Hey, Bob, Success at Last, But it Won't Last

December 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> You and I have been trying hard to

> help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> has been consistently saying the right

> ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> for once, he is saying right:

>

> > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> >

> >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? "

> >

> > From you, not me.

>

> P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> as:

>

> D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> construct associated with other constructs.

> It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> doesn't produce the field. "

>

> P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the field.

The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time involved) and

what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent nor

nonexistent.

> >D: I don't believe awareness is the ground of everything.

> >

> > How silly.

>

> P: OK. I misunderstood, the silly way you write. I'm

> glad that you finally have stopped equivocating, and

> are making it plain as per below:

>

> >

> > D:If awareness were the ground of everything what would be the ground of

> awareness?

> >

> > Nothing?

> >

> > And what would be the ground of nothing?

> >

> > There is no ground of everything, nor is there a ground of nothing.

> >

> > There isn't even an everything, which could have a ground.

> >

> > But so what?

> >

> > This nothing that gets named every conceivable name, isn't a nothing.

> >

> > Nothing is just another name.

> >

>

> >

> >D: And what if you stopped obfuscating, and lived as the acausal?

> >

> > You wouldn't care if a million stories of causation were formulated, whether

> based on brains or awareness or nothing or god or whatever ...

> >

> > You would see beyond all that nonsense, and be beyond it.

> >

> > Dan

>

> P: Imagine that! I thought you were obfuscating, And you

> thought I was. Language, eh!

D: I don't touch you through these words, nor do you reach me through yours.

There is no need for such connection, as no separation has ever occurred.

> I have to care about what kind of stories are told

> because stories are dust in the eyes, and the stories

> that you have been telling seem quite dusty to me. But

> that's all in the past, from now on Dan will write as

> clear as sunlight, and abhor stories, and affirm

> perception unadorned by abstract words.

D: Stories are not dust in eyes that see without any story. And thus, word

play is taken for what it is. Play of words, play of light and dark, play as

being.

> P: Well, Bob, what do you think? Is Danny's cork

> shooting toy gun shooting straight, at last?

D: Doesn't need to.

December 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> > You and I have been trying hard to

> > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > has been consistently saying the right

> > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > for once, he is saying right:

> >

> > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > >

> > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? "

> > >

> > > From you, not me.

> >

> > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > as:

> >

> > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > construct associated with other constructs.

> > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > doesn't produce the field. "

> >

> > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

>

> Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

>

> The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

>

> Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time involved)

and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

>

> To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent nor

nonexistent.

P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

December 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > > You and I have been trying hard to

> > > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > > has been consistently saying the right

> > > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > > for once, he is saying right:

> > >

> > > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > > >

> > > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? "

> > > >

> > > > From you, not me.

> > >

> > > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > > as:

> > >

> > > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > > construct associated with other constructs.

> > > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > > doesn't produce the field. "

> > >

> > > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

> >

> > Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

> >

> > The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

> >

> > Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time involved)

and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

> >

> > To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent nor

nonexistent.

>

> P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

> He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

D: Don't worry, Pete. All the gibberish is just appearing

in your brain. So, you can relax now.

Your brain is producing the gibberish and attributing

it to a cause it is calling " Dan. "

Take this issue up with your brain.

December 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > > You and I have been trying hard to

> > > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > > has been consistently saying the right

> > > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > > for once, he is saying right:

> > >

> > > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > > >

> > > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? "

> > > >

> > > > From you, not me.

> > >

> > > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > > as:

> > >

> > > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > > construct associated with other constructs.

> > > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > > doesn't produce the field. "

> > >

> > > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

> >

> > Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

> >

> > The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

> >

> > Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time involved)

and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

> >

> > To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent nor

nonexistent.

>

> P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

> He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

P.S. Since I love you, I'll give you a koan to work on.

" What do you call something that is located and has no location? "

Work on it.

The answer is not: " gibberish " ...

And the answer is not " the brain " ...

December 19, 2009

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> You and I have been trying hard to

> help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> has been consistently saying the right

> ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> for once, he is saying right:

>

> > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> >

> >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? "

> >

> > From you, not me.

>

> P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> as:

>

> D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> construct associated with other constructs.

> It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> doesn't produce the field. "

>

> P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

>

> >

> >D: I don't believe awareness is the ground of everything.

> >

> > How silly.

>

> P: OK. I misunderstood, the silly way you write. I'm

> glad that you finally have stopped equivocating, and

> are making it plain as per below:

>

> >

> > D:If awareness were the ground of everything what would be the ground of

> awareness?

> >

> > Nothing?

> >

> > And what would be the ground of nothing?

> >

> > There is no ground of everything, nor is there a ground of nothing.

> >

> > There isn't even an everything, which could have a ground.

> >

> > But so what?

> >

> > This nothing that gets named every conceivable name, isn't a nothing.

> >

> > Nothing is just another name.

> >

>

> >

> >D: And what if you stopped obfuscating, and lived as the acausal?

> >

> > You wouldn't care if a million stories of causation were formulated, whether

> based on brains or awareness or nothing or god or whatever ...

> >

> > You would see beyond all that nonsense, and be beyond it.

> >

> > Dan

>

> P: Imagine that! I thought you were obfuscating, And you

> thought I was. Language, eh!

>

> I have to care about what kind of stories are told

> because stories are dust in the eyes, and the stories

> that you have been telling seem quite dusty to me. But

> that's all in the past, from now on Dan will write as

> clear as sunlight, and abhor stories, and affirm

> perception unadorned by abstract words.

>

> P: Well, Bob, what do you think? Is Danny's cork

> shooting toy gun shooting straight, at last?

well i spent this day...all day..

xmas shopping.

now after coming home..and

after and reading the above...

i think i need consider going to the mall again tomorrow.

i mean..i'm still not sure..

if i can say his Red Ryder's shootin' straight..

but from the results of his poor pot shots..

i know he needs a new sight fer damn sure.

that boy can't see the target for his own behind.

and after that many corkers have hit his little sorry ass..

ewell..

he's not called corky for nothin'

:-)

..b b.b.

December 19, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> > You and I have been trying hard to

> > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > has been consistently saying the right

> > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > for once, he is saying right:

> >

> > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > >

> > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? "

> > >

> > > From you, not me.

> >

> > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > as:

> >

> > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > construct associated with other constructs.

> > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > doesn't produce the field. "

> >

> > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

>

> Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

>

> The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

>

> Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time involved)

and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

>

> To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent nor

nonexistent.

>

> > >D: I don't believe awareness is the ground of everything.

> > >

> > > How silly.

> >

> > P: OK. I misunderstood, the silly way you write. I'm

> > glad that you finally have stopped equivocating, and

> > are making it plain as per below:

> >

> > >

> > > D:If awareness were the ground of everything what would be the ground of

> > awareness?

> > >

> > > Nothing?

> > >

> > > And what would be the ground of nothing?

> > >

> > > There is no ground of everything, nor is there a ground of nothing.

> > >

> > > There isn't even an everything, which could have a ground.

> > >

> > > But so what?

> > >

> > > This nothing that gets named every conceivable name, isn't a nothing.

> > >

> > > Nothing is just another name.

> > >

> >

> > >

> > >D: And what if you stopped obfuscating, and lived as the acausal?

> > >

> > > You wouldn't care if a million stories of causation were formulated,

whether

> > based on brains or awareness or nothing or god or whatever ...

> > >

> > > You would see beyond all that nonsense, and be beyond it.

> > >

> > > Dan

> >

> > P: Imagine that! I thought you were obfuscating, And you

> > thought I was. Language, eh!

>

> D: I don't touch you through these words, nor do you reach me through yours.

There is no need for such connection, as no separation has ever occurred.

>

> > I have to care about what kind of stories are told

> > because stories are dust in the eyes, and the stories

> > that you have been telling seem quite dusty to me. But

> > that's all in the past, from now on Dan will write as

> > clear as sunlight, and abhor stories, and affirm

> > perception unadorned by abstract words.

>

> D: Stories are not dust in eyes that see without any story. And thus, word

play is taken for what it is. Play of words, play of light and dark, play as

being.

>

> > P: Well, Bob, what do you think? Is Danny's cork

> > shooting toy gun shooting straight, at last?

>

> D: Doesn't need to.

that's right danny..

you have many more needs that need attention first.

besides..

i'm picking up for you an new " aimer " for Christmas.

and some softer corks for the sake of your little king-king.

meanwhile son..

protect and defend.

especially try to protect yourself from you own inability.

:-)

..b b.b.

December 19, 2009

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > > You and I have been trying hard to

> > > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > > has been consistently saying the right

> > > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > > for once, he is saying right:

> > >

> > > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > > >

> > > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? "

> > > >

> > > > From you, not me.

> > >

> > > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > > as:

> > >

> > > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > > construct associated with other constructs.

> > > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > > doesn't produce the field. "

> > >

> > > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

> >

> > Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

> >

> > The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

> >

> > Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time involved)

and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

> >

> > To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent nor

nonexistent.

>

> P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

> He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

you're right..

maybe he needs a hippopotamus for Christmas to play with and enjoy.

i'll forget about getting him that new sight..

for his Red Ryder cork gun.

it's not likely to improve his aim anyway.

and he might shoot his eye out if he stops hitting his ass.

oh what a " Christmas Story " that would make!

LOL!

..b b.b.

December 19, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > You and I have been trying hard to

> > > > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > > > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > > > has been consistently saying the right

> > > > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > > > for once, he is saying right:

> > > >

> > > > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > > > >

> > > > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? "

> > > > >

> > > > > From you, not me.

> > > >

> > > > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > > > as:

> > > >

> > > > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > > > construct associated with other constructs.

> > > > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > > > doesn't produce the field. "

> > > >

> > > > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > > > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > > > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > > > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > > > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

> > >

> > > Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

> > >

> > > The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

> > >

> > > Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time

involved) and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

> > >

> > > To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent

nor nonexistent.

> >

> > P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

> > He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

>

> D: Don't worry, Pete. All the gibberish is just appearing

> in your brain. So, you can relax now.

>

> Your brain is producing the gibberish and attributing

> it to a cause it is calling " Dan. "

>

> Take this issue up with your brain.

go for it danny...

you need to protect your little ego.

it shouldn't be too big a job for you..

you only think it's a big thing...

both the job and that 'self " thingy of yours.

now:

Go Tell It On a Mountain!

shout it from On High!

no body ever listens to your silliness anyway.

except that little boy blue..danny himself.

:-)

..b b.b.

December 19, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > You and I have been trying hard to

> > > > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > > > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > > > has been consistently saying the right

> > > > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > > > for once, he is saying right:

> > > >

> > > > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > > > >

> > > > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? "

> > > > >

> > > > > From you, not me.

> > > >

> > > > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > > > as:

> > > >

> > > > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > > > construct associated with other constructs.

> > > > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > > > doesn't produce the field. "

> > > >

> > > > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > > > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > > > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > > > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > > > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

> > >

> > > Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

> > >

> > > The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

> > >

> > > Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time

involved) and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

> > >

> > > To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent

nor nonexistent.

> >

> > P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

> > He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

>

> P.S. Since I love you, I'll give you a koan to work on.

>

> " What do you call something that is located and has no location? "

>

> Work on it.

>

> The answer is not: " gibberish " ...

>

> And the answer is not " the brain " ...

oh shit..

here we go again.

look danny..

you don't even understand the question.

don't pretend you know what the answer is.

what a little herk.

..b b.b.

December 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > > You and I have been trying hard to

> > > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > > has been consistently saying the right

> > > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > > for once, he is saying right:

> > >

> > > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > > >

> > > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? "

> > > >

> > > > From you, not me.

> > >

> > > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > > as:

> > >

> > > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > > construct associated with other constructs.

> > > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > > doesn't produce the field. "

> > >

> > > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

> >

> > Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

> >

> > The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

> >

> > Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time involved)

and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

> >

> > To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent nor

nonexistent.

>

> P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

> He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

O

I heard a dog barking in the distance and then I realised I am that dog.

I read a post from some idiot who thinks he is aware and then I realised I am

that idiot.

I am that I am until I think about it.

It's all so simple until YOU think about it.

Mark

December 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > You and I have been trying hard to

> > > > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > > > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > > > has been consistently saying the right

> > > > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > > > for once, he is saying right:

> > > >

> > > > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > > > >

> > > > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? "

> > > > >

> > > > > From you, not me.

> > > >

> > > > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > > > as:

> > > >

> > > > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > > > construct associated with other constructs.

> > > > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > > > doesn't produce the field. "

> > > >

> > > > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > > > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > > > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > > > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > > > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

> > >

> > > Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

> > >

> > > The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

> > >

> > > Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time

involved) and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

> > >

> > > To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent

nor nonexistent.

> >

> > P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

> > He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

> O

> I heard a dog barking in the distance and then I realised I am that dog.

> I read a post from some idiot who thinks he is aware and then I realised I am

that idiot.

> I am that I am until I think about it.

> It's all so simple until YOU think about it.

> Mark

i can't believe i wrote that to read this to reply thus.

i can't believe anything.

when there's no i to believe there's nothing believed.

it's not simple nor difficult...

lighter than air more solid than steel.

it doesn't matter.

it doesn't energize.

it doesn't it.

....

..b b.b.

December 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > You and I have been trying hard to

> > > > > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > > > > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > > > > has been consistently saying the right

> > > > > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > > > > for once, he is saying right:

> > > > >

> > > > > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > > > > >

> > > > > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of

everything? "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > From you, not me.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > > > > as:

> > > > >

> > > > > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > > > > construct associated with other constructs.

> > > > > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > > > > doesn't produce the field. "

> > > > >

> > > > > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > > > > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > > > > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > > > > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > > > > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

> > > >

> > > > Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

> > > >

> > > > The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

> > > >

> > > > Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time

involved) and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

> > > >

> > > > To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent

nor nonexistent.

> > >

> > > P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

> > > He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

> > O

> > I heard a dog barking in the distance and then I realised I am that dog.

> > I read a post from some idiot who thinks he is aware and then I realised I

am that idiot.

> > I am that I am until I think about it.

> > It's all so simple until YOU think about it.

> > Mark

>

> i can't believe i wrote that to read this to reply thus.

>

> i can't believe anything.

>

> when there's no i to believe there's nothing believed.

>

> it's not simple nor difficult...

>

> lighter than air more solid than steel.

>

> it doesn't matter.

>

> it doesn't energize.

>

> it doesn't it.

>

> ...

>

> .b b.b.

>

well I don't know, this whole thread seemed pretty difficult to me.

but I do believe you otherwise.

Mark

December 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > You and I have been trying hard to

> > > > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > > > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > > > has been consistently saying the right

> > > > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > > > for once, he is saying right:

> > > >

> > > > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > > > >

> > > > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? "

> > > > >

> > > > > From you, not me.

> > > >

> > > > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > > > as:

> > > >

> > > > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > > > construct associated with other constructs.

> > > > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > > > doesn't produce the field. "

> > > >

> > > > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > > > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > > > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > > > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > > > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

> > >

> > > Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

> > >

> > > The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

> > >

> > > Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time

involved) and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

> > >

> > > To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent

nor nonexistent.

> >

> > P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

> > He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

> O

> I heard a dog barking in the distance and then I realised I am that dog.

> I read a post from some idiot who thinks he is aware and then I realised I am

that idiot.

> I am that I am until I think about it.

> It's all so simple until YOU think about it.

> Mark

>

Mark,

It seeems you are also someone who believes just to be a mirror and that your

brain has no ability to discriminate between different people or between

yourself and another.

I wonder why people, as soon as they stick their nose into non-duality, become

such strange dogmatic blockheads.

Werner

December 20, 2009

> I wonder why people, as soon as they stick their nose into non-duality, become

such strange dogmatic blockheads.

>

> Werner

If that's true, Werner, and I'm not sure it is,as I don't

have enough experience yet to be sure, then isn't that true

of all new converts to any religion?

First year psych. students can be similarly irritating.

Uncle Sophie

Also, not sure if it's a fair use in this case applied to

whoever it was you were talking to, I am just coasting

along my many unread message lists marked mentally

" Of Possible Interest " and this caught my attention.

Excuse me if I'm being appallingly obvious, I've only just

arrived.

December 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You and I have been trying hard to

> > > > > > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > > > > > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > > > > > has been consistently saying the right

> > > > > > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > > > > > for once, he is saying right:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > > > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > > > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > > > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > > > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > > > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of

everything? "

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > From you, not me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > > > > > as:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > > > > > construct associated with other constructs.

> > > > > > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > > > > > doesn't produce the field. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > > > > > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > > > > > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > > > > > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > > > > > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

> > > > >

> > > > > Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with

the field.

> > > > >

> > > > > The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as

separable.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time

involved) and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

> > > > >

> > > > > To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither

existent nor nonexistent.

> > > >

> > > > P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

> > > > He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

> > > O

> > > I heard a dog barking in the distance and then I realised I am that dog.

> > > I read a post from some idiot who thinks he is aware and then I realised I

am that idiot.

> > > I am that I am until I think about it.

> > > It's all so simple until YOU think about it.

> > > Mark

> >

> > i can't believe i wrote that to read this to reply thus.

> >

> > i can't believe anything.

> >

> > when there's no i to believe there's nothing believed.

> >

> > it's not simple nor difficult...

> >

> > lighter than air more solid than steel.

> >

> > it doesn't matter.

> >

> > it doesn't energize.

> >

> > it doesn't it.

> >

> > ...

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> well I don't know, this whole thread seemed pretty difficult to me.

> but I do believe you otherwise.

> Mark

i can' believe you.

there's nothing to believe.

no " i " ..no " you " ..

so it's not even believable that i said i can't believe you.

it's not even it so..

no wonder it's not believable.

..b b.b.

December 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > You and I have been trying hard to

> > > > > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > > > > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > > > > has been consistently saying the right

> > > > > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > > > > for once, he is saying right:

> > > > >

> > > > > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > > > > >

> > > > > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of

everything? "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > From you, not me.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > > > > as:

> > > > >

> > > > > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > > > > construct associated with other constructs.

> > > > > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > > > > doesn't produce the field. "

> > > > >

> > > > > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > > > > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > > > > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > > > > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > > > > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

> > > >

> > > > Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

> > > >

> > > > The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

> > > >

> > > > Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time

involved) and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

> > > >

> > > > To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent

nor nonexistent.

> > >

> > > P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

> > > He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

> > O

> > I heard a dog barking in the distance and then I realised I am that dog.

> > I read a post from some idiot who thinks he is aware and then I realised I

am that idiot.

> > I am that I am until I think about it.

> > It's all so simple until YOU think about it.

> > Mark

> >

>

> Mark,

>

> It seeems you are also someone who believes just to be a mirror and that your

brain has no ability to discriminate between different people or between

yourself and another.

>

> I wonder why people, as soon as they stick their nose into non-duality, become

such strange dogmatic blockheads.

>

> Werner

because you mirror yourself blockhead.

but don't forget you also mirror that cute hairdo too werner.

and at your age!

LOL!

..b b.b.

December 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Uncle Sophie " <unclesophie wrote:

>

> > I wonder why people, as soon as they stick their nose into non-duality,

become such strange dogmatic blockheads.

> >

> > Werner

>

> If that's true, Werner, and I'm not sure it is,as I don't

> have enough experience yet to be sure, then isn't that true

> of all new converts to any religion?

>

> First year psych. students can be similarly irritating.

>

> Uncle Sophie

>

> Also, not sure if it's a fair use in this case applied to

> whoever it was you were talking to, I am just coasting

> along my many unread message lists marked mentally

> " Of Possible Interest " and this caught my attention.

>

> Excuse me if I'm being appallingly obvious, I've only just

> arrived.

>

Welcom to this list, US,

Surely, what I wrote was a generalization and there are also members who

definitely can differentiate. But nevertheless I can't help to see this trend of

inflexible dogmatism wihin non-dual religion and non-dual creed and you are

right that this is seen in all religions.

Werner

December 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Uncle Sophie " <unclesophie@> wrote:

> >

> > > I wonder why people, as soon as they stick their nose into non-duality,

become such strange dogmatic blockheads.

> > >

> > > Werner

> >

> > If that's true, Werner, and I'm not sure it is,as I don't

> > have enough experience yet to be sure, then isn't that true

> > of all new converts to any religion?

> >

> > First year psych. students can be similarly irritating.

> >

> > Uncle Sophie

> >

> > Also, not sure if it's a fair use in this case applied to

> > whoever it was you were talking to, I am just coasting

> > along my many unread message lists marked mentally

> > " Of Possible Interest " and this caught my attention.

> >

> > Excuse me if I'm being appallingly obvious, I've only just

> > arrived.

> >

>

> Welcom to this list, US,

>

> Surely, what I wrote was a generalization and there are also members who

definitely can differentiate. But nevertheless I can't help to see this trend of

inflexible dogmatism wihin non-dual religion and non-dual creed and you are

right that this is seen in all religions.

>

> Werner

>

Hi Werner, welcome Uncle Sophie.

I'd like to take a few moments to answer what *happened* to me.

In the thralls of experiencing nonduality, ironically, it's all I could think

and talk about, much like a born-again Christian...and in a very real sense I

was reborn with a brand new experience/viewpoint/understanding of life. It was

uplifting and delicious to know I was not alone. All these years of spiritual

seeking and finally, now I had fallen into the abyss of *enough*.

The experience, however, deepens even my outwards life didn't/doesn't much

change.

However, my relationships did and do dramatically evolve. I tend to watch them

more these days then comment though it is quite different on/with my poetry

groups.

~A

December 20, 2009

Mark,

It seeems you are also someone who believes just to be a mirror and that your

brain has no ability to discriminate between different people or between

yourself and another.

I wonder why people, as soon as they stick their nose into non-duality, become

such strange dogmatic blockheads.

Werner

yes....look like all potatoes and bananas are equal...

in front of themself

Marc

December 20, 2009

Hi Werner, welcome Uncle Sophie.

I'd like to take a few moments to answer what *happened* to me.

In the thralls of experiencing nonduality, ironically, it's all I could think

and talk about, much like a born-again Christian... and in a very real sense I

was reborn with a brand new experience/viewpoin t/understanding of life. It was

uplifting and delicious to know I was not alone. All these years of spiritual

seeking and finally, now I had fallen into the abyss of *enough*.

The experience, however, deepens even my outwards life didn't/doesn' t much

change.

However, my relationships did and do dramatically evolve. I tend to watch them

more these days then comment though it is quite different on/with my poetry

groups.

~A

yes.....it looks like a real drama all this " your " evolution....

with a little chance...all this your pains will come to end ...one day...

so that get a chance to be just a normal being...

like Nobody else....

lol

Marc

December 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Uncle Sophie " <unclesophie@> wrote:

> >

> > > I wonder why people, as soon as they stick their nose into non-duality,

become such strange dogmatic blockheads.

> > >

> > > Werner

> >

> > If that's true, Werner, and I'm not sure it is,as I don't

> > have enough experience yet to be sure, then isn't that true

> > of all new converts to any religion?

> >

> > First year psych. students can be similarly irritating.

> >

> > Uncle Sophie

> >

> > Also, not sure if it's a fair use in this case applied to

> > whoever it was you were talking to, I am just coasting

> > along my many unread message lists marked mentally

> > " Of Possible Interest " and this caught my attention.

> >

> > Excuse me if I'm being appallingly obvious, I've only just

> > arrived.

> >

>

> Welcom to this list, US,

>

> Surely, what I wrote was a generalization and there are also members who

definitely can differentiate. But nevertheless I can't help to see this trend of

inflexible dogmatism wihin non-dual religion and non-dual creed and you are

right that this is seen in all religions.

>

> Werner

s'cuze me!

non-duality is the ABSENCE of religion.

no wonder you say such screwy things.

you don't know of what your speaking from the first.

" religion " ??????????????

give it a rest werner.

..b b.b.

December 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Uncle Sophie " <unclesophie@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > I wonder why people, as soon as they stick their nose into non-duality,

become such strange dogmatic blockheads.

> > > >

> > > > Werner

> > >

> > > If that's true, Werner, and I'm not sure it is,as I don't

> > > have enough experience yet to be sure, then isn't that true

> > > of all new converts to any religion?

> > >

> > > First year psych. students can be similarly irritating.

> > >

> > > Uncle Sophie

> > >

> > > Also, not sure if it's a fair use in this case applied to

> > > whoever it was you were talking to, I am just coasting

> > > along my many unread message lists marked mentally

> > > " Of Possible Interest " and this caught my attention.

> > >

> > > Excuse me if I'm being appallingly obvious, I've only just

> > > arrived.

> > >

> >

> > Welcom to this list, US,

> >

> > Surely, what I wrote was a generalization and there are also members who

definitely can differentiate. But nevertheless I can't help to see this trend of

inflexible dogmatism wihin non-dual religion and non-dual creed and you are

right that this is seen in all religions.

> >

> > Werner

>

> s'cuze me!

>

> non-duality is the ABSENCE of religion.

Yes. Religare means to connect to - a god or something - or just:

here am I connecting to you, but since there is no me and no you

- only one, not a me connecting to a you or an other, religion is

absent in non-duality. Religion requires for there to be at least

two in a relationship - but the fact is, that there is but one in

the relationship.

One being - one in a relationship with one, is not to be confused

with the sensation that often follows identification - this is to

say the feeling lonely as in abandonned -- left alone BY somebody.

Smile

-Lene

> no wonder you say such screwy things.

>

> you don't know of what your speaking from the first.

>

> " religion " ??????????????

>

> give it a rest werner.

>

> .b b.b.

>

December 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > You and I have been trying hard to

> > > > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > > > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > > > has been consistently saying the right

> > > > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > > > for once, he is saying right:

> > > >

> > > > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > > > >

> > > > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? "

> > > > >

> > > > > From you, not me.

> > > >

> > > > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > > > as:

> > > >

> > > > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > > > construct associated with other constructs.

> > > > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > > > doesn't produce the field. "

> > > >

> > > > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > > > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > > > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > > > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > > > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

> > >

> > > Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

> > >

> > > The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

> > >

> > > Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time

involved) and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

> > >

> > > To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent

nor nonexistent.

> >

> > P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

> > He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

> O

> I heard a dog barking in the distance and then I realised I am that dog.

> I read a post from some idiot who thinks he is aware and then I realised I am

that idiot.

> I am that I am until I think about it.

> It's all so simple until YOU think about it.

> Mark

Indeed.

And so it is.

So much so, that no realization is needed.

Nor is any realization lacking.

So much so, that any thought can freely pass through and pass by.

And this is as it is.

Being as such.

- Dan -

December 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > You and I have been trying hard to

> > > > > help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy,

> > > > > he shoots south, when he aims north. He

> > > > > has been consistently saying the right

> > > > > ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least

> > > > > for once, he is saying right:

> > > > >

> > > > > > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness

> > > > > > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and

> > > > > > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You

> > > > > > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the

> > > > > > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave

> > > > > > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha!

> > > > > >

> > > > > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of

everything? "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > From you, not me.

> > > > >

> > > > > P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such

> > > > > as:

> > > > >

> > > > > D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a

> > > > > construct associated with other constructs.

> > > > > It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field

> > > > > doesn't produce the field. "

> > > > >

> > > > > P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare

> > > > > awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion.

> > > > > How else can that be read other than: awareness produces

> > > > > the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing

> > > > > awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close.

> > > >

> > > > Being aware of the field, awareness is necessarily co-extensive with the

field.

> > > >

> > > > The field being totality, there is no awareness of a field as separable.

> > > >

> > > > Thus, understanding reaches what can't be reached (because no time

involved) and what can't be stated (as words assume duration and location).

> > > >

> > > > To be what is, that involves no not, which therefore is neither existent

nor nonexistent.

> > >

> > > P: Never mind, Bob. Dan has relapsed into gibberish again!

> > > He is a non-durational non-locatable lost cause. Hahaha!

> >

> > P.S. Since I love you, I'll give you a koan to work on.

> >

> > " What do you call something that is located and has no location? "

> >

> > Work on it.

> >

> > The answer is not: " gibberish " ...

> >

> > And the answer is not " the brain " ...

>

> oh shit..

>

> here we go again.

>

> look danny..

>

> you don't even understand the question.

>

> don't pretend you know what the answer is.

>

> what a little herk.

>

> .b b.b.

The answer is.

- D -

December 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Uncle Sophie " <unclesophie@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > I wonder why people, as soon as they stick their nose into

non-duality, become such strange dogmatic blockheads.

> > > > >

> > > > > Werner

> > > >

> > > > If that's true, Werner, and I'm not sure it is,as I don't

> > > > have enough experience yet to be sure, then isn't that true

> > > > of all new converts to any religion?

> > > >

> > > > First year psych. students can be similarly irritating.

> > > >

> > > > Uncle Sophie

> > > >

> > > > Also, not sure if it's a fair use in this case applied to

> > > > whoever it was you were talking to, I am just coasting

> > > > along my many unread message lists marked mentally

> > > > " Of Possible Interest " and this caught my attention.

> > > >

> > > > Excuse me if I'm being appallingly obvious, I've only just

> > > > arrived.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Welcom to this list, US,

> > >

> > > Surely, what I wrote was a generalization and there are also members who

definitely can differentiate. But nevertheless I can't help to see this trend of

inflexible dogmatism wihin non-dual religion and non-dual creed and you are

right that this is seen in all religions.

> > >

> > > Werner

> >

> > s'cuze me!

> >

> > non-duality is the ABSENCE of religion.

>

> Yes. Religare means to connect to - a god or something - or just:

> here am I connecting to you, but since there is no me and no you

> - only one, not a me connecting to a you or an other, religion is

> absent in non-duality. Religion requires for there to be at least

> two in a relationship - but the fact is, that there is but one in

> the relationship.

>

> One being - one in a relationship with one, is not to be confused

> with the sensation that often follows identification - this is to

> say the feeling lonely as in abandonned -- left alone BY somebody.

>

> Smile

>

> -Lene

Relate also means to connect.

There isn't anything in or outside of one to connect.

If you say no religion, then by the same token no relationship.

As no separate other ever existed to connect with one, feeling lonely or

abandoned is a movement of energy and doesn't make there actually be an other

who abandoned someone.

This is the play, the drama, of human life.

Feelings in flux, making it seem as if existing beings were doing things to

other existing beings separate from them.

- D -

Sign In

Hey, Bob, Success at Last, But it Won't Last

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest