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

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 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

>

> 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 -

 

 

indeed.

 

so why say anything?

 

sheesh!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> 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 -

 

 

there is no answer when there is no question.

 

why do you ask?

 

are you so lost?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(dab):

 

> 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.

 

 

(.b b.b.):

 

why do you think repeating what Lene just said is needed?

 

or as has been surmised..

 

do you just like to:

 

1. hear yourself talk?

 

2. see yourself in print online?

 

3. believe that you have made some sort of wise contribution?

 

so sad.

 

but good for laughs!

 

 

 

 

(dab):

 

> 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.

 

 

(.b b.b.):

 

are you being intentionally ridiculous?

 

read that agian.

 

think before you write.

 

being obtuse doesn't make you inscrutable.

 

it just makes you sound incoherent.

 

well of course considering the source...

 

ahem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(dab) :

 

> 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 -

 

 

 

 

(.b b.b.):

 

i knew you must be playing!

 

now at least and at last you've admitted it.

 

bad play.

 

needs a rewrite.

 

it's written by a bad actor it would seem.

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

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.

 

P: Hey, Unc, you are diving in troubled waters here.

There is no Sarlo to keep sharks away from your

tender parts. It's mind what you say, or be eaten alive. )

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> 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

> >

> > 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 -

>

>

> indeed.

>

> so why say anything?

>

> sheesh!

>

> .b b.b.

 

what could ever be said?

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> >

> > 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 -

>

>

> there is no answer when there is no question.

>

> why do you ask?

>

> are you so lost?

>

> .b b.b.

 

beyond lost.

 

beyond hope.

 

having given up on giving up.

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> >

> > 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

>

(dab):

>

> > 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.

>

>

> (.b b.b.):

>

> why do you think repeating what Lene just said is needed?

>

> or as has been surmised..

>

> do you just like to:

>

> 1. hear yourself talk?

>

> 2. see yourself in print online?

>

> 3. believe that you have made some sort of wise contribution?

>

> so sad.

>

> but good for laughs!

>

>

>

>

> (dab):

>

> > 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.

>

>

> (.b b.b.):

>

> are you being intentionally ridiculous?

>

> read that agian.

>

> think before you write.

>

> being obtuse doesn't make you inscrutable.

>

> it just makes you sound incoherent.

>

> well of course considering the source...

>

> ahem.

>

(dab) :

>

> > 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 -

>

>

>

>

> (.b b.b.):

>

> i knew you must be playing!

>

> now at least and at last you've admitted it.

>

> bad play.

>

> needs a rewrite.

>

> it's written by a bad actor it would seem.

>

> LOL!

>

> .b b.b.

 

if you existed, you could say something about it.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 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.

>

> P: Hey, Unc, you are diving in troubled waters here.

> There is no Sarlo to keep sharks away from your

> tender parts. It's mind what you say, or be eaten alive. )

 

D: Like a bridge over troubled waters, I do lay " me " down ...

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> 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.

> >

> > P: Hey, Unc, you are diving in troubled waters here.

> > There is no Sarlo to keep sharks away from your

> > tender parts. It's mind what you say, or be eaten alive. )

>

> D: Like a bridge over troubled waters, I do lay " me " down ...

 

P: You lie! We know Dan doesn't get lay,

stroking his keyboard is his only fun. )

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> 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

> > >

> > > 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 -

> >

> >

> > indeed.

> >

> > so why say anything?

> >

> > sheesh!

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> what could ever be said?

>

> - D -

 

 

you just said it.

 

that's what.

 

what's the matter with you?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 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 -

> >

> >

> > there is no answer when there is no question.

> >

> > why do you ask?

> >

> > are you so lost?

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> beyond lost.

>

> beyond hope.

>

> having given up on giving up.

>

> - d -

 

 

oh bullshit dabby.

 

you haven't given up on this constant trying to sound above it all.

 

you're full of crap and you know it.

 

but you won't ever give it up.

 

what a farce!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > (dab):

> >

> > > 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.

> >

> >

> > (.b b.b.):

> >

> > why do you think repeating what Lene just said is needed?

> >

> > or as has been surmised..

> >

> > do you just like to:

> >

> > 1. hear yourself talk?

> >

> > 2. see yourself in print online?

> >

> > 3. believe that you have made some sort of wise contribution?

> >

> > so sad.

> >

> > but good for laughs!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > (dab):

> >

> > > 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.

> >

> >

> > (.b b.b.):

> >

> > are you being intentionally ridiculous?

> >

> > read that agian.

> >

> > think before you write.

> >

> > being obtuse doesn't make you inscrutable.

> >

> > it just makes you sound incoherent.

> >

> > well of course considering the source...

> >

> > ahem.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > (dab) :

> >

> > > 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 -

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > (.b b.b.):

> >

> > i knew you must be playing!

> >

> > now at least and at last you've admitted it.

> >

> > bad play.

> >

> > needs a rewrite.

> >

> > it's written by a bad actor it would seem.

> >

> > LOL!

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> if you existed, you could say something about it.

>

> - D -

 

 

like you just did huh dabby?

 

not that you've said anything intelligent about it.

 

but you did just say something about it.

 

drab but what can you do?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> 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.

> >

> > P: Hey, Unc, you are diving in troubled waters here.

> > There is no Sarlo to keep sharks away from your

> > tender parts. It's mind what you say, or be eaten alive. )

>

> D: Like a bridge over troubled waters, I do lay " me " down ...

 

 

o stop it!

 

now you think you're a friggin' Messiah.

 

get lost for real dabby.

 

don't take on the perceived characteristics of what you think you are.

 

you aren't that kid for damn sure.

 

just lose that which you think you are

 

and all it's ill conceived wannabe ideas.

 

simply grow up.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 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.

>

> P: Hey, Unc, you are diving in troubled waters here.

> There is no Sarlo to keep sharks away from your

> tender parts. It's mind what you say, or be eaten alive. )

 

That's okay Pete, I have my imaginary friends, Shark Boy

and Lava Girl, to give me directions out of trouble.

 

I just need to catch the train of thought, swim down the

stream of consciousness and through the passage of time,

if I want to save Planet Drool.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVM3O78

 

Uncle Sophie

[Guest guest]

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,

>

 

Thank you Werner, and all who've said hello or something

else to greet me.

 

The Nisargadatta list homepage quotes attracted me here, as

questions of the true nature of identity are like raspberry

blossoms to a bee, to me.

 

It is summer here, there is a lot to do outside so I might not

have time to read everything thoroughly but I'm enjoying

reading here and there.

 

> 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

 

I know when I cling to something I have figured out rather than

let it be a living knowledge (which means it might change) it

becomes stale.

 

Uncle Sophie

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> 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.

 

 

 

Let me clarify:

 

In my corner of the world - connection means a relationship

between at least two -- for instance a relation between god

or absolute or unknwon - and me.

 

God or etc etc thus becomes my crutch, something I can hold

on to, cling to - so that I be not alone/lonesome.

 

When the crutch is dumped - there is only me, this is to say

there is no longer two in the relationship -- only one. I am

alone, I am all one in the relation.

 

Re-ligare means to - well, why not use the word clinging? or

holding on to - a crutch, straw, a god(principle) a absolute

- I already said that. You get the gist.

 

Dump the straw, the clinging, and there is but one in the re-

lation.

 

This is Krishnamurti in a nutshell. Kierkegaard would I think

claim that it is when you merge with god -- that there is but

one - but I like Krishnamurti's version better.

 

Should add - I am NOT an expert on either of the gents.

 

Love

Lene

 

 

 

>

> 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 -

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> >

> > 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.

>

>

>

> Let me clarify:

>

> In my corner of the world - connection means a relationship

> between at least two -- for instance a relation between god

> or absolute or unknwon - and me.

>

> God or etc etc thus becomes my crutch, something I can hold

> on to, cling to - so that I be not alone/lonesome.

>

> When the crutch is dumped - there is only me, this is to say

> there is no longer two in the relationship -- only one. I am

> alone, I am all one in the relation.

>

> Re-ligare means to - well, why not use the word clinging? or

> holding on to - a crutch, straw, a god(principle) a absolute

> - I already said that. You get the gist.

>

> Dump the straw, the clinging, and there is but one in the re-

> lation.

>

> This is Krishnamurti in a nutshell. Kierkegaard would I think

> claim that it is when you merge with god -- that there is but

> one - but I like Krishnamurti's version better.

>

> Should add - I am NOT an expert on either of the gents.

>

> Love

> Lene

 

 

 

I take back what I said about SK. He is much more subtle than

that - much more - it is something about the self meeting the

self, merging with itself and in that meeting there one whole

- no division, no separation - or or something like that - so

pardonnez moi, M Kierkegaard

 

-Lene

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> >

> > 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.

>

>

>

> Let me clarify:

>

> In my corner of the world - connection means a relationship

> between at least two -- for instance a relation between god

> or absolute or unknwon - and me.

>

> God or etc etc thus becomes my crutch, something I can hold

> on to, cling to - so that I be not alone/lonesome.

>

> When the crutch is dumped - there is only me, this is to say

> there is no longer two in the relationship -- only one. I am

> alone, I am all one in the relation.

>

> Re-ligare means to - well, why not use the word clinging? or

> holding on to - a crutch, straw, a god(principle) a absolute

> - I already said that. You get the gist.

>

> Dump the straw, the clinging, and there is but one in the re-

> lation.

>

> This is Krishnamurti in a nutshell. Kierkegaard would I think

> claim that it is when you merge with god -- that there is but

> one - but I like Krishnamurti's version better.

>

> Should add - I am NOT an expert on either of the gents.

>

> Love

> Lene

>

 

Hi Lene -

 

When there is only one, there isn't even one.

 

One has no relation to one.

 

It just is.

 

Therefore, is and isn't don't apply.

 

Nothing has ever been said about this, because words always go back and forth.

 

The discovery of this doesn't uncover anything new.

 

Is, never not is.

 

Relationship without two, involves no relating, and isn't a relationship.

 

It's nothing.

 

And not even nothing.

 

With no " not " involved.

 

Speaking of this is only for the sake of relinquishing what is unreal.

 

And if I relinquish what is unreal, the world of time, which is relationships -

just *is* ... not even *is* ... without any " not " ...

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> >

> >

> > Let me clarify:

> >

> > In my corner of the world - connection means a relationship

> > between at least two -- for instance a relation between god

> > or absolute or unknwon - and me.

> >

> > God or etc etc thus becomes my crutch, something I can hold

> > on to, cling to - so that I be not alone/lonesome.

> >

> > When the crutch is dumped - there is only me, this is to say

> > there is no longer two in the relationship -- only one. I am

> > alone, I am all one in the relation.

> >

> > Re-ligare means to - well, why not use the word clinging? or

> > holding on to - a crutch, straw, a god(principle) a absolute

> > - I already said that. You get the gist.

> >

> > Dump the straw, the clinging, and there is but one in the re-

> > lation.

> >

> > This is Krishnamurti in a nutshell. Kierkegaard would I think

> > claim that it is when you merge with god -- that there is but

> > one - but I like Krishnamurti's version better.

> >

> > Should add - I am NOT an expert on either of the gents.

> >

> > Love

> > Lene

>

>

>

> I take back what I said about SK. He is much more subtle than

> that - much more - it is something about the self meeting the

> self, merging with itself and in that meeting there one whole

> - no division, no separation - or or something like that - so

> pardonnez moi, M Kierkegaard

>

> -Lene

 

Philosophers write for other philosophers.

 

For the sake of thought.

 

Which involves comparison.

 

This truth is much too simple for thought.

 

Much too simple to hold any interest.

 

Undivided, so who who be separate to be interested?

 

The world in which interesting philosophers make subtle point is the same world

that produces the TV commercials for Chevrolet.

 

The world of thought, relationship, comparison, time, gaining and losing.

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> >

> >

> > Let me clarify:

> >

> > In my corner of the world - connection means a relationship

> > between at least two -- for instance a relation between god

> > or absolute or unknwon - and me.

> >

> > God or etc etc thus becomes my crutch, something I can hold

> > on to, cling to - so that I be not alone/lonesome.

> >

> > When the crutch is dumped - there is only me, this is to say

> > there is no longer two in the relationship -- only one. I am

> > alone, I am all one in the relation.

> >

> > Re-ligare means to - well, why not use the word clinging? or

> > holding on to - a crutch, straw, a god(principle) a absolute

> > - I already said that. You get the gist.

> >

> > Dump the straw, the clinging, and there is but one in the re-

> > lation.

> >

> > This is Krishnamurti in a nutshell. Kierkegaard would I think

> > claim that it is when you merge with god -- that there is but

> > one - but I like Krishnamurti's version better.

> >

> > Should add - I am NOT an expert on either of the gents.

> >

> > Love

> > Lene

> >

>

> Hi Lene -

>

> When there is only one, there isn't even one.

>

> One has no relation to one.

>

> It just is.

>

> Therefore, is and isn't don't apply.

>

> Nothing has ever been said about this, because words always go back and forth.

>

> The discovery of this doesn't uncover anything new.

>

> Is, never not is.

>

> Relationship without two, involves no relating, and isn't a relationship.

>

> It's nothing.

>

> And not even nothing.

>

> With no " not " involved.

>

> Speaking of this is only for the sake of relinquishing what is unreal.

>

> And if I relinquish what is unreal, the world of time, which is relationships

- just *is* ... not even *is* ... without any " not " ...

>

> - Dan -

 

 

 

 

 

the only thing you know is..

 

you don't know what you're talking about.

 

and everyone else knows that too.

 

you can bow now dab.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Let me clarify:

> > >

> > > In my corner of the world - connection means a relationship

> > > between at least two -- for instance a relation between god

> > > or absolute or unknwon - and me.

> > >

> > > God or etc etc thus becomes my crutch, something I can hold

> > > on to, cling to - so that I be not alone/lonesome.

> > >

> > > When the crutch is dumped - there is only me, this is to say

> > > there is no longer two in the relationship -- only one. I am

> > > alone, I am all one in the relation.

> > >

> > > Re-ligare means to - well, why not use the word clinging? or

> > > holding on to - a crutch, straw, a god(principle) a absolute

> > > - I already said that. You get the gist.

> > >

> > > Dump the straw, the clinging, and there is but one in the re-

> > > lation.

> > >

> > > This is Krishnamurti in a nutshell. Kierkegaard would I think

> > > claim that it is when you merge with god -- that there is but

> > > one - but I like Krishnamurti's version better.

> > >

> > > Should add - I am NOT an expert on either of the gents.

> > >

> > > Love

> > > Lene

> >

> >

> >

> > I take back what I said about SK. He is much more subtle than

> > that - much more - it is something about the self meeting the

> > self, merging with itself and in that meeting there one whole

> > - no division, no separation - or or something like that - so

> > pardonnez moi, M Kierkegaard

> >

> > -Lene

>

> Philosophers write for other philosophers.

>

> For the sake of thought.

>

> Which involves comparison.

>

> This truth is much too simple for thought.

>

> Much too simple to hold any interest.

>

> Undivided, so who who be separate to be interested?

>

> The world in which interesting philosophers make subtle point is the same

world that produces the TV commercials for Chevrolet.

>

> The world of thought, relationship, comparison, time, gaining and losing.

>

> - Dan -

 

 

so swami..

 

how do you know this?

 

no..

 

how do you think you know this..

 

no..

 

you don't think so forget it.

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Let me clarify:

> > > >

> > > > In my corner of the world - connection means a relationship

> > > > between at least two -- for instance a relation between god

> > > > or absolute or unknwon - and me.

> > > >

> > > > God or etc etc thus becomes my crutch, something I can hold

> > > > on to, cling to - so that I be not alone/lonesome.

> > > >

> > > > When the crutch is dumped - there is only me, this is to say

> > > > there is no longer two in the relationship -- only one. I am

> > > > alone, I am all one in the relation.

> > > >

> > > > Re-ligare means to - well, why not use the word clinging? or

> > > > holding on to - a crutch, straw, a god(principle) a absolute

> > > > - I already said that. You get the gist.

> > > >

> > > > Dump the straw, the clinging, and there is but one in the re-

> > > > lation.

> > > >

> > > > This is Krishnamurti in a nutshell. Kierkegaard would I think

> > > > claim that it is when you merge with god -- that there is but

> > > > one - but I like Krishnamurti's version better.

> > > >

> > > > Should add - I am NOT an expert on either of the gents.

> > > >

> > > > Love

> > > > Lene

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I take back what I said about SK. He is much more subtle than

> > > that - much more - it is something about the self meeting the

> > > self, merging with itself and in that meeting there one whole

> > > - no division, no separation - or or something like that - so

> > > pardonnez moi, M Kierkegaard

> > >

> > > -Lene

> >

> > Philosophers write for other philosophers.

> >

> > For the sake of thought.

> >

> > Which involves comparison.

> >

> > This truth is much too simple for thought.

> >

> > Much too simple to hold any interest.

> >

> > Undivided, so who who be separate to be interested?

> >

> > The world in which interesting philosophers make subtle point is the same

world that produces the TV commercials for Chevrolet.

> >

> > The world of thought, relationship, comparison, time, gaining and losing.

> >

> > - Dan -

>

>

> so swami..

>

> how do you know this?

>

> no..

>

> how do you think you know this..

>

> no..

>

> you don't think so forget it.

>

> LOL!

>

> .b b.b.

 

Forgeddaboudit.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 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.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Let me clarify:

> > > > >

> > > > > In my corner of the world - connection means a relationship

> > > > > between at least two -- for instance a relation between god

> > > > > or absolute or unknwon - and me.

> > > > >

> > > > > God or etc etc thus becomes my crutch, something I can hold

> > > > > on to, cling to - so that I be not alone/lonesome.

> > > > >

> > > > > When the crutch is dumped - there is only me, this is to say

> > > > > there is no longer two in the relationship -- only one. I am

> > > > > alone, I am all one in the relation.

> > > > >

> > > > > Re-ligare means to - well, why not use the word clinging? or

> > > > > holding on to - a crutch, straw, a god(principle) a absolute

> > > > > - I already said that. You get the gist.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dump the straw, the clinging, and there is but one in the re-

> > > > > lation.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is Krishnamurti in a nutshell. Kierkegaard would I think

> > > > > claim that it is when you merge with god -- that there is but

> > > > > one - but I like Krishnamurti's version better.

> > > > >

> > > > > Should add - I am NOT an expert on either of the gents.

> > > > >

> > > > > Love

> > > > > Lene

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I take back what I said about SK. He is much more subtle than

> > > > that - much more - it is something about the self meeting the

> > > > self, merging with itself and in that meeting there one whole

> > > > - no division, no separation - or or something like that - so

> > > > pardonnez moi, M Kierkegaard

> > > >

> > > > -Lene

> > >

> > > Philosophers write for other philosophers.

> > >

> > > For the sake of thought.

> > >

> > > Which involves comparison.

> > >

> > > This truth is much too simple for thought.

> > >

> > > Much too simple to hold any interest.

> > >

> > > Undivided, so who who be separate to be interested?

> > >

> > > The world in which interesting philosophers make subtle point is the same

world that produces the TV commercials for Chevrolet.

> > >

> > > The world of thought, relationship, comparison, time, gaining and losing.

> > >

> > > - Dan -

> >

> >

> > so swami..

> >

> > how do you know this?

> >

> > no..

> >

> > how do you think you know this..

> >

> > no..

> >

> > you don't think so forget it.

> >

> > LOL!

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> Forgeddaboudit.

>

> - D -

 

 

ba-da-boom..

 

ba-da-bing..

 

you answer the ring.

 

now just lose the bling.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Let me clarify:

> > >

> > > In my corner of the world - connection means a relationship

> > > between at least two -- for instance a relation between god

> > > or absolute or unknwon - and me.

> > >

> > > God or etc etc thus becomes my crutch, something I can hold

> > > on to, cling to - so that I be not alone/lonesome.

> > >

> > > When the crutch is dumped - there is only me, this is to say

> > > there is no longer two in the relationship -- only one. I am

> > > alone, I am all one in the relation.

> > >

> > > Re-ligare means to - well, why not use the word clinging? or

> > > holding on to - a crutch, straw, a god(principle) a absolute

> > > - I already said that. You get the gist.

> > >

> > > Dump the straw, the clinging, and there is but one in the re-

> > > lation.

> > >

> > > This is Krishnamurti in a nutshell. Kierkegaard would I think

> > > claim that it is when you merge with god -- that there is but

> > > one - but I like Krishnamurti's version better.

> > >

> > > Should add - I am NOT an expert on either of the gents.

> > >

> > > Love

> > > Lene

> > >

> >

> > Hi Lene -

> >

> > When there is only one, there isn't even one.

> >

> > One has no relation to one.

> >

> > It just is.

> >

> > Therefore, is and isn't don't apply.

> >

> > Nothing has ever been said about this, because words always go back and

forth.

> >

> > The discovery of this doesn't uncover anything new.

> >

> > Is, never not is.

> >

> > Relationship without two, involves no relating, and isn't a relationship.

> >

> > It's nothing.

> >

> > And not even nothing.

> >

> > With no " not " involved.

> >

> > Speaking of this is only for the sake of relinquishing what is unreal.

> >

> > And if I relinquish what is unreal, the world of time, which is

relationships - just *is* ... not even *is* ... without any " not " ...

> >

> > - Dan -

>

>

>

>

>

> the only thing you know is..

>

> you don't know what you're talking about.

>

> and everyone else knows that too.

>

> you can bow now dab.

>

> .b b.b.

 

 

 

He has a point though

Which is point less

And therefore cannot

Be pointed to

Which is why

The pointing finger misses

The point

And at the end of the day

Utters with a sigh

Arggh, what is the point.

 

-Lola

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Let me clarify:

> > > >

> > > > In my corner of the world - connection means a relationship

> > > > between at least two -- for instance a relation between god

> > > > or absolute or unknwon - and me.

> > > >

> > > > God or etc etc thus becomes my crutch, something I can hold

> > > > on to, cling to - so that I be not alone/lonesome.

> > > >

> > > > When the crutch is dumped - there is only me, this is to say

> > > > there is no longer two in the relationship -- only one. I am

> > > > alone, I am all one in the relation.

> > > >

> > > > Re-ligare means to - well, why not use the word clinging? or

> > > > holding on to - a crutch, straw, a god(principle) a absolute

> > > > - I already said that. You get the gist.

> > > >

> > > > Dump the straw, the clinging, and there is but one in the re-

> > > > lation.

> > > >

> > > > This is Krishnamurti in a nutshell. Kierkegaard would I think

> > > > claim that it is when you merge with god -- that there is but

> > > > one - but I like Krishnamurti's version better.

> > > >

> > > > Should add - I am NOT an expert on either of the gents.

> > > >

> > > > Love

> > > > Lene

> > > >

> > >

> > > Hi Lene -

> > >

> > > When there is only one, there isn't even one.

> > >

> > > One has no relation to one.

> > >

> > > It just is.

> > >

> > > Therefore, is and isn't don't apply.

> > >

> > > Nothing has ever been said about this, because words always go back and

forth.

> > >

> > > The discovery of this doesn't uncover anything new.

> > >

> > > Is, never not is.

> > >

> > > Relationship without two, involves no relating, and isn't a relationship.

> > >

> > > It's nothing.

> > >

> > > And not even nothing.

> > >

> > > With no " not " involved.

> > >

> > > Speaking of this is only for the sake of relinquishing what is unreal.

> > >

> > > And if I relinquish what is unreal, the world of time, which is

relationships - just *is* ... not even *is* ... without any " not " ...

> > >

> > > - Dan -

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > the only thing you know is..

> >

> > you don't know what you're talking about.

> >

> > and everyone else knows that too.

> >

> > you can bow now dab.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

>

>

> He has a point though

> Which is point less

> And therefore cannot

> Be pointed to

> Which is why

> The pointing finger misses

> The point

> And at the end of the day

> Utters with a sigh

> Arggh, what is the point.

>

> -Lola

 

 

 

true Lola.

 

nothing is real nor unreal.

 

so it is..

 

what's to relinquish?

 

..b b.b.