Guest guest Report post Posted December 15, 2009 These things I'm going to discuss are obvious, but unfortunately, the gullible needs the obvious explained. No one can contradict that 10,000 years ago, mankind had the same level of awareness it has today, yet it knew very little about its world. The fact that we strive to learn, clearly shows awareness is unconscious of many things. The most significant thing awareness is unaware of is its own absence. When absent, it is also unconscious of the presence of anything else. So, it seems to it that not only it is never absent, but that its presence is the cause of everything. Memory never scratches awareness' mirror. What we remember is a reflection that last as long as memory lasts. In this way, awareness is the same in every brain. Humanity is billions of individual memories reflected in one screen. In this screen, we are one. A one that never dies because awareness is never conscious of its gaps. If this makes you feel immortal, you have been fooled by words. The self you love is not awareness, it's the memories, the story of your life, and that will vanish, die, never to happen again. Pete http://cerosoul.wordpress.com http://awakefiction.wordpress.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > These things I'm going to discuss are obvious, > but unfortunately, the gullible needs the obvious > explained. No one can contradict that 10,000 years > ago, mankind had the same level of awareness it has > today, yet it knew very little about its world. The > fact that we strive to learn, clearly shows awareness > is unconscious of many things. > > The most significant thing awareness is unaware of > is its own absence. When absent, it is also > unconscious of the presence of anything else. So, it > seems to it that not only it is never absent, > but that its presence is the cause of everything. > > Memory never scratches awareness' mirror. What we > remember is a reflection that last as long as > memory lasts. In this way, awareness is the same > in every brain. Humanity is billions of individual > memories reflected in one screen. In this screen, we > are one. A one that never dies because awareness is > never conscious of its gaps. > > If this makes you feel immortal, you have been fooled > by words. The self you love is not awareness, it's > the memories, the story of your life, and that will > vanish, die, never to happen again. > > Pete > http://cerosoul.wordpress.com > > http://awakefiction.wordpress.com > Memory never can scratch awareness simply because awareness IS memory. Why ? Sensory input is transferred into the sensory memory and then it is transported into the short term memory which also is called the 'working memory' because it is the place where the work is done to create awareness. In the working memory the sensory memory is compared and assocsiated with already existing data of the long term memory. And the result of this working process is made conscious. This final product is what we call awareness. This final awareness IS memory -> it is the short term memory. Only because awareness IS mmory we can watch tv or a movie without seeing just single images following each other. Only because awareness is memory we can listen to a symphony of Beethoven and hearing and recognizing it as a whole and not just tones and sounds following each other like short plops without any context. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > These things I'm going to discuss are obvious, > > but unfortunately, the gullible needs the obvious > > explained. No one can contradict that 10,000 years > > ago, mankind had the same level of awareness it has > > today, yet it knew very little about its world. The > > fact that we strive to learn, clearly shows awareness > > is unconscious of many things. > > > > The most significant thing awareness is unaware of > > is its own absence. When absent, it is also > > unconscious of the presence of anything else. So, it > > seems to it that not only it is never absent, > > but that its presence is the cause of everything. > > > > Memory never scratches awareness' mirror. What we > > remember is a reflection that last as long as > > memory lasts. In this way, awareness is the same > > in every brain. Humanity is billions of individual > > memories reflected in one screen. In this screen, we > > are one. A one that never dies because awareness is > > never conscious of its gaps. > > > > If this makes you feel immortal, you have been fooled > > by words. The self you love is not awareness, it's > > the memories, the story of your life, and that will > > vanish, die, never to happen again. > > > > Pete > > http://cerosoul.wordpress.com > > > > http://awakefiction.wordpress.com > > > > > Memory never can scratch awareness simply because awareness IS memory. > > Why ? > > Sensory input is transferred into the sensory memory and then it is transported into the short term memory which also is called the 'working memory' because it is the place where the work is done to create awareness. > > In the working memory the sensory memory is compared and assocsiated with already existing data of the long term memory. > > And the result of this working process is made conscious. This final product is what we call awareness. This final awareness IS memory -> it is the short term memory. > > Only because awareness IS mmory we can watch tv or a movie without seeing just single images following each other. > > Only because awareness is memory we can listen to a symphony of Beethoven and hearing and recognizing it as a whole and not just tones and sounds following each other like short plops without any context. > > Werner > Pray tell, what is looking out from a newborn's eyes? What sort of memory? ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > These things I'm going to discuss are obvious, > > > but unfortunately, the gullible needs the obvious > > > explained. No one can contradict that 10,000 years > > > ago, mankind had the same level of awareness it has > > > today, yet it knew very little about its world. The > > > fact that we strive to learn, clearly shows awareness > > > is unconscious of many things. > > > > > > The most significant thing awareness is unaware of > > > is its own absence. When absent, it is also > > > unconscious of the presence of anything else. So, it > > > seems to it that not only it is never absent, > > > but that its presence is the cause of everything. > > > > > > Memory never scratches awareness' mirror. What we > > > remember is a reflection that last as long as > > > memory lasts. In this way, awareness is the same > > > in every brain. Humanity is billions of individual > > > memories reflected in one screen. In this screen, we > > > are one. A one that never dies because awareness is > > > never conscious of its gaps. > > > > > > If this makes you feel immortal, you have been fooled > > > by words. The self you love is not awareness, it's > > > the memories, the story of your life, and that will > > > vanish, die, never to happen again. > > > > > > Pete > > > http://cerosoul.wordpress.com > > > > > > http://awakefiction.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > Memory never can scratch awareness simply because awareness IS memory. > > > > Why ? > > > > Sensory input is transferred into the sensory memory and then it is transported into the short term memory which also is called the 'working memory' because it is the place where the work is done to create awareness. > > > > In the working memory the sensory memory is compared and assocsiated with already existing data of the long term memory. > > > > And the result of this working process is made conscious. This final product is what we call awareness. This final awareness IS memory -> it is the short term memory. > > > > Only because awareness IS mmory we can watch tv or a movie without seeing just single images following each other. > > > > Only because awareness is memory we can listen to a symphony of Beethoven and hearing and recognizing it as a whole and not just tones and sounds following each other like short plops without any context. > > > > Werner > > > > > > Pray tell, what is looking out from a newborn's eyes? What sort of memory? > > ~A There is nothing looking out from any eyes. That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > These things I'm going to discuss are obvious, > > > > but unfortunately, the gullible needs the obvious > > > > explained. No one can contradict that 10,000 years > > > > ago, mankind had the same level of awareness it has > > > > today, yet it knew very little about its world. The > > > > fact that we strive to learn, clearly shows awareness > > > > is unconscious of many things. > > > > > > > > The most significant thing awareness is unaware of > > > > is its own absence. When absent, it is also > > > > unconscious of the presence of anything else. So, it > > > > seems to it that not only it is never absent, > > > > but that its presence is the cause of everything. > > > > > > > > Memory never scratches awareness' mirror. What we > > > > remember is a reflection that last as long as > > > > memory lasts. In this way, awareness is the same > > > > in every brain. Humanity is billions of individual > > > > memories reflected in one screen. In this screen, we > > > > are one. A one that never dies because awareness is > > > > never conscious of its gaps. > > > > > > > > If this makes you feel immortal, you have been fooled > > > > by words. The self you love is not awareness, it's > > > > the memories, the story of your life, and that will > > > > vanish, die, never to happen again. > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > http://cerosoul.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > http://awakefiction.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > Memory never can scratch awareness simply because awareness IS memory. > > > > > > Why ? > > > > > > Sensory input is transferred into the sensory memory and then it is transported into the short term memory which also is called the 'working memory' because it is the place where the work is done to create awareness. > > > > > > In the working memory the sensory memory is compared and assocsiated with already existing data of the long term memory. > > > > > > And the result of this working process is made conscious. This final product is what we call awareness. This final awareness IS memory -> it is the short term memory. > > > > > > Only because awareness IS mmory we can watch tv or a movie without seeing just single images following each other. > > > > > > Only because awareness is memory we can listen to a symphony of Beethoven and hearing and recognizing it as a whole and not just tones and sounds following each other like short plops without any context. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > Pray tell, what is looking out from a newborn's eyes? What sort of memory? > > > > ~A > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > - D - DUDE! excuse me! you got to got got be kidding! there no looking involved. there's no " environment " there's nothing to " happen to see " . there's nothing happening period. do you write Hallmark Greeting Cards? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > These things I'm going to discuss are obvious, > > > > but unfortunately, the gullible needs the obvious > > > > explained. No one can contradict that 10,000 years > > > > ago, mankind had the same level of awareness it has > > > > today, yet it knew very little about its world. The > > > > fact that we strive to learn, clearly shows awareness > > > > is unconscious of many things. > > > > > > > > The most significant thing awareness is unaware of > > > > is its own absence. When absent, it is also > > > > unconscious of the presence of anything else. So, it > > > > seems to it that not only it is never absent, > > > > but that its presence is the cause of everything. > > > > > > > > Memory never scratches awareness' mirror. What we > > > > remember is a reflection that last as long as > > > > memory lasts. In this way, awareness is the same > > > > in every brain. Humanity is billions of individual > > > > memories reflected in one screen. In this screen, we > > > > are one. A one that never dies because awareness is > > > > never conscious of its gaps. > > > > > > > > If this makes you feel immortal, you have been fooled > > > > by words. The self you love is not awareness, it's > > > > the memories, the story of your life, and that will > > > > vanish, die, never to happen again. > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > http://cerosoul.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > http://awakefiction.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > Memory never can scratch awareness simply because awareness IS memory. > > > > > > Why ? > > > > > > Sensory input is transferred into the sensory memory and then it is transported into the short term memory which also is called the 'working memory' because it is the place where the work is done to create awareness. > > > > > > In the working memory the sensory memory is compared and assocsiated with already existing data of the long term memory. > > > > > > And the result of this working process is made conscious. This final product is what we call awareness. This final awareness IS memory -> it is the short term memory. > > > > > > Only because awareness IS mmory we can watch tv or a movie without seeing just single images following each other. > > > > > > Only because awareness is memory we can listen to a symphony of Beethoven and hearing and recognizing it as a whole and not just tones and sounds following each other like short plops without any context. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > Pray tell, what is looking out from a newborn's eyes? What sort of memory? > > > > ~A > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those > eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > - D - > True, as long as stuff like thoughts and physical sensations are included as part of the environment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > These things I'm going to discuss are obvious, > > > > > but unfortunately, the gullible needs the obvious > > > > > explained. No one can contradict that 10,000 years > > > > > ago, mankind had the same level of awareness it has > > > > > today, yet it knew very little about its world. The > > > > > fact that we strive to learn, clearly shows awareness > > > > > is unconscious of many things. > > > > > > > > > > The most significant thing awareness is unaware of > > > > > is its own absence. When absent, it is also > > > > > unconscious of the presence of anything else. So, it > > > > > seems to it that not only it is never absent, > > > > > but that its presence is the cause of everything. > > > > > > > > > > Memory never scratches awareness' mirror. What we > > > > > remember is a reflection that last as long as > > > > > memory lasts. In this way, awareness is the same > > > > > in every brain. Humanity is billions of individual > > > > > memories reflected in one screen. In this screen, we > > > > > are one. A one that never dies because awareness is > > > > > never conscious of its gaps. > > > > > > > > > > If this makes you feel immortal, you have been fooled > > > > > by words. The self you love is not awareness, it's > > > > > the memories, the story of your life, and that will > > > > > vanish, die, never to happen again. > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > http://cerosoul.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > http://awakefiction.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Memory never can scratch awareness simply because awareness IS memory. > > > > > > > > Why ? > > > > > > > > Sensory input is transferred into the sensory memory and then it is transported into the short term memory which also is called the 'working memory' because it is the place where the work is done to create awareness. > > > > > > > > In the working memory the sensory memory is compared and assocsiated with already existing data of the long term memory. > > > > > > > > And the result of this working process is made conscious. This final product is what we call awareness. This final awareness IS memory -> it is the short term memory. > > > > > > > > Only because awareness IS mmory we can watch tv or a movie without seeing just single images following each other. > > > > > > > > Only because awareness is memory we can listen to a symphony of Beethoven and hearing and recognizing it as a whole and not just tones and sounds following each other like short plops without any context. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pray tell, what is looking out from a newborn's eyes? What sort of memory? > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those > eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > - D - > > > > True, as long as stuff like thoughts and physical sensations are included as part of the environment. and of course that all that stuff (together or apart) is inside. including the inside which they are inside of. which is like a Russian Nesting Egg Christmas doohickey. except that the outside is also inside. and that's why it's invisible. like a..like as..a bright black star type of thing... but it's not a thing. it's nothing you can imagine or even talk about. unless you're tim or dan. and that's the inside story. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 16, 2009 > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > - D - P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, The show observes itself, and appears of itself, by itself, and for itself. > Let's once, and for all know, there is no knower whatsoever, anywhere. The unknown is not a knower, or a doer, or an ultimate entity where any buck stops. The buck* never stops anywhere. It keeps going, and going, and going at infinitum. The brain is the machine of awareness, knowing, and doing, but it contains no observer, knower, or doer. There is no ultimate wall on which the universe is painted. Everything is an appearance in endless vacuity. Appearances happen for no reason at all, there is no why, no planner, controller or even an observer of this cosmic show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > These things I'm going to discuss are obvious, > > > > > but unfortunately, the gullible needs the obvious > > > > > explained. No one can contradict that 10,000 years > > > > > ago, mankind had the same level of awareness it has > > > > > today, yet it knew very little about its world. The > > > > > fact that we strive to learn, clearly shows awareness > > > > > is unconscious of many things. > > > > > > > > > > The most significant thing awareness is unaware of > > > > > is its own absence. When absent, it is also > > > > > unconscious of the presence of anything else. So, it > > > > > seems to it that not only it is never absent, > > > > > but that its presence is the cause of everything. > > > > > > > > > > Memory never scratches awareness' mirror. What we > > > > > remember is a reflection that last as long as > > > > > memory lasts. In this way, awareness is the same > > > > > in every brain. Humanity is billions of individual > > > > > memories reflected in one screen. In this screen, we > > > > > are one. A one that never dies because awareness is > > > > > never conscious of its gaps. > > > > > > > > > > If this makes you feel immortal, you have been fooled > > > > > by words. The self you love is not awareness, it's > > > > > the memories, the story of your life, and that will > > > > > vanish, die, never to happen again. > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > http://cerosoul.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > http://awakefiction.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Memory never can scratch awareness simply because awareness IS memory. > > > > > > > > Why ? > > > > > > > > Sensory input is transferred into the sensory memory and then it is transported into the short term memory which also is called the 'working memory' because it is the place where the work is done to create awareness. > > > > > > > > In the working memory the sensory memory is compared and assocsiated with already existing data of the long term memory. > > > > > > > > And the result of this working process is made conscious. This final product is what we call awareness. This final awareness IS memory -> it is the short term memory. > > > > > > > > Only because awareness IS mmory we can watch tv or a movie without seeing just single images following each other. > > > > > > > > Only because awareness is memory we can listen to a symphony of Beethoven and hearing and recognizing it as a whole and not just tones and sounds following each other like short plops without any context. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pray tell, what is looking out from a newborn's eyes? What sort of memory? > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those > eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > - D - > > > > True, as long as stuff like thoughts and physical sensations are included as part of the environment. D: Yes, quite so. The " inner being " is just a part of the landscape. That which is seeing, has no inner being. Is just clear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > - D - > > P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, > > The show observes itself, and appears of > itself, by itself, and for itself. > > Let's once, and for all know, there is no knower > whatsoever, anywhere. The unknown is not a knower, > or a doer, or an ultimate entity where any buck > stops. The buck* never stops anywhere. It keeps > going, and going, and going at infinitum. > > The brain is the machine of awareness, knowing, and > doing, but it contains no observer, knower, or doer. > There is no ultimate wall on which the universe is > painted. Everything is an appearance in endless vacuity. > > Appearances happen for no reason at all, there is no > why, no planner, controller or even an observer of this > cosmic show. dan just wants you to know that he's not just down with that.. he IS THAT. he's got " It " all under control. Blessed is dan. and we have timmy the Baptist who hath recognized this as well. he doth confirm that dan is the One. and that dan hath it under control. but that dan's " under control " is inside of tim. and the inside's lookin' out... for whatever and each other. the True Blues Brothers.. on a Mission from God. and as there is no God.. they are on Nobody's Mission. maybe that's some new rave drug? anyway it's all pretty useless they'll have you know. even though you can't. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > These things I'm going to discuss are obvious, > > > > > > but unfortunately, the gullible needs the obvious > > > > > > explained. No one can contradict that 10,000 years > > > > > > ago, mankind had the same level of awareness it has > > > > > > today, yet it knew very little about its world. The > > > > > > fact that we strive to learn, clearly shows awareness > > > > > > is unconscious of many things. > > > > > > > > > > > > The most significant thing awareness is unaware of > > > > > > is its own absence. When absent, it is also > > > > > > unconscious of the presence of anything else. So, it > > > > > > seems to it that not only it is never absent, > > > > > > but that its presence is the cause of everything. > > > > > > > > > > > > Memory never scratches awareness' mirror. What we > > > > > > remember is a reflection that last as long as > > > > > > memory lasts. In this way, awareness is the same > > > > > > in every brain. Humanity is billions of individual > > > > > > memories reflected in one screen. In this screen, we > > > > > > are one. A one that never dies because awareness is > > > > > > never conscious of its gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > If this makes you feel immortal, you have been fooled > > > > > > by words. The self you love is not awareness, it's > > > > > > the memories, the story of your life, and that will > > > > > > vanish, die, never to happen again. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > http://cerosoul.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > http://awakefiction.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Memory never can scratch awareness simply because awareness IS memory. > > > > > > > > > > Why ? > > > > > > > > > > Sensory input is transferred into the sensory memory and then it is transported into the short term memory which also is called the 'working memory' because it is the place where the work is done to create awareness. > > > > > > > > > > In the working memory the sensory memory is compared and assocsiated with already existing data of the long term memory. > > > > > > > > > > And the result of this working process is made conscious. This final product is what we call awareness. This final awareness IS memory -> it is the short term memory. > > > > > > > > > > Only because awareness IS mmory we can watch tv or a movie without seeing just single images following each other. > > > > > > > > > > Only because awareness is memory we can listen to a symphony of Beethoven and hearing and recognizing it as a whole and not just tones and sounds following each other like short plops without any context. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pray tell, what is looking out from a newborn's eyes? What sort of memory? > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those > eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > True, as long as stuff like thoughts and physical sensations are included as part of the environment. > > D: Yes, quite so. > > The " inner being " is just a part of the landscape. > > That which is seeing, has no inner being. > > Is just clear. ah to be young and in love! :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > - D - > > P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, D: I have no idea how it is different or how it is the same as what you said. The ideations are in constant flux anyway. I'm not trying to hold onto some truth that they represent. I know, I know - you probably already said that somewhere. Laughs and smiles, Dan > The show observes itself, and appears of > itself, by itself, and for itself. > > Let's once, and for all know, there is no knower > whatsoever, anywhere. The unknown is not a knower, > or a doer, or an ultimate entity where any buck > stops. The buck* never stops anywhere. It keeps > going, and going, and going at infinitum. > > The brain is the machine of awareness, knowing, and > doing, but it contains no observer, knower, or doer. > There is no ultimate wall on which the universe is > painted. Everything is an appearance in endless vacuity. > > Appearances happen for no reason at all, there is no > why, no planner, controller or even an observer of this > cosmic show. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > D: I have no idea how it is different or how it is the same > as what you said. > > The ideations are in constant flux anyway. who's " ideations'? > > I'm not trying to hold onto some truth that they represent. that's big of you. try not trying to not try. that's even better than not trying to try. i'm sure you understand. LOL! > I know, I know - you probably already said that somewhere. > > Laughs and smiles, > > Dan you " know " ? LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > - D - > > P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, > > The show observes itself, and appears of > itself, by itself, and for itself. Yes, of course. So - what is it then, the doer who imagines it does stuff? You know - if what you say is correct and I am sure it is, at times I even know it is - then the appearence of the doer (a seer who sees the seen) also appears of itself, by itself, and for itself. You follow? Of course you do. -Lene > > Let's once, and for all know, there is no knower > whatsoever, anywhere. The unknown is not a knower, > or a doer, or an ultimate entity where any buck > stops. The buck* never stops anywhere. It keeps > going, and going, and going at infinitum. > > The brain is the machine of awareness, knowing, and > doing, but it contains no observer, knower, or doer. > There is no ultimate wall on which the universe is > painted. Everything is an appearance in endless vacuity. > > Appearances happen for no reason at all, there is no > why, no planner, controller or even an observer of this > cosmic show. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > > > - D - > > > > P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, > > > > The show observes itself, and appears of > > itself, by itself, and for itself. > > > > Yes, of course. > > So - what is it then, the doer who imagines it does stuff? > > You know - if what you say is correct and I am sure it is, > at times I even know it is - then the appearence of the > doer (a seer who sees the seen) also appears of itself, by > itself, and for itself. > > You follow? Of course you do. > > -Lene P: doers, observers, entities such as " I " and Geo's favorite final entity, the so called Absolute, are language mirages. They appear due to faulty understanding in the use of language. Faulty language creates false entities, there are no entities outside language. But we become hypnotized by words and chase verbal shadows. > > > > > > > > Let's once, and for all know, there is no knower > > whatsoever, anywhere. The unknown is not a knower, > > or a doer, or an ultimate entity where any buck > > stops. The buck* never stops anywhere. It keeps > > going, and going, and going at infinitum. > > > > The brain is the machine of awareness, knowing, and > > doing, but it contains no observer, knower, or doer. > > There is no ultimate wall on which the universe is > > painted. Everything is an appearance in endless vacuity. > > > > Appearances happen for no reason at all, there is no > > why, no planner, controller or even an observer of this > > cosmic show. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, > > > > > > The show observes itself, and appears of > > > itself, by itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. > > > > So - what is it then, the doer who imagines it does stuff? > > > > You know - if what you say is correct and I am sure it is, > > at times I even know it is - then the appearence of the > > doer (a seer who sees the seen) also appears of itself, by > > itself, and for itself. > > > > You follow? Of course you do. > > > > -Lene > > P: doers, observers, entities such as " I " and Geo's > favorite final entity, the so called Absolute, are > language mirages. They appear due to faulty > understanding in the use of language. You seem to label " the brain " as some sort of absolute (correct me if I'm wrong), even going so far as to say " One is material " . Is that a language mirage, too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, > > > > > > The show observes itself, and appears of > > > itself, by itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. > > > > So - what is it then, the doer who imagines it does stuff? > > > > You know - if what you say is correct and I am sure it is, > > at times I even know it is - then the appearence of the > > doer (a seer who sees the seen) also appears of itself, by > > itself, and for itself. > > > > You follow? Of course you do. > > > > -Lene > > P: doers, observers, entities such as " I " and Geo's > favorite final entity, the so called Absolute, are > language mirages. They appear due to faulty > understanding in the use of language. > > Faulty language creates false entities, there > are no entities outside language. But we become > hypnotized by words and chase verbal shadows. I understand. So, what is faulty understanding, pray tell? Heard this last night on tv but this time did not laugh: if the word exists, the concept exists. So - even though a doer is but a language mirage or concept (what is not?) it does exist as such and the " sad " thing is then of course that there is no 'doer' round to do anything about it. Heh. It is also amusing, except for those amongst the 'doers' who never seem to be able to get it 'their way' or 'the right(eous) way, the just way' or whatever they are not getting and in which way they are not getting it. The problem for all 'doers' is that they sense separateness between them(selves) and the world. Perhaps this is - no, in fact this IS rather - why the doers are having such a hard time. They do not exist as other than concepts (what does?), but once that concept is being 'held' onto (by noone since everything appears of itself, by itself and for itself) the 'doers' are virtually having a hell of a time, hence 'their' making up of and turning to religion and gurus to find salvation - or make groups such as an AA which I just invented, Atheisoholics Anynymous - to confess to not believing in god, make amends, and be forgiven - so that one can carry on with believing with a whitewashed conscience in a sort of passive way. It is not even funny, although it was meant as a joke. Right. I would say there is no such thing as faulty language and false entities. I would say that the hole show is consciousness sans content - it is empty of content - the whole - hole - hollow -- holy show is a mirage, an illusion. Not a thing is a wonder-ful show of absolute!ly no thing and the watching the show as well - but that you said already. I would however agree that in order to find out about this it may be a great idea for starters to get rid of the idea, that 'doers' exist, as that would free the world of the concept of duality, ie the concept of a separate self-entity residing in and outside the world, and the concept created by the concept self - of a god, creator, designer - almighty and intelligent and punishing and merciful etc, iow the very selfimage itself. Ah yes - let us free the world of one concept at a time - say the not so wise. The wise say - let us free the world of all concepts at once. Saves us the hard work (the blood, the sweat, and the tears), and we go hocus pocus silent and the world is gone, the show has ended. There is but the free flow of not a thing. I can not even begin to imagine a world without selfappointed imaginary doers though but then 'who' asked 'whom' to imagine that? No-one. And no more ranting either -Lene > > > > Let's once, and for all know, there is no knower > > > whatsoever, anywhere. The unknown is not a knower, > > > or a doer, or an ultimate entity where any buck > > > stops. The buck* never stops anywhere. It keeps > > > going, and going, and going at infinitum. > > > > > > The brain is the machine of awareness, knowing, and > > > doing, but it contains no observer, knower, or doer. > > > There is no ultimate wall on which the universe is > > > painted. Everything is an appearance in endless vacuity. > > > > > > Appearances happen for no reason at all, there is no > > > why, no planner, controller or even an observer of this > > > cosmic show. > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > > > > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, > > > > > > > > The show observes itself, and appears of > > > > itself, by itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. > > > > > > So - what is it then, the doer who imagines it does stuff? > > > > > > You know - if what you say is correct and I am sure it is, > > > at times I even know it is - then the appearence of the > > > doer (a seer who sees the seen) also appears of itself, by > > > itself, and for itself. > > > > > > You follow? Of course you do. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > P: doers, observers, entities such as " I " and Geo's > > favorite final entity, the so called Absolute, are > > language mirages. They appear due to faulty > > understanding in the use of language. > > > > Faulty language creates false entities, there > > are no entities outside language. But we become > > hypnotized by words and chase verbal shadows. > > > > I understand. So, what is faulty understanding, pray tell? > P: We faulty understand that all abstract words are inferences and empty fabrications. They only point to more words. If I say, " Take this rose. " You can see it, smell it, touch it. If I say, " you are the Absolute. " I offer you only words, and nothing your senses can grasp. Justice, freedom, Immortality, etc point only to aspirations of the human mind for an ideal world. Imagine how much unhappiness we could shed, if we clean our languages of such words, and adopt a language a dog could easily understand, a language that would only name the input of the five senses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > > > > > > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, > > > > > > > > > > The show observes itself, and appears of > > > > > itself, by itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. > > > > > > > > So - what is it then, the doer who imagines it does stuff? > > > > > > > > You know - if what you say is correct and I am sure it is, > > > > at times I even know it is - then the appearence of the > > > > doer (a seer who sees the seen) also appears of itself, by > > > > itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > You follow? Of course you do. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > P: doers, observers, entities such as " I " and Geo's > > > favorite final entity, the so called Absolute, are > > > language mirages. They appear due to faulty > > > understanding in the use of language. > > > > > > Faulty language creates false entities, there > > > are no entities outside language. But we become > > > hypnotized by words and chase verbal shadows. > > > > > > > > I understand. So, what is faulty understanding, pray tell? > > > > > P: We faulty understand that all abstract words are > inferences and empty fabrications. They only point > to more words. If I say, " Take this rose. " You can > see it, smell it, touch it. If I say, " you are the Absolute. " > I offer you only words, and nothing your senses can grasp. > > Justice, freedom, Immortality, etc point only to > aspirations of the human mind for an ideal world. > > Imagine how much unhappiness we could shed, if > we clean our languages of such words, and adopt > a language a dog could easily understand, a > language that would only name the input of the > five senses. yes that's it. and a lingo that hasn't presupposed a " me " . " it " 's just all happenin' at the zoo. and not a " personal " thought around. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, > > > > > > > > > > > > The show observes itself, and appears of > > > > > > itself, by itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. > > > > > > > > > > So - what is it then, the doer who imagines it does stuff? > > > > > > > > > > You know - if what you say is correct and I am sure it is, > > > > > at times I even know it is - then the appearence of the > > > > > doer (a seer who sees the seen) also appears of itself, by > > > > > itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > > > You follow? Of course you do. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > P: doers, observers, entities such as " I " and Geo's > > > > favorite final entity, the so called Absolute, are > > > > language mirages. They appear due to faulty > > > > understanding in the use of language. > > > > > > > > Faulty language creates false entities, there > > > > are no entities outside language. But we become > > > > hypnotized by words and chase verbal shadows. > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand. So, what is faulty understanding, pray tell? > > > > > > > > > P: We faulty understand that all abstract words are > > inferences and empty fabrications. They only point > > to more words. If I say, " Take this rose. " You can > > see it, smell it, touch it. If I say, " you are the Absolute. " > > I offer you only words, and nothing your senses can grasp. > > > > Justice, freedom, Immortality, etc point only to > > aspirations of the human mind for an ideal world. > > > > Imagine how much unhappiness we could shed, if > > we clean our languages of such words, and adopt > > a language a dog could easily understand, a > > language that would only name the input of the > > five senses. > > > yes that's it. > > and a lingo that hasn't presupposed a " me " . > > " it " 's just all happenin' at the zoo. > > and not a " personal " thought around. > > .b b.b. sure, and you and Pete will start this right now. and show us all how to talk only referring to sensings, and never referring to a me in any way, nor any abstraction, and having no personal reactions ... sounds good. actually, it's very funny. hey, why not just talk like dogs? woof. arf, arf. bark, bark. thanks for the laugh and the holiday cheer, - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The show observes itself, and appears of > > > > > > > itself, by itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > So - what is it then, the doer who imagines it does stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > You know - if what you say is correct and I am sure it is, > > > > > > at times I even know it is - then the appearence of the > > > > > > doer (a seer who sees the seen) also appears of itself, by > > > > > > itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > You follow? Of course you do. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > P: doers, observers, entities such as " I " and Geo's > > > > > favorite final entity, the so called Absolute, are > > > > > language mirages. They appear due to faulty > > > > > understanding in the use of language. > > > > > > > > > > Faulty language creates false entities, there > > > > > are no entities outside language. But we become > > > > > hypnotized by words and chase verbal shadows. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand. So, what is faulty understanding, pray tell? > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: We faulty understand that all abstract words are > > > inferences and empty fabrications. They only point > > > to more words. If I say, " Take this rose. " You can > > > see it, smell it, touch it. If I say, " you are the Absolute. " > > > I offer you only words, and nothing your senses can grasp. > > > > > > Justice, freedom, Immortality, etc point only to > > > aspirations of the human mind for an ideal world. > > > > > > Imagine how much unhappiness we could shed, if > > > we clean our languages of such words, and adopt > > > a language a dog could easily understand, a > > > language that would only name the input of the > > > five senses. > > > > > > yes that's it. > > > > and a lingo that hasn't presupposed a " me " . > > > > " it " 's just all happenin' at the zoo. > > > > and not a " personal " thought around. > > > > .b b.b. > > > sure, and you and Pete will start this right now. > > and show us all how to talk only referring to sensings, and never referring to a me in any way, nor any abstraction, and having no personal reactions ... > > > sounds good. > > actually, it's very funny. > > > hey, why not just talk like dogs? > > woof. > > arf, arf. > > > bark, bark. > > > thanks for the laugh and the holiday cheer, > > > - d - well of course you wouldn't understand danny. you really are a little monkey aren't you? and you really do believe in fairy tales. and in your own silly sanctimonious monkeyshines. fight onward brave little soldier. what a loser! that's what that little " me " thingy of yours is all about. and everyone here who has witnessed your.. bullshit holier than thou fantasies unfold.. accept this holiday gift: your imitation of the animal kingdom sounds.. which have finally indicated.. that for at least a small moment in time.. you have stopped trying to be some pie in the sky wannabe guru.. and admitted that your shit stinks.. just like every other filthy animal of which you are but a member. it's nice to see you drop that phony halo for even a second. i was beginning to think you were a creep all the time. now i know.. you're just a little creep most of the time. LOL! get'em tiger! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The show observes itself, and appears of > > > > > > > itself, by itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > So - what is it then, the doer who imagines it does stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > You know - if what you say is correct and I am sure it is, > > > > > > at times I even know it is - then the appearence of the > > > > > > doer (a seer who sees the seen) also appears of itself, by > > > > > > itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > You follow? Of course you do. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > P: doers, observers, entities such as " I " and Geo's > > > > > favorite final entity, the so called Absolute, are > > > > > language mirages. They appear due to faulty > > > > > understanding in the use of language. > > > > > > > > > > Faulty language creates false entities, there > > > > > are no entities outside language. But we become > > > > > hypnotized by words and chase verbal shadows. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand. So, what is faulty understanding, pray tell? > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: We faulty understand that all abstract words are > > > inferences and empty fabrications. They only point > > > to more words. If I say, " Take this rose. " You can > > > see it, smell it, touch it. If I say, " you are the Absolute. " > > > I offer you only words, and nothing your senses can grasp. > > > > > > Justice, freedom, Immortality, etc point only to > > > aspirations of the human mind for an ideal world. > > > > > > Imagine how much unhappiness we could shed, if > > > we clean our languages of such words, and adopt > > > a language a dog could easily understand, a > > > language that would only name the input of the > > > five senses. > > > > > > yes that's it. > > > > and a lingo that hasn't presupposed a " me " . > > > > " it " 's just all happenin' at the zoo. > > > > and not a " personal " thought around. > > > > .b b.b. > > > sure, and you and Pete will start this right now. > > and show us all how to talk only referring to sensings, and never referring to a me in any way, nor any abstraction, and having no personal reactions ... > > > sounds good. > > actually, it's very funny. > > > hey, why not just talk like dogs? > > woof. > > arf, arf. > > > bark, bark. > > > thanks for the laugh and the holiday cheer, > > > - d - > P: If you want a good laugh, watch this. That is so you! I didn't you were on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gCU5uplB4A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The show observes itself, and appears of > > > > > > > > itself, by itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So - what is it then, the doer who imagines it does stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know - if what you say is correct and I am sure it is, > > > > > > > at times I even know it is - then the appearence of the > > > > > > > doer (a seer who sees the seen) also appears of itself, by > > > > > > > itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You follow? Of course you do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > P: doers, observers, entities such as " I " and Geo's > > > > > > favorite final entity, the so called Absolute, are > > > > > > language mirages. They appear due to faulty > > > > > > understanding in the use of language. > > > > > > > > > > > > Faulty language creates false entities, there > > > > > > are no entities outside language. But we become > > > > > > hypnotized by words and chase verbal shadows. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand. So, what is faulty understanding, pray tell? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: We faulty understand that all abstract words are > > > > inferences and empty fabrications. They only point > > > > to more words. If I say, " Take this rose. " You can > > > > see it, smell it, touch it. If I say, " you are the Absolute. " > > > > I offer you only words, and nothing your senses can grasp. > > > > > > > > Justice, freedom, Immortality, etc point only to > > > > aspirations of the human mind for an ideal world. > > > > > > > > Imagine how much unhappiness we could shed, if > > > > we clean our languages of such words, and adopt > > > > a language a dog could easily understand, a > > > > language that would only name the input of the > > > > five senses. > > > > > > > > > yes that's it. > > > > > > and a lingo that hasn't presupposed a " me " . > > > > > > " it " 's just all happenin' at the zoo. > > > > > > and not a " personal " thought around. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > sure, and you and Pete will start this right now. > > > > and show us all how to talk only referring to sensings, and never referring to a me in any way, nor any abstraction, and having no personal reactions ... > > > > > > sounds good. > > > > actually, it's very funny. > > > > > > hey, why not just talk like dogs? > > > > woof. > > > > arf, arf. > > > > > > bark, bark. > > > > > > thanks for the laugh and the holiday cheer, > > > > > > - d - > > > > P: If you want a good laugh, watch this. That > is so you! I didn't you were on youtube. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gCU5uplB4A ROFLMAO! that's our special little boy danny alright. thanks. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing looking out from any eyes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That which is looking is the environment, is the seen - using those eyes to see whatever happens to be seen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Haha! How is that different from what I said, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The show observes itself, and appears of > > > > > > > > itself, by itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So - what is it then, the doer who imagines it does stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know - if what you say is correct and I am sure it is, > > > > > > > at times I even know it is - then the appearence of the > > > > > > > doer (a seer who sees the seen) also appears of itself, by > > > > > > > itself, and for itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You follow? Of course you do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > P: doers, observers, entities such as " I " and Geo's > > > > > > favorite final entity, the so called Absolute, are > > > > > > language mirages. They appear due to faulty > > > > > > understanding in the use of language. > > > > > > > > > > > > Faulty language creates false entities, there > > > > > > are no entities outside language. But we become > > > > > > hypnotized by words and chase verbal shadows. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand. So, what is faulty understanding, pray tell? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: We faulty understand that all abstract words are > > > > inferences and empty fabrications. They only point > > > > to more words. If I say, " Take this rose. " You can > > > > see it, smell it, touch it. If I say, " you are the Absolute. " > > > > I offer you only words, and nothing your senses can grasp. > > > > > > > > Justice, freedom, Immortality, etc point only to > > > > aspirations of the human mind for an ideal world. > > > > > > > > Imagine how much unhappiness we could shed, if > > > > we clean our languages of such words, and adopt > > > > a language a dog could easily understand, a > > > > language that would only name the input of the > > > > five senses. > > > > > > > > > yes that's it. > > > > > > and a lingo that hasn't presupposed a " me " . > > > > > > " it " 's just all happenin' at the zoo. > > > > > > and not a " personal " thought around. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > sure, and you and Pete will start this right now. > > > > and show us all how to talk only referring to sensings, and never referring to a me in any way, nor any abstraction, and having no personal reactions ... > > > > > > sounds good. > > > > actually, it's very funny. > > > > > > hey, why not just talk like dogs? > > > > woof. > > > > arf, arf. > > > > > > bark, bark. > > > > > > thanks for the laugh and the holiday cheer, > > > > > > - d - > > > > well of course you wouldn't understand danny. > > you really are a little monkey aren't you? > > and you really do believe in fairy tales. > > and in your own silly sanctimonious monkeyshines. > > fight onward brave little soldier. > > what a loser! > > that's what that little " me " thingy of yours is all about. > > and everyone here who has witnessed your.. > > bullshit holier than thou fantasies unfold.. > > accept this holiday gift: > > your imitation of the animal kingdom sounds.. > > which have finally indicated.. > > that for at least a small moment in time.. > > you have stopped trying to be some pie in the sky wannabe guru.. > > and admitted that your shit stinks.. > > just like every other filthy animal of which you are but a member. > > it's nice to see you drop that phony halo for even a second. > > i was beginning to think you were a creep all the time. > > now i know.. > > you're just a little creep most of the time. > > LOL! > > get'em tiger! > > .b b.b. bark! bark! yawn. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > P: If you want a good laugh, watch this. That > is so you! I didn't you were on youtube. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gCU5uplB4A I love it! How the hell did you dig this up? Hilarious. I'm so Zen. I make the power of now look like the power of then. This guy is my new master. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
