... > it's about peacefully nothing realy....flowing through peacefully nothing realy..... > > ... > > you are nothing realy > > ... > > like everybody else > > ... > > > > > Marc Just words, unless lived with awareness. If so, then not dependent on any words. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body identification as a stumbling block. > > > > It is not sufficient to say " who is there to identify? " or " there is no one to identify. " > > > > Unless there is thorough understanding of " there is no one to identify, " it is just words, just a concept being maintained within the context of body-mind identity. > > > > One could say, " Awareness misunderstands its situation when there is body-mind identity being maintained. " > > > > To say there is no struggle involved in disidentifying, because there is no one to identify, is only true if and as there is a full understanding. > > > > Identification isn't something that is recognized from without, by someone else who tells you about it. It is recognized from within, so to speak. Ultimately, there is no without or within, but again, this needs to be understood, or it is just words being believed. > > > > One of the claims made by false teachers is that they will undermine your identification through what they say, require you to do, by attacking your so-called ego (which doesn't actually exist), etc. It is impossible for anyone else outside of the process of identifying to release the identification. > > > > Body-mind identification involves many aspects. There can be identification with feeling states, with the idea of defense, or attack, with having, with losing, with pain, with pleasure, with memory-based concepts of existence or status. > > > > But at its heart, the identification is the intention to maintain an ongoing point of location within a self centered reality. > > > > There is no one else to release this identification, just the one identifying. > > > > One could say that the body-mind system, by a tensioning activity, is maintaining states as if identification were occurring - yet, in actuality, there never has been nor could be identification. > > > > Indeed, there is no one to do any identifying. > > > > Once clear on this, the body-mind no longer is experienced as a thing with its own continuity. It is a series of states, always in flux. With no one " inhabiting " the flux. > > > > Nonidentification doesn't mean anything at all in terms of how a body-mind is supposed to behave. It doesn't mean that it will engage in sitting meditation, or follow a spiritual program, or avoid pleasure, or never experience tension or anxiety, or only have certain types of lofty thoughts. > > > > The happiness and peace of *what is,* is not a particular body-mind state, nor is it the possession of a particular located body-mind. > > > > - Dan - > > > > > > it doesn't make sense to talk about such nonidentification..... > > > > certainly there only can be an identification talking to other identification about nonidentification.... > > > > .... > > > > nonidentification is of/about another world..... > > a world which isn't of anything known.... > > > > ... > > > > nonidentification isn't about/of a deeper understanding, knowledge, enlightenment etc..... > > it's about peacefully nothing realy....flowing through peacefully nothing realy..... > > > > ... > > > > you are nothing realy > > > > ... > > > > like everybody else > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > Just words, unless lived with awareness. > > If so, then not dependent on any words. > > - D - so that's why you need to employ words in answer... as you obviously are as dependent on them.. as they are on you. just so.. neither you nor the words employed by you.. can be said to be other than " living WITH awareness " . a typically common explanation. and tres revealing i might add. you see dan.. the " trick " is not to live " with " awareness " . " wording " your statement that way delivers the obvious fault: the fact that you live in duality.. words (or you)..WITH awareness as a quality or property... are as you indicat..just you and words..pretending pretentiously. BE Awareness... and all that nonsense drops out.. as useless baggage and silly pomposity. you need not work on this. you have no choice. you can " do " nothing. what is IS. you simply don't yet understand this.. and thus have " problems " .. trying to say what you don't have a clue about. who the hell are you trying so desperately to impress? " they aren't " there " anymore than " you " are. simple. but if you feel it's important.. it's something to think that you're doing right? It will clear up of Itself. not to worry. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > identification as a stumbling block. > -dan- > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > -geo- > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. And therefore nothing is finished. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 11, 2009 There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body identification as a stumbling block. -dan- As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > identification as a stumbling block. > -dan- > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > -geo- Yes, see it as it happens. Know it by being it, not attempting to separate from it or avoid it. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > identification as a stumbling block. > > -dan- > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > -geo- > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > Werner There is no object. The only objectivity therefore is clarity about the subjective point of view. Which doesn't have any foothold. So there is neither subjectivity nor objectivity to the seeing of what-is. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > -dan- > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > Werner > > > There is no object. Dan, Surely there are objects. Just bump your head against the wall of your room and you will find it proved. That there are no objects is one of thoses foolsish statemenst of non-dual philosophy. Because we can only realize the reality of an object as far our senses allow it, it does not mean those object don't exist. > > The only objectivity therefore is clarity about the subjective point of view. > > Which doesn't have any foothold. > > So there is neither subjectivity nor objectivity to the seeing of what-is. Thanks, Dan, for repeating and cementing what I wrote. One can't stress it often enough. Werner > > - D - > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > identification as a stumbling block. > > -dan- > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > -geo- > > Yes, see it as it happens. > > Know it by being it, not attempting to separate from it or avoid it. > > - D - know it? if it is known.. there is the " known " and a " somewhat " that so " knows " .... " knowing " that which is supposedly so known. no? yessiree! fact of the matter is.. the above statement is all about and ONLY about: being a " being " somehow in separation from that known object. even if only subjectively. and then trying to glorify itself by that very separation... by claiming some false identity between the two. it ain't gonna cut it by sucking and blowing simultaneously. this type of silly proclamation is hackneyed business at best. drop even this notion of " knowing " or Knowledge " . that's the sure way of NOT being " there " .. or NOT being " in the know " .. or being delusional believing in some foolish and misguided idea.. that " someone " is " enlightened. there is no such thing as enlightenment. get over it. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > -dan- > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > Werner > > > There is no object. > > The only objectivity therefore is clarity about the subjective point of view. > > Which doesn't have any foothold. > > So there is neither subjectivity nor objectivity to the seeing of what-is. > > - D - naturally it has no foothold. where would it or could it possibly have a foothold? that's not seeing...nor saying... " what-is " . that's definitely seeing...and saying...what's NOT " what-is " . although it is a seeing of some strange device. it's not just bizarre..it's wrong. it doesn't even sound profound. it sounds like someone talking just to talk. but that's fun i guess. funny too. ..b b.b. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Friday, December 11, 2009 7:14 PM > Re: Body Identification > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized > > > body > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > -dan- > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other > > > additional > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is > > > seen > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally > > subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > Werner > > There is no object. > > The only objectivity therefore is clarity about the subjective point of > view. > > Which doesn't have any foothold. > > So there is neither subjectivity nor objectivity to the seeing of what-is. > > - D - > > Yes, obviously subjectivity or objectivity does not apply. yes well what does apply? and who's it obvious to? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > There is no object. > > > Dan, > > Surely there are objects. Just bump your head against the wall of your room and you will find it proved. > > That there are no objects is one of thoses foolsish statemenst of non-dual philosophy. > > Because we can only realize the reality of an object as far our senses allow it, it does not mean those object don't exist. > > > > > > The only objectivity therefore is clarity about the subjective point of view. > > > > Which doesn't have any foothold. > > > > So there is neither subjectivity nor objectivity to the seeing of what-is. > > > Thanks, Dan, for repeating and cementing what I wrote. One can't stress it often enough. > > Werner why can't one stress it enough. maybe it's been stressed too much already. certainly the idea itself is a stressed attempt.. which fails utterly to say anything. maybe it should be cemented... six feet under where it belongs. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Friday, December 11, 2009 7:14 PM Re: Body Identification Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized > > body > > identification as a stumbling block. > > -dan- > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other > > additional > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is > > seen > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > -geo- > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally > subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > Werner There is no object. The only objectivity therefore is clarity about the subjective point of view. Which doesn't have any foothold. So there is neither subjectivity nor objectivity to the seeing of what-is. - D - Yes, obviously subjectivity or objectivity does not apply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > There is no object. > > > Dan, > > Surely there are objects. Just bump your head against the wall of your room and you will find it proved. > > That there are no objects is one of thoses foolsish statemenst of non-dual philosophy. > > Because we can only realize the reality of an object as far our senses allow it, it does not mean those object don't exist. Werner - You respond as if I'm saying that I didn't type my message on a typewriter, and don't know that an apple is called an apple. Very silly. If that's all you get out of what was said, then that's all you get. So it goes, Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > There is no object. > > > > > > Dan, > > > > Surely there are objects. Just bump your head against the wall of your room and you will find it proved. > > > > That there are no objects is one of thoses foolsish statemenst of non-dual philosophy. > > > > Because we can only realize the reality of an object as far our senses allow it, it does not mean those object don't exist. > > Werner - > > You respond as if I'm saying that I didn't type my message on a typewriter, and don't know that an apple is called an apple. > > Very silly. > > If that's all you get out of what was said, then that's all you get. > > So it goes, > > Dan so..it goes.....where? that's all you said and it's a dead-end sentence. let's try and be clear. or don't you get what you want others to get? that that's all you can say? ok maybe apples and typewriters are more up your alley. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > There is no object. > > > > > > Dan, > > > > Surely there are objects. Just bump your head against the wall of your room and you will find it proved. > > > > That there are no objects is one of thoses foolsish statemenst of non-dual philosophy. > > > > Because we can only realize the reality of an object as far our senses allow it, it does not mean those object don't exist. > > Werner - > >D: You respond as if I'm saying that I didn't type my message on a typewriter, and don't know that an apple is called an apple. > > Very silly. P: Wait a minute! Are you sure that you type your emails on a " typewriter? " What year is this? > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > There is no object. > > > > > > Dan, > > > > Surely there are objects. Just bump your head against the wall of your room and you will find it proved. > > > > That there are no objects is one of thoses foolsish statemenst of non-dual philosophy. > > > > Because we can only realize the reality of an object as far our senses allow it, it does not mean those object don't exist. > > Werner - > > You respond as if I'm saying that I didn't type my message on a typewriter, and don't know that an apple is called an apple. > > Very silly. > > If that's all you get out of what was said, then that's all you get. > > So it goes, > > Dan > Dan, Have you, as I suggested, bumped your head against your room's wall ? Yes you did ? Great ! And now try to find out what does hurt. Does your head hurt or does the wall hurt ? Wow, your head hurts and not the wall ! What happened with that fancy subject/object illusion, is it still in your head ? Yes it is ? Ok, then go on bumping your head against the wall. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > > > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > > > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > > > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > > > > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no object. > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > Surely there are objects. Just bump your head against the wall of your room and you will find it proved. > > > > > > That there are no objects is one of thoses foolsish statemenst of non-dual philosophy. > > > > > > Because we can only realize the reality of an object as far our senses allow it, it does not mean those object don't exist. > > > > Werner - > > > >D: You respond as if I'm saying that I didn't type my message on a typewriter, and don't know that an apple is called an apple. > > > > Very silly. > > P: Wait a minute! Are you sure that you type > your emails on a " typewriter? " What year is this? Well, it's a type of writer. Does that count? - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > > > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > > > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > > > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > > > > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no object. > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > Surely there are objects. Just bump your head against the wall of your room and you will find it proved. > > > > > > That there are no objects is one of thoses foolsish statemenst of non-dual philosophy. > > > > > > Because we can only realize the reality of an object as far our senses allow it, it does not mean those object don't exist. > > > > Werner - > > > > You respond as if I'm saying that I didn't type my message on a typewriter, and don't know that an apple is called an apple. > > > > Very silly. > > > > If that's all you get out of what was said, then that's all you get. > > > > So it goes, > > > > Dan > > > > > Dan, > > Have you, as I suggested, bumped your head against your room's wall ? > > Yes you did ? Great ! And now try to find out what does hurt. Does your head hurt or does the wall hurt ? > > Wow, your head hurts and not the wall ! What happened with that fancy subject/object illusion, is it still in your head ? > > Yes it is ? Ok, then go on bumping your head against the wall. > > Werner Werner - That's exactly how ones deceives oneself into imagining a separate existence from objects that exist separately. And no one will be able to show you the illusion. Only you can discover it first-hand. One must be aware of the whole action at once, as it occurs. Now it is clear. One sees the mind of the past, of memory, as it acts. And one is aware of this which is not of the past, which cannot be separated from itself. And it is the moment of the occurrence. See it, and one is not deceived. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > > > > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > > > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > > > > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > > > > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > > > > > > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no object. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > Surely there are objects. Just bump your head against the wall of your room and you will find it proved. > > > > > > > > That there are no objects is one of thoses foolsish statemenst of non-dual philosophy. > > > > > > > > Because we can only realize the reality of an object as far our senses allow it, it does not mean those object don't exist. > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > You respond as if I'm saying that I didn't type my message on a typewriter, and don't know that an apple is called an apple. > > > > > > Very silly. > > > > > > If that's all you get out of what was said, then that's all you get. > > > > > > So it goes, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > Have you, as I suggested, bumped your head against your room's wall ? > > > > Yes you did ? Great ! And now try to find out what does hurt. Does your head hurt or does the wall hurt ? > > > > Wow, your head hurts and not the wall ! What happened with that fancy subject/object illusion, is it still in your head ? > > > > Yes it is ? Ok, then go on bumping your head against the wall. > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > That's exactly how ones deceives oneself into imagining a separate existence from objects that exist separately. > > And no one will be able to show you the illusion. > > Only you can discover it first-hand. > > One must be aware of the whole action at once, as it occurs. > > Now it is clear. > > One sees the mind of the past, of memory, as it acts. > > And one is aware of this which is not of the past, which cannot be separated from itself. > > And it is the moment of the occurrence. > > See it, and one is not deceived. > > - D - LOL! you write the funiest stuff dan. seriously. i hope you post this crap just to piss werner off. although he deceives himself pretty damn easily on all things.. all the time.. in every way. he's funny too. thanks for the abbott and costello guys. i'm thinking dan is abbott and werner is costello. who's on 4th? :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > > > > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > > > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > > > > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > > > > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > > > > > > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no object. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > Surely there are objects. Just bump your head against the wall of your room and you will find it proved. > > > > > > > > That there are no objects is one of thoses foolsish statemenst of non-dual philosophy. > > > > > > > > Because we can only realize the reality of an object as far our senses allow it, it does not mean those object don't exist. > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > >D: You respond as if I'm saying that I didn't type my message on a typewriter, and don't know that an apple is called an apple. > > > > > > Very silly. > > > > P: Wait a minute! Are you sure that you type > > your emails on a " typewriter? " What year is this? > > Well, it's a type of writer. > > Does that count? > > - D - count? no that would require a " calculator " . they came into there own a little after the typewriter. do you own an ice box? a cooking range? a ringer washing machine? rabbit ears on your 12 " TV top? i bet your home is tons of fun! :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > > > > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > > > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > > > > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > > > > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > > > > > > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no object. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > Surely there are objects. Just bump your head against the wall of your room and you will find it proved. > > > > > > > > That there are no objects is one of thoses foolsish statemenst of non-dual philosophy. > > > > > > > > Because we can only realize the reality of an object as far our senses allow it, it does not mean those object don't exist. > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > You respond as if I'm saying that I didn't type my message on a typewriter, and don't know that an apple is called an apple. > > > > > > Very silly. > > > > > > If that's all you get out of what was said, then that's all you get. > > > > > > So it goes, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > Have you, as I suggested, bumped your head against your room's wall ? > > > > Yes you did ? Great ! And now try to find out what does hurt. Does your head hurt or does the wall hurt ? > > > > Wow, your head hurts and not the wall ! What happened with that fancy subject/object illusion, is it still in your head ? > > > > Yes it is ? Ok, then go on bumping your head against the wall. > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > That's exactly how ones deceives oneself into imagining a separate existence from objects that exist separately. Dan, Deceiving oneself ? Who is the deceiver and who is oneself ? Are there two Dans or Werners ? > > And no one will be able to show you the illusion. > Even you, the great non-dual illusionist, won't be able to show me the illusion ? I must have overestimated you. > Only you can discover it first-hand. There is nothing I can discover because there is no separation between the discoverer and the discovered. > > One must be aware of the whole action at once, as it occurs. One MUST be aware ? Who gvives the order 'I must, I must, I must ...' ? It is neurosis which does that, isn't it ? In your case, Dan, it is a non-dual neurosis. Non-dual babbling became you identity. Without non-dual babbling you are just nothing, hot air ..... pfffft .... > > Now it is clear. > > One sees the mind of the past, of memory, as it acts. Who sees the mind ? Is there a separation between the see-er and the mind ? Neither nor - because first of all there is no mind and second it is thought which claims to be the see-er. > > And one is aware of this which is not of the past, which cannot be separated from itself. > > And it is the moment of the occurrence. > > See it, and one is not deceived. Haha, Dan the clear see-er who is not of the past. Wonderful ! Werner > > - D - > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a reason that Nisargadatta and many other teachers emphasized body > > > > > > > > identification as a stumbling block. > > > > > > > > -dan- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we are here to eventualy comment on each other I would say that body > > > > > > > > identification as not a stumbling block - as if there where other additional > > > > > > > > blocks - but the only one block. Once the body/mind/consciousness is seen > > > > > > > > objectively (as the manifested aspect of what is).....it is finished. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because consciousness is totally subjective also what-is is seen totally subjective - no chance for any objectivity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And therefore nothing is finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > > > Surely there are objects. Just bump your head against the wall of your room and you will find it proved. > > > > > > > > > > That there are no objects is one of thoses foolsish statemenst of non-dual philosophy. > > > > > > > > > > Because we can only realize the reality of an object as far our senses allow it, it does not mean those object don't exist. > > > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > > > You respond as if I'm saying that I didn't type my message on a typewriter, and don't know that an apple is called an apple. > > > > > > > > Very silly. > > > > > > > > If that's all you get out of what was said, then that's all you get. > > > > > > > > So it goes, > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > Have you, as I suggested, bumped your head against your room's wall ? > > > > > > Yes you did ? Great ! And now try to find out what does hurt. Does your head hurt or does the wall hurt ? > > > > > > Wow, your head hurts and not the wall ! What happened with that fancy subject/object illusion, is it still in your head ? > > > > > > Yes it is ? Ok, then go on bumping your head against the wall. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Werner - > > > > That's exactly how ones deceives oneself into imagining a separate existence from objects that exist separately. > > > Dan, > > Deceiving oneself ? > > Who is the deceiver and who is oneself ? Are there two Dans or Werners ? oh Sweet Jesus let us all pray this not ever come to pass! > > And no one will be able to show you the illusion. > > > > > Even you, the great non-dual illusionist, won't be able to show me the illusion ? I must have overestimated you. you've never underestimated yourself fella. you're unimaginably less than anything you could imagine. so it would seem that your ability to overestimate anything.. is consequently very limited. don't ever worry about yourself " over " anything werner. that's an over-the-top overestimation.. of your small-scale capabilities. > > Only you can discover it first-hand. > > > There is nothing I can discover because there is no separation between the discoverer and the discovered. well the first part is absolutely right. there is absolutely nothing werner which you can discover... or understand or anything else. there is no separation.. between you and the you who doesn't understand.. between you and the you who can't discover anything etc. so i guess maybe you as the discoverer of that fact.. are indeed the same as the discovered truth that you know nothing. doggone it sometimes you hit it right on the head.. by being your own undiscovered discovery of understanding. yep uh huh. sure thing. i don't think anyone with an ounce of sense would ever disagree. > > One must be aware of the whole action at once, as it occurs. > > > One MUST be aware ? well not if one is incapable of being aware. don't worry werner. no one is attacking you. you aren't aware so....you aren't aware. i think everyone was already aware of that. > Who gvives the order 'I must, I must, I must ...' ? It is neurosis which does that, isn't it ? > > In your case, Dan, it is a non-dual neurosis. Non-dual babbling became you identity. Without non-dual babbling you are just nothing, hot air ..... pfffft .... werner please! don't " pfffft " in here. what you say is already loud and smelly enough without adding.. an extemporaneous flatulent sound and aroma. do you always do that when you're excited? you know it's not only odoriferous it's schlocky too! > > Now it is clear. > > > > One sees the mind of the past, of memory, as it acts. > > > Who sees the mind ? Is there a separation between the see-er and the mind ? Neither nor - because first of all there is no mind and second it is thought which claims to be the see-er. relax werner no one believes you can see anything let alone the mind. you don't have the mind fot that sort of thing. " neither nor " !??? sounds like nincompoop nattering. and again.. no one is saying that you do NOT not have a mind. it's ok for you to say there is no such thing as a mind. but try and remember.. this state of affairs pertains only to your special case.. as a special needs individual. you need a mind but that doesn't say you have one. in this special way you are special. so of course you right again on the part: " it is thought which claims to be the see-er " . and seeing how you are not burdened with thought.. it's no wonder you aren't fooled by this amazing trick. besides that's a trick of the mind.. which we have all come to agree you don't have. there is nothing of an intellectual nature that is claimed of you. and it's great to see that you see this as a legitimate claim. > > And one is aware of this which is not of the past, which cannot be separated from itself. > > > > And it is the moment of the occurrence. > > > > See it, and one is not deceived. > > > Haha, Dan the clear see-er who is not of the past. Wonderful ! > > Werner not as wonderful as you admitting that you don't know anything.. and admitting that you don't have a mind.. and admitting that you can never discover anything.. and that you underestimate your overestimation of yourself.. and..and.. well hell werner.. it's no wonder you're a wonder! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
