Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > Are the words arising " somewhere else " ? > > > > Negatory. > > > > And where is " here " where they arise? > > > > You can't point to it. > > > > Anywhere you point, is only the appearance pointing to the appearance. > > > > Funny, but the " here " is " nowhere. " > > > > And with nowhere to appear, is appearance appearing? > > If one said " no " , it would suggest that something is absent. > > And that isn't true either. > > It isn't appearing, and it isn't not appearing. Well, just between me and you, there isn't any you for me to " suggest that something is absent " to. Does that mean that you're absent? No. Does that mean you ever appeared? No. Does that mean you never appeared? No. So, you see, I don't disagree with you. But that doesn't mean I agree with you, either. Smiles - - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and " you " . > > > > > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > > > > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > > > > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to make " you " different than " me " . > > > > > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is driven to it anyway... or not. > > > > One sees this I vs. you mode of communication repeatedly, and not just on this list. > > > > Indeed, one sees it over and over again, and one would just say, " this list clearly isn't different than other life venues where I is placed against you. " > > > > Clearly there is an attraction to placing me vs. you. And a compulsion. And thousands of years of human history. > > > > It is the establishment of the presumed sense of reality. > > Presumed (pre-assumed). > > Pre-occupied. > > Pre, pre, pre. > > All the commotion for a past that isn't around, that isn't there. > > > And there is much emotion around it. > > True. Pre-occupied. This is funny, and on-target. How can one not be pre-occupied, when one assumes a space that is supposedly pre-occupied? - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and " you " . > > > > > > > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > > > > > > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > > > > > > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to make " you " different than " me " . > > > > > > > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is driven to it anyway... or not. > > > > > > One sees this I vs. you mode of communication repeatedly, and not just on this list. > > > > > > Indeed, one sees it over and over again, and one would just say, " this list clearly isn't different than other life venues where I is placed against you. " > > > > > > Clearly there is an attraction to placing me vs. you. And a compulsion. And thousands of years of human history. > > > > > > It is the establishment of the presumed sense of reality. > > > > Presumed (pre-assumed). > > > > Pre-occupied. > > > > Pre, pre, pre. > > > > All the commotion for a past that isn't around, that isn't there. > > > > > And there is much emotion around it. > > > > True. > > Pre-occupied. > > This is funny, and on-target. > > How can one not be pre-occupied, when one assumes a space that is supposedly pre-occupied? > > - D - > Indeed... It's pre-dictable (spoken about (dictable) as the past?) Thought/memory creates such a funny world for itself to 'inhabit', eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , "geo" <inandor wrote:>> > - > ac> Nisargadatta > Monday, February 22, 2010 6:59 PM> Re: I AM THAT.> > > > > Nisargadatta , "geo" inandor@ wrote:> >> > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the > > > > exploitation,> > > > the cruel strife between the citizen and the state.> > > >> > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to >> > > > put> > > > an end to them.> > >> > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an end > > > to> > > them, he would have done so.> > >> > > It is not within man's power to put an end to them.> > >> > > The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them.> > > -tim-> > >> > > He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) and> > > then> > > that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How?> > > By not being divided.> > > -g eo-> >> >> > I am not sure, if I understand you correctly here, Geo.> > Through my reading of Maharaj, he seems to be able to answer questions in > > a> > compassionate, kind, patient and logical way and he seems to be able to> > answer it at the level at which the questioner is raising these questions.> > For examples, when someone asks about having to earn his/her livelihood,> > Maharaj doesn't attempt to dismiss it as the ' livelihood just being an> > illusion'.> > I suspect that in the above example of "suffering and wars in the world"> > too, Maharaj is compassionately talking at the questioner's level. He is> > not attempting to escape or evade the question by trying to force 'all > > (like> > wars, suffering) being an illusion' or, ''the world being unreal' view on> > the questioner.> > Maharaj ultimately leads most questioners to the reality within and to the> > non-du al truth; ho wever, he doesn't seem to be in hurry to force that as> > the only reality and dismiss the practical matter of 'consciousness'.> > What do you think?> > regards,> > ac> >> > Are you saying that I am dismissing the issue? I am not. I am doing my > > best> > to express how I see the matter.> > Society is the compound result of self centered lives. That is how man> > created confusion and conflict. When man> > is identified with body/mind he projects an inner entity and a > > corresponding> > "outer" society based on the principles> > of selfishness, self-interest, self-fear...etc...A world of conflicts and> > wars is created and maintained. So man created the wars.> > Now the other way around - back to non-identification with body/mind man> > stops projecting the inner entity that was the> > cause of all troubles and society could heal itself in the same measure.> > Interestingly th e moment the inner self is> > seen through, even if society is still apparently behaving in the same way> > through self-centered people, everything is already alright.> > The enormous white shinning and killer snowball is rolling......> > -geo-> >> > > Thanks for explaining it, Geo!> It makes sense to me. I think I understand it now and I find agreement > with your view.> Best,> ac> > So, is there some inner entity looking at an outside world?> -geo-> Dear Geo:I am not sure, if I truly understand your question.In deep dreamless sleep, both I and the other disappears. The entire world with all its divisions and diversions disappears. When the 'conscious' "I", the "I" that only rises in relation to the "other" and that only rises with the other, disappears, the entire world including all inner and outer disappears. Ultimately, only that undivided reality is real because it is uncaused, unchanging and is without any beginning or end. It is in the background of all events, happening, thoughts, emotions. It is the changeless background of all that appears to change. By shifting focus inwards and towards this inner 'entity less' I AM, it can be always accessed - one can reside in it - i.e. one can be 'in inner deep sleep' while being awake externally. Anytime, I don't touch the individual, separate 'sense of I', I am in that state - i.e. I am in in deep sleep - the individual, separate mind is absent. That state is accessible, available and eternally present. Once "I" as an individual entity wake up, so does the division, the pain and pleasure, the good and bad, the noble and evil too wakes up. Health feels good. Disease feels painful. Compassions feels natural and effortless. Hatred feels agitated, exhausting and painful. In this world, I know poison can kill me; while fresh fruits and vegetables are likely to nourish my body. This is the world, in which I know that reading Maharaj or Ramana is likely to strengthen one kind of tendencies in me, while edaing pornography is likely to strengthen the tendencies of another kind. This is the world of objective reality. While "awake" in this world of objective reality, I know, I as an 'individual entity' am responsible for the words I am writing here, for the spelling mistakes I make, for the grammatical errors I make and for the abuses, insults and the curse words that I use. This is the world in which I can see and act to remove a stain on my bed-sheet or a thorn from feet. This is the world, in which I can act to protect a kid from dog. This is world in which I can ask someone to keep the streets clean and not throw garbage on the street. This is the world in which I can ask someone to avoid needlessly abusing others on a spiritual forum. When "I" as an 'individual entity' is asleep, neither 'I', nor the 'other' nor the kid, dog or this forum exist. Yes, it is possible to act while staying being asleep 'within'. But, that is not the way I live my life currently. Does living that way interests me? I don't know. Does anyone live his life that way? I am not sure - maybe, Ramana and Maharaj and maybe, not even them at least not 24/7, 365 days of a year. Do I desire to live that way? I don't know. Do I want to slowly move towards that? I haven't made up mind regarding that.If I someone dumping garbage on street and don't ask him to stop, does it mean I am beyond 'duality'? No, not necessarilly.If I someone dumping garbage on street and do ask him to stop, does it mean I am not beyond 'duality'? No, not necessarilly.So, what was your question...?regards,ac Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta, Marc <dennis_travis33@ ...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta, Marc <dennis_travis33@ ...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " anna " <kailashana@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " anna " <kailashana@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " ac " <adithya_comming@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " ac " <adithya_comming@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > put an end to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an end to them, he would have done so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would he do so? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of > > > > > > > > fear, pain and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and > > > > > > > > suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy, > > > > > > > > prosperous and free of agony and misery? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >(etc.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to end suffering. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think the examples wanted to *end* suffering? > > > > > > That's as far from any truth as I've heard in a long long time, Tim. > > > > > > > > > > Well then don't imagine that's what I actually said, above, Anna. > > > > > > > > > > Then you won't have to worry about a projected falsehood coming from a projected person 'out there' on the Net. > > > > > > > > > > Toodle-oo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have learned to play the neo advaita shuffle well, Tim. > > > > > > > > Sadly. > > > > > > > > It doesn't suit your net personna either. > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > Well then stop playing the neo-advaita shuffle, Anna. > > > > > > I didn't say any of the above examples wanted to end suffering, aside perhaps for themselves, as all obviously do. > > > > > > Go read it again, and stop behaving like an ignoramus. > > > > > > > I did read it again. I'm tired of people like you who set themselves > > up as a GURU and then don't have the courage or the balls to say > > they made a mistake. > > > > If you bring up names such as those that you did, you obviously wanted to make the point about suffering. Your point that has nothing to do with acknowledging anything except your own point. > > > > And that is the Advaita shuffle. > > > > And that is why your guruship is bullshit. > > > > ~A > > > > > > ....the group is changing to a political group?.... > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and " you " . > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to make " you " different than " me " . > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is driven to it anyway... or not. > > > > ....what are this " your " silly words about?... > > > Exactly. Are they really " someone else's " words? Are they not actually the words of the 'one reading' right now? Are the words arising " somewhere else " ? this your concepts don't give any existence to neither a reader...nor any writer etc... ok, why not....the world is made of concepts....and words too are of worldly issues.... as for example the issue of a so called " tim " ...or a " marc " ...or a " dan " ... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, February 22, 2010 9:44 PM Re: I AM THAT. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the > > > exploitation, > > > the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > > > > put > > > an end to them. > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an end > > to > > them, he would have done so. > > > > It is not within man's power to put an end to them. > > > > The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them. > > -tim- > > > > He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) and > > then > > that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How? > > By not being divided. > > -geo- > > > I am not sure, if I understand you correctly here, Geo. > Through my reading of Maharaj, he seems to be able to answer questions in > a > compassionate, kind, patient and logical way and he seems to be able to > answer it at the level at which the questioner is raising these questions. > For examples, when someone asks about having to earn his/her livelihood, > Maharaj doesn't attempt to dismiss it as the ' livelihood just being an > illusion'. > I suspect that in the above example of " suffering and wars in the world " > too, Maharaj is compassionately talking at the questioner's level. He is > not attempting to escape or evade the question by trying to force 'all > (like > wars, suffering) being an illusion' or, ''the world being unreal' view on > the questioner. > Maharaj ultimately leads most questioners to the reality within and to the > non-du al truth; however, he doesn't seem to be in hurry to force that as > the only reality and dismiss the practical matter of 'consciousness'. > What do you think? > regards, > ac > > Are you saying that I am dismissing the issue? I am not. I am doing my > best > to express how I see the matter. > Society is the compound result of self centered lives. That is how man > created confusion and conflict. When man > is identified with body/mind he projects an inner entity and a > corresponding > " outer " society based on the principles > of selfishness, self-interest, self-fear...etc...A world of conflicts and > wars is created and maintained. So man created the wars. > Now the other way around - back to non-identification with body/mind man > stops projecting the inner entity that was the > cause of all troubles and society could heal itself in the same measure. > Interestingly the moment the inner self is > seen through, even if society is still apparently behaving in the same way > through self-centered people, everything is already alright. > The enormous white shinning and killer snowball is rolling...... > -geo- d: How can you see through the illusory nature of an inner entity, without seeing the illusory nature of the outer entity? Funny! geo: What outer entity? What inner entity? There is no inner/outer. I said: " Interestingly the moment the inner self is seen through, even if society is still APPARENTLY behaving in the same way... " d: Let's blame this fictional " man " for ruining everything. Let's pretend that the self-center is a fictional boundary, but the outer boundary made of a " man to blame for messing things up " is real. Puh-lease ... geo: Not sure I get what you are trying to say. I say: illusion of some inner entity = illusion of inner and outer menaces = society based on fear and conflict. Obviously without the illusion of inner entity there is no inner or outer except as an organism that eventually wants to feed, survive. There is enough food, enough clothing, enough bricks to build houses for everyone. The moment man feels as a separate entity he projects a society based on separativeness out there....and i am not trying to fix society. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 07:59:10 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 08:29:59 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, February 22, 2010 9:51 PM Re: I AM THAT. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and > > " you " . > > > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to > > make " you " different than " me " . > > > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is > > driven > > to it anyway... or not. > > One sees this I vs. you mode of communication repeatedly, and not just on > this list. > > Indeed, one sees it over and over again, and one would just say, " this > list > clearly isn't different than other life venues where I is placed against > you. " > > Clearly there is an attraction to placing me vs. you. And a compulsion. > And > thousands of years of human history. > > It is the establishment of the presumed sense of reality. > > And there is much emotion around it. > > On a list, you only see words, whereas in face-to-face talk you also read > posture, tone of voice, eyes, energy. > > Without I vs. you, there isn't only a loss of drama and context. > > There is loss of the established definition (from the past) of what is > going > on. > > No one easily accepts the loss of the sense of what is going on. > > And only no one easily accepts this. > > Smiles, > > - D - > > Self centered fragmented people construct a dynamic self-centered > conflicting society. There is no other way for such society as long as > eventually EACH individual does not change. The colective momentum of > water > molecules flowing North is what the river is doing - flowing North. > -geo- Hello. There is no " each " individual. The mythic separately existing individual who can be addressed and told to change - turns out never to have been the case. -d- You are not too well today. That is exactly what is meant by the word " each " . Means there is no adressing anyone. Try to read a bit more carefully dan. Dont jump. -geo- But, keep making a case against " him " - That poor soul " out there " messing everything up ... -dan- " Each " means not " out there " ...but here. Each here. Dont get so anxious to be right. -geo- After all, that's how Krishnamurti made his ever-lecturing claim to fame ... -dan- Krishnamurti? We are comenting nis quote. Cool down dan. -geo- Not to mention all the people running around thinking, " I'm to blame. I've got to straighten this out. It's all my fault. " Hey, feed right into that thinking, why not? " It's those self-centered humans out there - always thinking there is someone to blame ... " Smiles, -Dan- Blame? Fault? Those? You are just not to well today.... :>) You can play the pendulum game ad nauseum: 1- There is only awareness as reality and nothing else is real including society... or.. 2- There is real society as empty ephemerons patterns of awareness... on and on and on and on......on....swing 1...swing.2..swing 1...swing2...swing 1...swing2 I thought you had outgrown that trap..... but....go ahead. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 07:59:10 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 08:52:00 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 > Nisargadatta , " geo " inandor@ wrote: > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the > > > > exploitation, > > > > the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > > > > > > > > > put > > > & g t; an end to them. > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an > > > end > > > to > > > them, he would have done so. > > > > > > It is not within man's power to put an end to them. > > > > > > The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them. > > > -tim- > > > > > > He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) and > > > then > > > that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How? > > > By not being divided. > > > -g eo- > > > > > > I am not sure, if I understand you correctly here, Geo. > > Through my reading of Maharaj, he seems to be able to answer questions > > in > > a > > compassionate, kind, patient and logical way and he seems to be able to > > answer it at the level at which the questioner is raising these > > questions. > > For examples, when someone asks about having to earn his/her livelihood, > > Maharaj doesn't attempt to dismiss it as the ' livelihood just being an > > illusion'. > > I suspect that in the above example of " suffering and wars in the world " > > too, Maharaj is compassionately talking at the questioner's level. He is > > not attempting to escape or evade the question by trying to force 'all > > (like > > wars, suffering) being an illusion' or, ''the world being unreal' view > > on > > the questioner. > > Maharaj ultimately leads most questioners to the reality within and to > > the & gt; > non-du al truth; ho wever, he doesn't seem to be in hurry to force that as > > the only reality and dismiss the practical matter of 'consciousness'. > > What do you think? > > regards, > > ac > > > > Are you saying that I am dismissing the issue? I am not. I am doing my > > best > > to express how I see the matter. > > Society is the compound result of self centered lives. That is how man > > created confusion and conflict. When man > > is identified with body/mind he projects an inner entity and a > > corresponding > > " outer " society based on the principles > > of selfishness, self-interest, self-fear...etc...A world of conflicts > > and > > wars is created and maintained. So man created the wars. > ; > Now the other way around - back to non-identification with body/mind > man > > stops projecting the inner entity that was the > > cause of all troubles and society could heal itself in the same measure. > > Interestingly th e moment the inner self is > > seen through, even if society is still apparently behaving in the same > > way > > through self-centered people, everything is already alright. > > The enormous white shinning and killer snowball is rolling...... > > -geo- > > > > > Thanks for explaining it, Geo! > It makes sense to me. I think I understand it now and I find agreement > with your view. > Best, > ac > > So, is there some inner entity looking at an outside world? > -geo- < div>> Dear Geo: I am not sure, if I truly understand your question. In deep dreamless sleep, both I and the other disappears. The entire world with all its divisions and diversions disappears. When the 'conscious' " I " , the " I " that only rises in relation to the " other " and that only rises with the other, disappears, the entire world including all inner and outer disappears. Ultimately, only that undivided reality is real because it is uncaused, unchanging and is without any beginning or end. It is in the background of all events, happening, thoughts, emotions. It is the changeless background of all that appears to change. -ac- Are you saying this (not sure though...)? I am not lecturing, just saying how it is seen here. When it is understood that there is no inner separate enity that does not mean that the world desapears. There is a jump, an assumption in that. The world is still here alright except that i am the world, there is nohting in the world that is not me. If this wordl is further investigated i realize that I am not even it. I am that.... the background -as you call it. I have two aspects, one changing and one unchanging unborn, Right? -geo- ====== By shifting focus inwards and towards this inner 'entity less' I AM, it can be always accessed - one can reside in it - i.e. one can be 'in inner deep sleep' while being awake externally. Anytime , I don't touch the individual, separate 'sense of I', I am in that state - i.e. I am in in deep sleep - the individual, separate mind is absent. That state is accessible, available and eternally present. Once " I " as an individual entity wake up, so does the division, the pain and pleasure, the good and bad, the noble and evil too wakes up. Health feels good. Disease feels painful. Compassions feels natural and effortless. Hatred feels agitated, exhausting and painful. In this world, I know poison can kill me; while fresh fruits and vegetables are likely to nourish my body. This is the world, in which I know that reading Maharaj or Ramana is likely to strengthen one kind of tendencies in me, while edaing pornography is likely to strengthen the tendencies of another kind. This is the world of objective reality. While " awake " in this world of objective reality, I know, I as an 'individual entity' a m responsible for the words I am writing here, for the spelling mistakes I make, for the grammatical errors I make and for the abuses, insults and the curse words that I use. This is the world in which I can see and act to remove a stain on my bed-sheet or a thorn from feet. This is the world, in which I can act to protect a kid from dog. This is world in which I can ask someone to keep the streets clean and not throw garbage on the street. This is the world in which I can ask someone to avoid needlessly abusing others on a spiritual forum. When " I " as an 'individual entity' is asleep, neither 'I', nor the 'other' nor the kid, dog or this forum exist. -ac- Are you suggesting that to be awake one is unable to act properly in the world? One awake can not remove a stain on his bed-sheet? That would be insanity. -geo- Yes, it is possible to act while staying being asleep 'within'. But, that is not the way I live my life currently. Does living that way interests me? I don't know. Does anyone live his life that way? I am not sure - maybe, Ramana and Maharaj and maybe, not even them at least not 24/7, 365 days of a year. Do I desire to live that way? I don't know. Do I want to slowly move towards that? I haven't made up mind regarding that. -ac- When you question how many hours this or that man is awake you are back to the inner entity, greed, gossip, time, becoming..... -geo- If I someone dumping garbage on street and don't ask him to stop, does it mean I am beyond 'duality'? No, not necessarilly. If I someone dumping garbage on street and do ask him to stop, does it mean I am not beyond 'duality'? No, not necessarilly. So, what was your question...? regards, ac avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 07:59:16 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 09:14:34 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 > Yes, it is possible to act while staying being asleep 'within'. But, that is > not the way I live my life currently. ac, you talk about two ways to live life. Does one of them involve intentional control? I'm fascinated by this because it appears that control has evaporated here, yet not all the fear about it being gone. So I'm checking with everyone around me (which is kind of silly, seeing as how you all don't exist). You see, this appears to be vital. I'm raising two young children. No one wants to " do it wrong, " not in the case of tender young shoots. So you've got control? And you're saying that stuff works? Yet it's beyond my reach right now. This is a really weird place for an imaginary individual to be. Julie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " julesmiel " <julesmiel wrote: > > > Yes, it is possible to act while staying being asleep 'within'. But, that is > > not the way I live my life currently. > > ac, you talk about two ways to live life. Does one of them involve intentional control? Both of them usually involve " some " intentional control. One is like setting a plane on 'auto-pilot' and going to sleep. Other is like driving the car on a busy road with eyes open, hands on the steering and foot near the accelerator and brake. Even in the first mode, it is usually the pilot who " decides " to set the plane on the auto-pilot and to go to sleep. > I'm fascinated by this because it appears that control has evaporated here, yet not all the fear about it being gone. So I'm checking with everyone around me (which is kind of silly, seeing as how you all don't exist). > > You see, this appears to be vital. I'm raising two young children. No one wants to " do it wrong, " not in the case of tender young shoots. > > So you've got control? And you're saying that stuff works? Yet it's beyond my reach right now. This is a really weird place for an imaginary individual to be. > > Julie > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and " you " . > > > > > > > > > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > > > > > > > > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > > > > > > > > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to make " you " different than " me " . > > > > > > > > > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is driven to it anyway... or not. > > > > > > > > One sees this I vs. you mode of communication repeatedly, and not just on this list. > > > > > > > > Indeed, one sees it over and over again, and one would just say, " this list clearly isn't different than other life venues where I is placed against you. " > > > > > > > > Clearly there is an attraction to placing me vs. you. And a compulsion. And thousands of years of human history. > > > > > > > > It is the establishment of the presumed sense of reality. > > > > > > Presumed (pre-assumed). > > > > > > Pre-occupied. > > > > > > Pre, pre, pre. > > > > > > All the commotion for a past that isn't around, that isn't there. > > > > > > > And there is much emotion around it. > > > > > > True. > > > > Pre-occupied. > > > > This is funny, and on-target. > > > > How can one not be pre-occupied, when one assumes a space that is supposedly pre-occupied? > > > > - D - > > > > Indeed... > > It's pre-dictable (spoken about (dictable) as the past?) > > Thought/memory creates such a funny world for itself to 'inhabit', eh? As if it could ever do so, or as if it could ever have been done. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, February 22, 2010 9:44 PM > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the > > > > exploitation, > > > > the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > > > > > put > > > > an end to them. > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an end > > > to > > > them, he would have done so. > > > > > > It is not within man's power to put an end to them. > > > > > > The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them. > > > -tim- > > > > > > He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) and > > > then > > > that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How? > > > By not being divided. > > > -geo- > > > > > > I am not sure, if I understand you correctly here, Geo. > > Through my reading of Maharaj, he seems to be able to answer questions in > > a > > compassionate, kind, patient and logical way and he seems to be able to > > answer it at the level at which the questioner is raising these questions. > > For examples, when someone asks about having to earn his/her livelihood, > > Maharaj doesn't attempt to dismiss it as the ' livelihood just being an > > illusion'. > > I suspect that in the above example of " suffering and wars in the world " > > too, Maharaj is compassionately talking at the questioner's level. He is > > not attempting to escape or evade the question by trying to force 'all > > (like > > wars, suffering) being an illusion' or, ''the world being unreal' view on > > the questioner. > > Maharaj ultimately leads most questioners to the reality within and to the > > non-du al truth; however, he doesn't seem to be in hurry to force that as > > the only reality and dismiss the practical matter of 'consciousness'. > > What do you think? > > regards, > > ac > > > > Are you saying that I am dismissing the issue? I am not. I am doing my > > best > > to express how I see the matter. > > Society is the compound result of self centered lives. That is how man > > created confusion and conflict. When man > > is identified with body/mind he projects an inner entity and a > > corresponding > > " outer " society based on the principles > > of selfishness, self-interest, self-fear...etc...A world of conflicts and > > wars is created and maintained. So man created the wars. > > Now the other way around - back to non-identification with body/mind man > > stops projecting the inner entity that was the > > cause of all troubles and society could heal itself in the same measure. > > Interestingly the moment the inner self is > > seen through, even if society is still apparently behaving in the same way > > through self-centered people, everything is already alright. > > The enormous white shinning and killer snowball is rolling...... > > -geo- > > d: How can you see through the illusory nature of an inner entity, without > seeing > the illusory nature of the outer entity? > Funny! > > geo: What outer entity? What inner entity? There is no inner/outer. > I said: " Interestingly the moment the inner self is seen through, even if > society is > still APPARENTLY behaving in the same way... " D: You seem to have missed my point. And certainly you've frequently talked about the unreality of what you call (a la Krishnamurti), the " inner psychological entity " ... why side-step the issue? If there is no inner/outer dichotomy - then you aren't addressing anyone else who exists outside of you. There is no one else out there to make up " society " and " what society does. " When you use a sentence like just now " society is still apparently behaving the same way " - you make an independent agent out of " society " and give it the presumed power to behave - as if it were an entity and had a behavior. No such " outer entity " can exist if no " inner entity " exists. There is no " society " that " has a behavior " - such a society is just a projection of the assumed " inner entity " (that would supposedly have an imagined power to do things) -- the projection of that sense of an entity " outside " -- so now there are " others " who do things and " society " that does things. So, now that I've explained in more detail - do you see this point? I know Krishnmurti made his living talking about what society supposedly does, and what individuals supposedly should be questioning and looking into -- is it possible that no such " outer " entities exist, to be told what to look into - at the moment one is clear that there never has been any " inner entity " ? Another way to put this: What is so, right now, the instant there is no inner or outer in terms of immediate experience? > d: Let's blame this fictional " man " for ruining everything. > Let's pretend that the self-center is a fictional boundary, but the outer > boundary made of a " man to blame for messing things up " is real. > Puh-lease ... > > geo: Not sure I get what you are trying to say. I say: illusion of some > inner entity = illusion of inner and outer > menaces = society based on fear and conflict. D: What I am saying is there is no such thing as " society " to do a critique of. Society is a collection of individuals, and there is no separable indidividual, so no units to build up a " society " from. So, once I weed out any assumptions about outer entities that can do things, what it seems you are saying is: I end the illusion of being an inner entity, and I end seeing in terms of inner and outer, and the fear and conflict that I've been holding onto, I release. And now, who/what am " I " ... this " I " that has released, that has no place to carry conflict, that has no inner nor outer to it? This can't be conveyed verbally, can it? And it doesn't involve seeing something based on words or thought, does it? G: Obviously without the illusion > of inner entity there is no inner or > outer except as an organism that eventually wants to feed, survive. D: Does an organism have its own separable consciousness, belonging to itself? Are you able to view such an organism outside of you, having its existence to itself, and its own consciousness belong to that organism and separate from the consciousness viewing the organism outside? G: There is > enough food, enough clothing, > enough bricks to build houses for everyone. D: Are you now ready to take charge of the planet, and distribute clothing, bricks, and make sure houses are built for everyone? Or perhaps, you could look at this moment as it is, and forget the idealized projections about " what could be. " I know Krishnamurti liked to engage in such projections and imaginings ... " if only " ... but such imaginings are for the childish mind, that longs for perfection, that wants to " solve " the " problem of humanity " ... G: The moment man feels as a > separate entity he projects a society > based on separativeness out there....and i am not trying to fix society. D: Ah, so you've already renounced your project of building houses for everyone? Good, I'm glad to hear it. (That didn't take long.) I am focused now, here, just this experience. No society to save out there. No inner entity in here. No concern about how many bricks there are (besides, I can't count that high). No concern about whether we can get people to stop having babies long enough to get everyone in a house and with clothes. Just " what is so. " And this " I " that is focused now, here is the here, now that is focused on - and thus no focusing is involved, and now sense of this being a now, here is involved. So, the language becomes clumsy, and although one enjoys the communicating as a human experience, one is not deceived that the communicating " explains " what is so ... Good talking to you this fine morning. It's a little gray outside here, and a bit cold. Still, it's been fun walking around and getting a little exercise. Peace, love, joy, and happy breathing ... -- Dan -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, February 22, 2010 9:51 PM > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and > > > " you " . > > > > > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > > > > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > > > > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to > > > make " you " different than " me " . > > > > > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is > > > driven > > > to it anyway... or not. > > > > One sees this I vs. you mode of communication repeatedly, and not just on > > this list. > > > > Indeed, one sees it over and over again, and one would just say, " this > > list > > clearly isn't different than other life venues where I is placed against > > you. " > > > > Clearly there is an attraction to placing me vs. you. And a compulsion. > > And > > thousands of years of human history. > > > > It is the establishment of the presumed sense of reality. > > > > And there is much emotion around it. > > > > On a list, you only see words, whereas in face-to-face talk you also read > > posture, tone of voice, eyes, energy. > > > > Without I vs. you, there isn't only a loss of drama and context. > > > > There is loss of the established definition (from the past) of what is > > going > > on. > > > > No one easily accepts the loss of the sense of what is going on. > > > > And only no one easily accepts this. > > > > Smiles, > > > > - D - > > > > Self centered fragmented people construct a dynamic self-centered > > conflicting society. There is no other way for such society as long as > > eventually EACH individual does not change. The colective momentum of > > water > > molecules flowing North is what the river is doing - flowing North. > > -geo- > > Hello. > > There is no " each " individual. > > The mythic separately existing individual who can be addressed and told to > change - turns out never to have been the case. > -d- > > You are not too well today. That is exactly what is meant by the word > " each " . Means there is no adressing anyone. Try to read a bit more carefully > dan. Dont jump. > -geo- D: Funny, you say there is no addressing anyone. Then, right away you are telling me what to try to do. Do this, don't do that. Funny stuff! > But, keep making a case against " him " - > > That poor soul " out there " messing everything up ... > -dan- > > " Each " means not " out there " ...but here. Each here. Dont get so anxious to > be right. > -geo- D: Ah - but there is no " each here. " There is " only here. " > After all, that's how Krishnamurti made his ever-lecturing claim to fame ... > -dan- > > Krishnamurti? We are comenting nis quote. Cool down dan. > -geo- D: Much of what you say comes across as a reformulation of Krishnamurti. That is why I mention him. Just for fun. Hey, you're addressing someone and telling him what to do again. Is that fun for you? Does it impart a feeling of one-upsmanship? " I am telling you what to do. Do as you are told. " Funny stuff, isn't it? > D: Not to mention all the people running around thinking, " I'm to blame. I've > got to straighten this out. It's all my fault. " > > Hey, feed right into that thinking, why not? > > " It's those self-centered humans out there - always thinking there is > someone to blame ... " > > Smiles, > > -Dan- > > Blame? Fault? Those? You are just not to well today.... :>) D: It's the implication of telling someone out there to straighten up, look into themselves, they are fragmented, being fragmented messes up the world. Also, it gets to the quote that started this discussion about how human beings are responsible for making a mess. I just thought it would be fun to question the usual assumptions. I've heard so many times repeated blaming of the human being - I've even done it myself sometimes, I'm sure. It's easy to slip into. > You can play the pendulum game ad nauseum: > 1- There is only awareness as reality and nothing else is real including > society... > or.. > 2- There is real society as empty ephemerons patterns of awareness... > on and on and on and on......on....swing 1...swing.2..swing > 1...swing2...swing 1...swing2 > I thought you had outgrown that trap..... but....go ahead. Wow, more one-upsmanship. I guess it's really important to be one-up on the " other " whom you are talking with, huh? I guess that's why it's the preferred mode on this list - and most other lists, not to mention that day-to-day experiences of life. And, what if " I " don't buy into this notion that there is a " you " who can tell " me " what to do, or not to do, or what I need to outgrow, etc.? Does that mean we're not communicating? Funny, because I don't believe " you " are out there as an entity telling me what to do or what to outgrow - even though the word-forms say that. It's not possible. And yet, communication happens anyway. Fun, huh? (As long as one is not feeling ill, that is.) Smiles, Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:24 PM Re: I AM THAT. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, February 22, 2010 9:44 PM > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the > > > > exploitation, > > > > the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > > > > > > > > > put > > > > an end to them. > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an > > > end > > > to > > > them, he would have done so. > > > > > > It is not within man's power to put an end to them. > > > > > > The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them. > > > -tim- > > > > > > He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) and > > > then > > > that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How? > > > By not being divided. > > > -geo- > > > > > > I am not sure, if I understand you correctly here, Geo. > > Through my reading of Maharaj, he seems to be able to answer questions > > in > > a > > compassionate, kind, patient and logical way and he seems to be able to > > answer it at the level at which the questioner is raising these > > questions. > > For examples, when someone asks about having to earn his/her livelihood, > > Maharaj doesn't attempt to dismiss it as the ' livelihood just being an > > illusion'. > > I suspect that in the above example of " suffering and wars in the world " > > too, Maharaj is compassionately talking at the questioner's level. He is > > not attempting to escape or evade the question by trying to force 'all > > (like > > wars, suffering) being an illusion' or, ''the world being unreal' view > > on > > the questioner. > > Maharaj ultimately leads most questioners to the reality within and to > > the > > non-du al truth; however, he doesn't seem to be in hurry to force that > > as > > the only reality and dismiss the practical matter of 'consciousness'. > > What do you think? > > regards, > > ac > > > > Are you saying that I am dismissing the issue? I am not. I am doing my > > best > > to express how I see the matter. > > Society is the compound result of self centered lives. That is how man > > created confusion and conflict. When man > > is identified with body/mind he projects an inner entity and a > > corresponding > > " outer " society based on the principles > > of selfishness, self-interest, self-fear...etc...A world of conflicts > > and > > wars is created and maintained. So man created the wars. > > Now the other way around - back to non-identification with body/mind man > > stops projecting the inner entity that was the > > cause of all troubles and society could heal itself in the same measure. > > Interestingly the moment the inner self is > > seen through, even if society is still apparently behaving in the same > > way > > through self-centered people, everything is already alright. > > The enormous white shinning and killer snowball is rolling...... > > -geo- > > d: How can you see through the illusory nature of an inner entity, without > seeing > the illusory nature of the outer entity? > Funny! > > geo: What outer entity? What inner entity? There is no inner/outer. > I said: " Interestingly the moment the inner self is seen through, even if > society is > still APPARENTLY behaving in the same way... " D: You seem to have missed my point. And certainly you've frequently talked about the unreality of what you call (a la Krishnamurti), the " inner psychological entity " ... why side-step the issue? If there is no inner/outer dichotomy - then you aren't addressing anyone else who exists outside of you. There is no one else out there to make up " society " and " what society does. " When you use a sentence like just now " society is still apparently behaving the same way " - you make an independent agent out of " society " and give it the presumed power to behave - as if it were an entity and had a behavior. No such " outer entity " can exist if no " inner entity " exists. There is no " society " that " has a behavior " - such a society is just a projection of the assumed " inner entity " (that would supposedly have an imagined power to do things) -- the projection of that sense of an entity " outside " -- so now there are " others " who do things and " society " that does things. So, now that I've explained in more detail - do you see this point? I know Krishnmurti made his living talking about what society supposedly does, and what individuals supposedly should be questioning and looking into -- is it possible that no such " outer " entities exist, to be told what to look into - at the moment one is clear that there never has been any " inner entity " ? Another way to put this: What is so, right now, the instant there is no inner or outer in terms of immediate experience? > d: Let's blame this fictional " man " for ruining everything. > Let's pretend that the self-center is a fictional boundary, but the outer > boundary made of a " man to blame for messing things up " is real. > Puh-lease ... > > geo: Not sure I get what you are trying to say. I say: illusion of some > inner entity = illusion of inner and outer > menaces = society based on fear and conflict. D: What I am saying is there is no such thing as " society " to do a critique of. Society is a collection of individuals, and there is no separable indidividual, so no units to build up a " society " from. So, once I weed out any assumptions about outer entities that can do things, what it seems you are saying is: I end the illusion of being an inner entity, and I end seeing in terms of inner and outer, and the fear and conflict that I've been holding onto, I release. And now, who/what am " I " ... this " I " that has released, that has no place to carry conflict, that has no inner nor outer to it? This can't be conveyed verbally, can it? And it doesn't involve seeing something based on words or thought, does it? G: Obviously without the illusion > of inner entity there is no inner or > outer except as an organism that eventually wants to feed, survive. D: Does an organism have its own separable consciousness, belonging to itself? Are you able to view such an organism outside of you, having its existence to itself, and its own consciousness belong to that organism and separate from the consciousness viewing the organism outside? G: There is > enough food, enough clothing, > enough bricks to build houses for everyone. D: Are you now ready to take charge of the planet, and distribute clothing, bricks, and make sure houses are built for everyone? Or perhaps, you could look at this moment as it is, and forget the idealized projections about " what could be. " I know Krishnamurti liked to engage in such projections and imaginings ... " if only " ... but such imaginings are for the childish mind, that longs for perfection, that wants to " solve " the " problem of humanity " ... G: The moment man feels as a > separate entity he projects a society > based on separativeness out there....and i am not trying to fix society. D: Ah, so you've already renounced your project of building houses for everyone? Good, I'm glad to hear it. (That didn't take long.) I am focused now, here, just this experience. No society to save out there. No inner entity in here. No concern about how many bricks there are (besides, I can't count that high). No concern about whether we can get people to stop having babies long enough to get everyone in a house and with clothes. Just " what is so. " And this " I " that is focused now, here is the here, now that is focused on - and thus no focusing is involved, and now sense of this being a now, here is involved. So, the language becomes clumsy, and although one enjoys the communicating as a human experience, one is not deceived that the communicating " explains " what is so ... Good talking to you this fine morning. It's a little gray outside here, and a bit cold. Still, it's been fun walking around and getting a little exercise. Peace, love, joy, and happy breathing ... -- Dan -- You have said nothing new, nothing different from what i said. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 15:34:47 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 15:53:08 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:33 PM Re: I AM THAT. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, February 22, 2010 9:51 PM > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and > > > " you " . > > > > > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > > > > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > > > > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to > > > make " you " different than " me " . > > > > > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is > > > driven > > > to it anyway... or not. > > > > One sees this I vs. you mode of communication repeatedly, and not just > > on > > this list. > > > > Indeed, one sees it over and over again, and one would just say, " this > > list > > clearly isn't different than other life venues where I is placed against > > you. " > > > > Clearly there is an attraction to placing me vs. you. And a compulsion. > > And > > thousands of years of human history. > > > > It is the establishment of the presumed sense of reality. > > > > And there is much emotion around it. > > > > On a list, you only see words, whereas in face-to-face talk you also > > read > > posture, tone of voice, eyes, energy. > > > > Without I vs. you, there isn't only a loss of drama and context. > > > > There is loss of the established definition (from the past) of what is > > going > > on. > > > > No one easily accepts the loss of the sense of what is going on. > > > > And only no one easily accepts this. > > > > Smiles, > > > > - D - > > > > Self centered fragmented people construct a dynamic self-centered > > conflicting society. There is no other way for such society as long as > > eventually EACH individual does not change. The colective momentum of > > water > > molecules flowing North is what the river is doing - flowing North. > > -geo- > > Hello. > > There is no " each " individual. > > The mythic separately existing individual who can be addressed and told to > change - turns out never to have been the case. > -d- > > You are not too well today. That is exactly what is meant by the word > " each " . Means there is no adressing anyone. Try to read a bit more > carefully > dan. Dont jump. > -geo- D: Funny, you say there is no addressing anyone. Then, right away you are telling me what to try to do. Do this, don't do that. Funny stuff! > But, keep making a case against " him " - > > That poor soul " out there " messing everything up ... > -dan- > > " Each " means not " out there " ...but here. Each here. Dont get so anxious to > be right. > -geo- D: Ah - but there is no " each here. " There is " only here. " > After all, that's how Krishnamurti made his ever-lecturing claim to fame > ... > -dan- > > Krishnamurti? We are comenting nis quote. Cool down dan. > -geo- D: Much of what you say comes across as a reformulation of Krishnamurti. That is why I mention him. Just for fun. Hey, you're addressing someone and telling him what to do again. Is that fun for you? Does it impart a feeling of one-upsmanship? " I am telling you what to do. Do as you are told. " Funny stuff, isn't it? > D: Not to mention all the people running around thinking, " I'm to blame. > I've > got to straighten this out. It's all my fault. " > > Hey, feed right into that thinking, why not? > > " It's those self-centered humans out there - always thinking there is > someone to blame ... " > > Smiles, > > -Dan- > > Blame? Fault? Those? You are just not to well today.... :>) D: It's the implication of telling someone out there to straighten up, look into themselves, they are fragmented, being fragmented messes up the world. Also, it gets to the quote that started this discussion about how human beings are responsible for making a mess. I just thought it would be fun to question the usual assumptions. I've heard so many times repeated blaming of the human being - I've even done it myself sometimes, I'm sure. It's easy to slip into. > You can play the pendulum game ad nauseum: > 1- There is only awareness as reality and nothing else is real including > society... > or.. > 2- There is real society as empty ephemerons patterns of awareness... > on and on and on and on......on....swing 1...swing.2..swing > 1...swing2...swing 1...swing2 > I thought you had outgrown that trap..... but....go ahead. Wow, more one-upsmanship. I guess it's really important to be one-up on the " other " whom you are talking with, huh? I guess that's why it's the preferred mode on this list - and most other lists, not to mention that day-to-day experiences of life. And, what if " I " don't buy into this notion that there is a " you " who can tell " me " what to do, or not to do, or what I need to outgrow, etc.? Does that mean we're not communicating? Funny, because I don't believe " you " are out there as an entity telling me what to do or what to outgrow - even though the word-forms say that. It's not possible. And yet, communication happens anyway. Fun, huh? (As long as one is not feeling ill, that is.) Smiles, Dan Sure. i have been through this with you several times. I know...I know...I are not writing to any other. Its all for yourself to read at night. LOL -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 15:41:06 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 15:55:24 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 > Krishnamurti? We are comenting nis quote. Cool down dan.> -geo-D: Much of what you say comes across as a reformulation of Krishnamurti. That is why I mention him. Just for fun.Hey, you're addressing someone and telling him what to do again. geo: What is wrong with that? Say, you write bird and the reader understands frog, would you not clear it up? Now...for the claim that there is nobady else to speak to you sure use lots and lots and lots of posts to make that sure, eh? :>) -geo- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010Tested on: 23/2/2010 16:06:24avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:33 PM > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, February 22, 2010 9:51 PM > > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Anna seems to enjoy accentuating apparent differences between " me " and > > > > " you " . > > > > > > > > It's " the " personal preoccupation. > > > > > > > > And yes, the preoccupation of 'this list', as well. > > > > > > > > Survival of " me " by trying to be different than " you " , or by trying to > > > > make " you " different than " me " . > > > > > > > > It's a bunch of verbal silliness, and it doesn't " work " . But one is > > > > driven > > > > to it anyway... or not. > > > > > > One sees this I vs. you mode of communication repeatedly, and not just > > > on > > > this list. > > > > > > Indeed, one sees it over and over again, and one would just say, " this > > > list > > > clearly isn't different than other life venues where I is placed against > > > you. " > > > > > > Clearly there is an attraction to placing me vs. you. And a compulsion. > > > And > > > thousands of years of human history. > > > > > > It is the establishment of the presumed sense of reality. > > > > > > And there is much emotion around it. > > > > > > On a list, you only see words, whereas in face-to-face talk you also > > > read > > > posture, tone of voice, eyes, energy. > > > > > > Without I vs. you, there isn't only a loss of drama and context. > > > > > > There is loss of the established definition (from the past) of what is > > > going > > > on. > > > > > > No one easily accepts the loss of the sense of what is going on. > > > > > > And only no one easily accepts this. > > > > > > Smiles, > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Self centered fragmented people construct a dynamic self-centered > > > conflicting society. There is no other way for such society as long as > > > eventually EACH individual does not change. The colective momentum of > > > water > > > molecules flowing North is what the river is doing - flowing North. > > > -geo- > > > > Hello. > > > > There is no " each " individual. > > > > The mythic separately existing individual who can be addressed and told to > > change - turns out never to have been the case. > > -d- > > > > You are not too well today. That is exactly what is meant by the word > > " each " . Means there is no adressing anyone. Try to read a bit more > > carefully > > dan. Dont jump. > > -geo- > > D: Funny, you say there is no addressing anyone. Then, right away you are > telling me what to try to do. Do this, don't do that. Funny stuff! > > > But, keep making a case against " him " - > > > > That poor soul " out there " messing everything up ... > > -dan- > > > > " Each " means not " out there " ...but here. Each here. Dont get so anxious to > > be right. > > -geo- > > D: Ah - but there is no " each here. " There is " only here. " > > > After all, that's how Krishnamurti made his ever-lecturing claim to fame > > ... > > -dan- > > > > Krishnamurti? We are comenting nis quote. Cool down dan. > > -geo- > > D: Much of what you say comes across as a reformulation of Krishnamurti. > That is why I mention him. Just for fun. > > Hey, you're addressing someone and telling him what to do again. > > Is that fun for you? > > Does it impart a feeling of one-upsmanship? > > " I am telling you what to do. Do as you are told. " > > Funny stuff, isn't it? > > > D: Not to mention all the people running around thinking, " I'm to blame. > > I've > > got to straighten this out. It's all my fault. " > > > > Hey, feed right into that thinking, why not? > > > > " It's those self-centered humans out there - always thinking there is > > someone to blame ... " > > > > Smiles, > > > > -Dan- > > > > Blame? Fault? Those? You are just not to well today.... :>) > > D: It's the implication of telling someone out there to straighten up, look > into themselves, they are fragmented, being fragmented messes up the world. > > Also, it gets to the quote that started this discussion about how human > beings are responsible for making a mess. > > I just thought it would be fun to question the usual assumptions. > > I've heard so many times repeated blaming of the human being - I've even > done it myself sometimes, I'm sure. It's easy to slip into. > > > You can play the pendulum game ad nauseum: > > 1- There is only awareness as reality and nothing else is real including > > society... > > or.. > > 2- There is real society as empty ephemerons patterns of awareness... > > on and on and on and on......on....swing 1...swing.2..swing > > 1...swing2...swing 1...swing2 > > I thought you had outgrown that trap..... but....go ahead. > > Wow, more one-upsmanship. > > I guess it's really important to be one-up on the " other " whom you are > talking with, huh? > > I guess that's why it's the preferred mode on this list - and most other > lists, not to mention that day-to-day experiences of life. > > And, what if " I " don't buy into this notion that there is a " you " who can > tell " me " what to do, or not to do, or what I need to outgrow, etc.? > > Does that mean we're not communicating? > > Funny, because I don't believe " you " are out there as an entity telling me > what to do or what to outgrow - even though the word-forms say that. > > It's not possible. > > And yet, communication happens anyway. > > Fun, huh? > > (As long as one is not feeling ill, that is.) > > Smiles, > > Dan > > Sure. i have been through this with you several times. I know...I know...I > are not writing to any other. Its all for yourself to read at night. > LOL > -geo- Do you see what it actually is? I admit to being amazed. Perfectly ordinary - quite amazing. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Krishnamurti? We are comenting nis quote. Cool down dan. > > -geo- > > D: Much of what you say comes across as a reformulation of Krishnamurti. That is why I mention him. Just for fun. > > Hey, you're addressing someone and telling him what to do again. > > > geo: What is wrong with that? D: You bring up the notion of " wrong. " What for? G: Say, you write bird and the reader understands frog, would you not clear it up? D: Who cares about such a hypothetical? > Now...for the claim that there is nobady else to speak to you sure use lots and lots and lots of posts to make that sure, eh? > :>) > -geo - D: Not at all. I haven't made anything sure. You don't sound sure. And I'm not sure. For sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:24 PM > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, February 22, 2010 9:44 PM > > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the > > > > > exploitation, > > > > > the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > > > > > > > > > > > put > > > > > an end to them. > > > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an > > > > end > > > > to > > > > them, he would have done so. > > > > > > > > It is not within man's power to put an end to them. > > > > > > > > The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them. > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) and > > > > then > > > > that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How? > > > > By not being divided. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > I am not sure, if I understand you correctly here, Geo. > > > Through my reading of Maharaj, he seems to be able to answer questions > > > in > > > a > > > compassionate, kind, patient and logical way and he seems to be able to > > > answer it at the level at which the questioner is raising these > > > questions. > > > For examples, when someone asks about having to earn his/her livelihood, > > > Maharaj doesn't attempt to dismiss it as the ' livelihood just being an > > > illusion'. > > > I suspect that in the above example of " suffering and wars in the world " > > > too, Maharaj is compassionately talking at the questioner's level. He is > > > not attempting to escape or evade the question by trying to force 'all > > > (like > > > wars, suffering) being an illusion' or, ''the world being unreal' view > > > on > > > the questioner. > > > Maharaj ultimately leads most questioners to the reality within and to > > > the > > > non-du al truth; however, he doesn't seem to be in hurry to force that > > > as > > > the only reality and dismiss the practical matter of 'consciousness'. > > > What do you think? > > > regards, > > > ac > > > > > > Are you saying that I am dismissing the issue? I am not. I am doing my > > > best > > > to express how I see the matter. > > > Society is the compound result of self centered lives. That is how man > > > created confusion and conflict. When man > > > is identified with body/mind he projects an inner entity and a > > > corresponding > > > " outer " society based on the principles > > > of selfishness, self-interest, self-fear...etc...A world of conflicts > > > and > > > wars is created and maintained. So man created the wars. > > > Now the other way around - back to non-identification with body/mind man > > > stops projecting the inner entity that was the > > > cause of all troubles and society could heal itself in the same measure. > > > Interestingly the moment the inner self is > > > seen through, even if society is still apparently behaving in the same > > > way > > > through self-centered people, everything is already alright. > > > The enormous white shinning and killer snowball is rolling...... > > > -geo- > > > > d: How can you see through the illusory nature of an inner entity, without > > seeing > > the illusory nature of the outer entity? > > Funny! > > > > geo: What outer entity? What inner entity? There is no inner/outer. > > I said: " Interestingly the moment the inner self is seen through, even if > > society is > > still APPARENTLY behaving in the same way... " > > D: You seem to have missed my point. And certainly you've frequently talked > about the unreality of what you call (a la Krishnamurti), the " inner > psychological entity " ... why side-step the issue? > > If there is no inner/outer dichotomy - then you aren't addressing anyone > else who exists outside of you. There is no one else out there to make up > " society " and " what society does. " > > When you use a sentence like just now " society is still apparently behaving > the same way " - you make an independent agent out of " society " and give it > the presumed power to behave - as if it were an entity and had a behavior. > > No such " outer entity " can exist if no " inner entity " exists. There is no > " society " that " has a behavior " - such a society is just a projection of the > assumed " inner entity " (that would supposedly have an imagined power to do > things) -- the projection of that sense of an entity " outside " -- so now > there are " others " who do things and " society " that does things. > > So, now that I've explained in more detail - do you see this point? I know > Krishnmurti made his living talking about what society supposedly does, and > what individuals supposedly should be questioning and looking into -- is it > possible that no such " outer " entities exist, to be told what to look into - > at the moment one is clear that there never has been any " inner entity " ? > > Another way to put this: What is so, right now, the instant there is no > inner or outer in terms of immediate experience? > > > d: Let's blame this fictional " man " for ruining everything. > > Let's pretend that the self-center is a fictional boundary, but the outer > > boundary made of a " man to blame for messing things up " is real. > > Puh-lease ... > > > > geo: Not sure I get what you are trying to say. I say: illusion of some > > inner entity = illusion of inner and outer > > menaces = society based on fear and conflict. > > D: What I am saying is there is no such thing as " society " to do a critique > of. Society is a collection of individuals, and there is no separable > indidividual, so no units to build up a " society " from. > > So, once I weed out any assumptions about outer entities that can do things, > what it seems you are saying is: I end the illusion of being an inner > entity, and I end seeing in terms of inner and outer, and the fear and > conflict that I've been holding onto, I release. > > And now, who/what am " I " ... this " I " that has released, that has no place > to carry conflict, that has no inner nor outer to it? > > This can't be conveyed verbally, can it? > > And it doesn't involve seeing something based on words or thought, does it? > > G: Obviously without the illusion > > of inner entity there is no inner or > > outer except as an organism that eventually wants to feed, survive. > > D: Does an organism have its own separable consciousness, belonging to > itself? Are you able to view such an organism outside of you, having its > existence to itself, and its own consciousness belong to that organism and > separate from the consciousness viewing the organism outside? > > G: There is > > enough food, enough clothing, > > enough bricks to build houses for everyone. > > D: Are you now ready to take charge of the planet, and distribute clothing, > bricks, and make sure houses are built for everyone? Or perhaps, you could > look at this moment as it is, and forget the idealized projections about > " what could be. " I know Krishnamurti liked to engage in such projections and > imaginings ... " if only " ... > but such imaginings are for the childish mind, that longs for perfection, > that wants to " solve " the " problem of humanity " ... > > G: The moment man feels as a > > separate entity he projects a society > > based on separativeness out there....and i am not trying to fix society. > > D: Ah, so you've already renounced your project of building houses for > everyone? Good, I'm glad to hear it. (That didn't take long.) > > I am focused now, here, just this experience. > > No society to save out there. No inner entity in here. > > No concern about how many bricks there are (besides, I can't count that > high). No concern about whether we can get people to stop having babies long > enough to get everyone in a house and with clothes. > > Just " what is so. " > > And this " I " that is focused now, here is the here, now that is focused on - > and thus no focusing is involved, and now sense of this being a now, here is > involved. > > So, the language becomes clumsy, and although one enjoys the communicating > as a human experience, one is not deceived that the communicating " explains " > what is so ... > > Good talking to you this fine morning. > > It's a little gray outside here, and a bit cold. > > Still, it's been fun walking around and getting a little exercise. > > Peace, love, joy, and happy breathing ... > > -- Dan -- > > You have said nothing new, nothing different from what i said. > -geo- Yes, I have. I said " peace, love, joy, and happy breathing ... " And you didn't say that. It's quite different from what you said. Please see if you can read more carefully. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > > > You have said nothing new, nothing different from what i said. > > -geo- > > > Yes, I have. > > I said " peace, love, joy, and happy breathing ... " > > And you didn't say that. > > It's quite different from what you said. > > Please see if you can read more carefully. > > - D - LOL!! :-D. I wonder how many would see humor in the above, and how many would see seriousness. Just a speculative question, posed to no one in particular. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:17 PM Re: I AM THAT. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Krishnamurti? We are comenting nis quote. Cool down dan. > > -geo- > > D: Much of what you say comes across as a reformulation of Krishnamurti. > That is why I mention him. Just for fun. > > Hey, you're addressing someone and telling him what to do again. > > > geo: What is wrong with that? D: You bring up the notion of " wrong. " What for? G: Say, you write bird and the reader understands frog, would you not clear it up? D: Who cares about such a hypothetical? > Now...for the claim that there is nobady else to speak to you sure use > lots and lots and lots of posts to make that sure, eh? > :>) > -geo - D: Not at all. I haven't made anything sure. You don't sound sure. And I'm not sure. For sure. -dan- I am glad you are recovering :>) -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 19:24:02 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 19:47:15 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:20 PM Re: I AM THAT. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:24 PM > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, February 22, 2010 9:44 PM > > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the > > > > > exploitation, > > > > > the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > put > > > > > an end to them. > > > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an > > > > end > > > > to > > > > them, he would have done so. > > > > > > > > It is not within man's power to put an end to them. > > > > > > > > The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them. > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) > > > > and > > > > then > > > > that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How? > > > > By not being divided. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > I am not sure, if I understand you correctly here, Geo. > > > Through my reading of Maharaj, he seems to be able to answer questions > > > in > > > a > > > compassionate, kind, patient and logical way and he seems to be able > > > to > > > answer it at the level at which the questioner is raising these > > > questions. > > > For examples, when someone asks about having to earn his/her > > > livelihood, > > > Maharaj doesn't attempt to dismiss it as the ' livelihood just being > > > an > > > illusion'. > > > I suspect that in the above example of " suffering and wars in the > > > world " > > > too, Maharaj is compassionately talking at the questioner's level. He > > > is > > > not attempting to escape or evade the question by trying to force 'all > > > (like > > > wars, suffering) being an illusion' or, ''the world being unreal' view > > > on > > > the questioner. > > > Maharaj ultimately leads most questioners to the reality within and to > > > the > > > non-du al truth; however, he doesn't seem to be in hurry to force that > > > as > > > the only reality and dismiss the practical matter of 'consciousness'. > > > What do you think? > > > regards, > > > ac > > > > > > Are you saying that I am dismissing the issue? I am not. I am doing my > > > best > > > to express how I see the matter. > > > Society is the compound result of self centered lives. That is how man > > > created confusion and conflict. When man > > > is identified with body/mind he projects an inner entity and a > > > corresponding > > > " outer " society based on the principles > > > of selfishness, self-interest, self-fear...etc...A world of conflicts > > > and > > > wars is created and maintained. So man created the wars. > > > Now the other way around - back to non-identification with body/mind > > > man > > > stops projecting the inner entity that was the > > > cause of all troubles and society could heal itself in the same > > > measure. > > > Interestingly the moment the inner self is > > > seen through, even if society is still apparently behaving in the same > > > way > > > through self-centered people, everything is already alright. > > > The enormous white shinning and killer snowball is rolling...... > > > -geo- > > > > d: How can you see through the illusory nature of an inner entity, > > without > > seeing > > the illusory nature of the outer entity? > > Funny! > > > > geo: What outer entity? What inner entity? There is no inner/outer. > > I said: " Interestingly the moment the inner self is seen through, even > > if > > society is > > still APPARENTLY behaving in the same way... " > > D: You seem to have missed my point. And certainly you've frequently > talked > about the unreality of what you call (a la Krishnamurti), the " inner > psychological entity " ... why side-step the issue? > > If there is no inner/outer dichotomy - then you aren't addressing anyone > else who exists outside of you. There is no one else out there to make up > " society " and " what society does. " > > When you use a sentence like just now " society is still apparently > behaving > the same way " - you make an independent agent out of " society " and give it > the presumed power to behave - as if it were an entity and had a behavior. > > No such " outer entity " can exist if no " inner entity " exists. There is no > " society " that " has a behavior " - such a society is just a projection of > the > assumed " inner entity " (that would supposedly have an imagined power to do > things) -- the projection of that sense of an entity " outside " -- so now > there are " others " who do things and " society " that does things. > > So, now that I've explained in more detail - do you see this point? I know > Krishnmurti made his living talking about what society supposedly does, > and > what individuals supposedly should be questioning and looking into -- is > it > possible that no such " outer " entities exist, to be told what to look > into - > at the moment one is clear that there never has been any " inner entity " ? > > Another way to put this: What is so, right now, the instant there is no > inner or outer in terms of immediate experience? > > > d: Let's blame this fictional " man " for ruining everything. > > Let's pretend that the self-center is a fictional boundary, but the > > outer > > boundary made of a " man to blame for messing things up " is real. > > Puh-lease ... > > > > geo: Not sure I get what you are trying to say. I say: illusion of some > > inner entity = illusion of inner and outer > > menaces = society based on fear and conflict. > > D: What I am saying is there is no such thing as " society " to do a > critique > of. Society is a collection of individuals, and there is no separable > indidividual, so no units to build up a " society " from. > > So, once I weed out any assumptions about outer entities that can do > things, > what it seems you are saying is: I end the illusion of being an inner > entity, and I end seeing in terms of inner and outer, and the fear and > conflict that I've been holding onto, I release. > > And now, who/what am " I " ... this " I " that has released, that has no place > to carry conflict, that has no inner nor outer to it? > > This can't be conveyed verbally, can it? > > And it doesn't involve seeing something based on words or thought, does > it? > > G: Obviously without the illusion > > of inner entity there is no inner or > > outer except as an organism that eventually wants to feed, survive. > > D: Does an organism have its own separable consciousness, belonging to > itself? Are you able to view such an organism outside of you, having its > existence to itself, and its own consciousness belong to that organism and > separate from the consciousness viewing the organism outside? > > G: There is > > enough food, enough clothing, > > enough bricks to build houses for everyone. > > D: Are you now ready to take charge of the planet, and distribute > clothing, > bricks, and make sure houses are built for everyone? Or perhaps, you could > look at this moment as it is, and forget the idealized projections about > " what could be. " I know Krishnamurti liked to engage in such projections > and > imaginings ... " if only " ... > but such imaginings are for the childish mind, that longs for perfection, > that wants to " solve " the " problem of humanity " ... > > G: The moment man feels as a > > separate entity he projects a society > > based on separativeness out there....and i am not trying to fix society. > > D: Ah, so you've already renounced your project of building houses for > everyone? Good, I'm glad to hear it. (That didn't take long.) > > I am focused now, here, just this experience. > > No society to save out there. No inner entity in here. > > No concern about how many bricks there are (besides, I can't count that > high). No concern about whether we can get people to stop having babies > long > enough to get everyone in a house and with clothes. > > Just " what is so. " > > And this " I " that is focused now, here is the here, now that is focused > on - > and thus no focusing is involved, and now sense of this being a now, here > is > involved. > > So, the language becomes clumsy, and although one enjoys the communicating > as a human experience, one is not deceived that the communicating > " explains " > what is so ... > > Good talking to you this fine morning. > > It's a little gray outside here, and a bit cold. > > Still, it's been fun walking around and getting a little exercise. > > Peace, love, joy, and happy breathing ... > > -- Dan -- > > You have said nothing new, nothing different from what i said. > -geo- Yes, I have. I said " peace, love, joy, and happy breathing ... " And you didn't say that. It's quite different from what you said. Please see if you can read more carefully. - D - You forgot happy sensing, and smelling and hearing.... :>) -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 19:24:04 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 19:50:25 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2010 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:28 PM Re: I AM THAT. Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > > > You have said nothing new, nothing different from what i said. > > -geo- > > > Yes, I have. > > I said " peace, love, joy, and happy breathing ... " > > And you didn't say that. > > It's quite different from what you said. > > Please see if you can read more carefully. > > - D - LOL!! :-D. I wonder how many would see humor in the above, and how many would see seriousness. Just a speculative question, posed to no one in particular. -tim- That was very serious tim. You are not a serious man. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 19:24:05 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 100218-1, 18/02/2010 Tested on: 23/2/2010 19:51:30 avast! - copyright © 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:17 PM > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > Krishnamurti? We are comenting nis quote. Cool down dan. > > > -geo- > > > > D: Much of what you say comes across as a reformulation of Krishnamurti. > > That is why I mention him. Just for fun. > > > > Hey, you're addressing someone and telling him what to do again. > > > > > > geo: What is wrong with that? > > D: You bring up the notion of " wrong. " What for? > > G: Say, you write bird and the reader understands frog, would you not clear > it up? > > D: Who cares about such a hypothetical? > > > Now...for the claim that there is nobady else to speak to you sure use > > lots and lots and lots of posts to make that sure, eh? > > :>) > > -geo - > > D: Not at all. I haven't made anything sure. > > You don't sound sure. > > And I'm not sure. > > For sure. > -dan- > > I am glad you are recovering :>) > -geo- So, a thought occurs and is imagined as a being that has continuity. That being is imagined to have become ill. That being, still imagined as continuing, is now pronounced to be recovering. Unity is restored, in the imagining of thought-forms - where unity can be gained, fragmented, lost, restored. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 24, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:20 PM > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:24 PM > > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, February 22, 2010 9:44 PM > > > Re: I AM THAT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the > > > > > > exploitation, > > > > > > the cruel strife between the citizen and the state. > > > > > > > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > put > > > > > > an end to them. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an > > > > > end > > > > > to > > > > > them, he would have done so. > > > > > > > > > > It is not within man's power to put an end to them. > > > > > > > > > > The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them. > > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > > > He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) > > > > > and > > > > > then > > > > > that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How? > > > > > By not being divided. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure, if I understand you correctly here, Geo. > > > > Through my reading of Maharaj, he seems to be able to answer questions > > > > in > > > > a > > > > compassionate, kind, patient and logical way and he seems to be able > > > > to > > > > answer it at the level at which the questioner is raising these > > > > questions. > > > > For examples, when someone asks about having to earn his/her > > > > livelihood, > > > > Maharaj doesn't attempt to dismiss it as the ' livelihood just being > > > > an > > > > illusion'. > > > > I suspect that in the above example of " suffering and wars in the > > > > world " > > > > too, Maharaj is compassionately talking at the questioner's level. He > > > > is > > > > not attempting to escape or evade the question by trying to force 'all > > > > (like > > > > wars, suffering) being an illusion' or, ''the world being unreal' view > > > > on > > > > the questioner. > > > > Maharaj ultimately leads most questioners to the reality within and to > > > > the > > > > non-du al truth; however, he doesn't seem to be in hurry to force that > > > > as > > > > the only reality and dismiss the practical matter of 'consciousness'. > > > > What do you think? > > > > regards, > > > > ac > > > > > > > > Are you saying that I am dismissing the issue? I am not. I am doing my > > > > best > > > > to express how I see the matter. > > > > Society is the compound result of self centered lives. That is how man > > > > created confusion and conflict. When man > > > > is identified with body/mind he projects an inner entity and a > > > > corresponding > > > > " outer " society based on the principles > > > > of selfishness, self-interest, self-fear...etc...A world of conflicts > > > > and > > > > wars is created and maintained. So man created the wars. > > > > Now the other way around - back to non-identification with body/mind > > > > man > > > > stops projecting the inner entity that was the > > > > cause of all troubles and society could heal itself in the same > > > > measure. > > > > Interestingly the moment the inner self is > > > > seen through, even if society is still apparently behaving in the same > > > > way > > > > through self-centered people, everything is already alright. > > > > The enormous white shinning and killer snowball is rolling...... > > > > -geo- > > > > > > d: How can you see through the illusory nature of an inner entity, > > > without > > > seeing > > > the illusory nature of the outer entity? > > > Funny! > > > > > > geo: What outer entity? What inner entity? There is no inner/outer. > > > I said: " Interestingly the moment the inner self is seen through, even > > > if > > > society is > > > still APPARENTLY behaving in the same way... " > > > > D: You seem to have missed my point. And certainly you've frequently > > talked > > about the unreality of what you call (a la Krishnamurti), the " inner > > psychological entity " ... why side-step the issue? > > > > If there is no inner/outer dichotomy - then you aren't addressing anyone > > else who exists outside of you. There is no one else out there to make up > > " society " and " what society does. " > > > > When you use a sentence like just now " society is still apparently > > behaving > > the same way " - you make an independent agent out of " society " and give it > > the presumed power to behave - as if it were an entity and had a behavior. > > > > No such " outer entity " can exist if no " inner entity " exists. There is no > > " society " that " has a behavior " - such a society is just a projection of > > the > > assumed " inner entity " (that would supposedly have an imagined power to do > > things) -- the projection of that sense of an entity " outside " -- so now > > there are " others " who do things and " society " that does things. > > > > So, now that I've explained in more detail - do you see this point? I know > > Krishnmurti made his living talking about what society supposedly does, > > and > > what individuals supposedly should be questioning and looking into -- is > > it > > possible that no such " outer " entities exist, to be told what to look > > into - > > at the moment one is clear that there never has been any " inner entity " ? > > > > Another way to put this: What is so, right now, the instant there is no > > inner or outer in terms of immediate experience? > > > > > d: Let's blame this fictional " man " for ruining everything. > > > Let's pretend that the self-center is a fictional boundary, but the > > > outer > > > boundary made of a " man to blame for messing things up " is real. > > > Puh-lease ... > > > > > > geo: Not sure I get what you are trying to say. I say: illusion of some > > > inner entity = illusion of inner and outer > > > menaces = society based on fear and conflict. > > > > D: What I am saying is there is no such thing as " society " to do a > > critique > > of. Society is a collection of individuals, and there is no separable > > indidividual, so no units to build up a " society " from. > > > > So, once I weed out any assumptions about outer entities that can do > > things, > > what it seems you are saying is: I end the illusion of being an inner > > entity, and I end seeing in terms of inner and outer, and the fear and > > conflict that I've been holding onto, I release. > > > > And now, who/what am " I " ... this " I " that has released, that has no place > > to carry conflict, that has no inner nor outer to it? > > > > This can't be conveyed verbally, can it? > > > > And it doesn't involve seeing something based on words or thought, does > > it? > > > > G: Obviously without the illusion > > > of inner entity there is no inner or > > > outer except as an organism that eventually wants to feed, survive. > > > > D: Does an organism have its own separable consciousness, belonging to > > itself? Are you able to view such an organism outside of you, having its > > existence to itself, and its own consciousness belong to that organism and > > separate from the consciousness viewing the organism outside? > > > > G: There is > > > enough food, enough clothing, > > > enough bricks to build houses for everyone. > > > > D: Are you now ready to take charge of the planet, and distribute > > clothing, > > bricks, and make sure houses are built for everyone? Or perhaps, you could > > look at this moment as it is, and forget the idealized projections about > > " what could be. " I know Krishnamurti liked to engage in such projections > > and > > imaginings ... " if only " ... > > but such imaginings are for the childish mind, that longs for perfection, > > that wants to " solve " the " problem of humanity " ... > > > > G: The moment man feels as a > > > separate entity he projects a society > > > based on separativeness out there....and i am not trying to fix society. > > > > D: Ah, so you've already renounced your project of building houses for > > everyone? Good, I'm glad to hear it. (That didn't take long.) > > > > I am focused now, here, just this experience. > > > > No society to save out there. No inner entity in here. > > > > No concern about how many bricks there are (besides, I can't count that > > high). No concern about whether we can get people to stop having babies > > long > > enough to get everyone in a house and with clothes. > > > > Just " what is so. " > > > > And this " I " that is focused now, here is the here, now that is focused > > on - > > and thus no focusing is involved, and now sense of this being a now, here > > is > > involved. > > > > So, the language becomes clumsy, and although one enjoys the communicating > > as a human experience, one is not deceived that the communicating > > " explains " > > what is so ... > > > > Good talking to you this fine morning. > > > > It's a little gray outside here, and a bit cold. > > > > Still, it's been fun walking around and getting a little exercise. > > > > Peace, love, joy, and happy breathing ... > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > You have said nothing new, nothing different from what i said. > > -geo- > > Yes, I have. > > I said " peace, love, joy, and happy breathing ... " > > And you didn't say that. > > It's quite different from what you said. > > Please see if you can read more carefully. > > - D - > > You forgot happy sensing, and smelling and hearing.... :>) > -geo- I forgot to say, " happy remembering. " - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
